They were not softer at all. In fact, they were hardly shown in TW3...
True.
Honestly, everytime i think about the story of this game I get depressed. I don't know if I was expecting too much or the game's story it's a huge and awful mess
It's also not completely true that we couldn't learn anything about Nilfgaard in TW3:
-> The Nilfgaardians want to kill civilians living in a town that supported Temerian guerilla fighters (on fifth of the population).
-> The Nilfgaardians kill their prisoners of war without trial, just leading them into the woods and murdering them, calling it "mercy".
-> The Nilfgaardians want to kill civilians living in a town that supported Temerian guerilla fighters (on fifth of the population).
-> The Nilfgaardians kill their prisoners of war without trial, just leading them into the woods and murdering them, calling it "mercy".
Last edited:
Yes TW2 version feels much more on par with that of the books, where they are responsible for things like the massacre of Cintra.Sam2305;1831618[B said:
TW3 Nilfgaard feels softened likely because they can't really have the empress ending being taking charge of a brutal empire.
Could somebody please explain to me how that "softened" looked like in detail in TW3? I don't see it.
So in TW2 Nilfgaard murders the lodge sorceress Assire for her betrayal, yet in TW3 Fringilla is merely imprisoned and comes out unscathed.
Compare to crazy radovid and his murderers witchunt(the fate of sile in his dungeons), the fate of non humans etc
Dijkstra who coldly kills Temerian resistance.
Where's the visceral Nilfgaard brutalities to make the player flinch
They clearly want to conquer but the horror of what they are doing largely isn't shown.
"Soften" and "not shown" isn't the same thing at all imo.
And yes, Nilfgaardian terrors aren't shown. Simply because they aren't really important to Geralt's personal story. He doesn't really care about them. The reason why we see madman Radovic is because we try to find Ciri near a town where he happens to be and where he somehow crossed out paths.
So implementing an artificial scene of Nilfgaardian terror just for the sake of making a poltical message to the player? That would be incredibly cheap imo.
And if you truly roleplay Geralt (the predefined character) with his basic believes you wouldn never decide about politics in the first place. Your reasoning would be much more personal and prrivate. As a witcher you're not really interested in who rules the land. A witcher is always needed, no matter the ruling force. So the games just reflect the POV of its predefined character. If you - personally, as a player - want to deviate from this formula, you can. And you can find story bits about Nlfgaardian war crimes. Or you could just imagine it. But I don't think the game needs to show them.
From a Witcher 3 perspective it sure appears that Nilfgaard are the good guys for me on a personal level .
Radovid wants to kill all the Witches, in turn that could affect Ciri, Keira, Philippa, Triss, Yen and all the others that I grew to care about. Don't hate on me book readers or people who played 1 and 2. This is coming from my view on Witcher 3. I do plan to buy the books for your information.
Then you have Dijkstra who is pretty much the last hope, whom then wants to kill Vernon Roche who appeared to do nothing wrong :|. In them brief moments with Roche I cared about his character so I couldn't let him die. Yes Geralt is meant to remain impartial and not choose sides, just had to get involved. Sure people who have played or read the books have a much better understanding of Nilfgaard and the North.
This then led to a Nilfgaard victory. From a Nilfgaard point of view they seem like the big bad monster but from playing Witcher 3 they seemed to be the better of the two or possibly three choices if you include Dijkstra. Of course doing all the side quests triggers some of these moments.
Nilfgaard with one leader meaning to bring stability under an Empire ruling. I pretty much chose their path early on into the game.
.Radovid wants to kill all the Witches, in turn that could affect Ciri, Keira, Philippa, Triss, Yen and all the others that I grew to care about. Don't hate on me book readers or people who played 1 and 2. This is coming from my view on Witcher 3. I do plan to buy the books for your information
.Then you have Dijkstra who is pretty much the last hope, whom then wants to kill Vernon Roche who appeared to do nothing wrong :|. In them brief moments with Roche I cared about his character so I couldn't let him die. Yes Geralt is meant to remain impartial and not choose sides, just had to get involved. Sure people who have played or read the books have a much better understanding of Nilfgaard and the North.
This then led to a Nilfgaard victory. From a Nilfgaard point of view they seem like the big bad monster but from playing Witcher 3 they seemed to be the better of the two or possibly three choices if you include Dijkstra. Of course doing all the side quests triggers some of these moments.
Nilfgaard with one leader meaning to bring stability under an Empire ruling. I pretty much chose their path early on into the game.
Last edited:
There's lots of side story in the war zones that could and should show their brutality imo. Instead its far more the opposite side being shown, the soldier wanting to get home to his family being strung up by temerian locals, the soldier who saves the life of a temerian soldier, the soldier begging for his life at the hands of Roche. It doesn't really whether you play Geralt as more politically involved or neutral, he should still see equal levels of brutality from all sides, especially when he spends a large portion of his time in occupied lands."Soften" and "not shown" isn't the same thing at all imo.
And yes, Nilfgaardian terrors aren't shown. Simply because they aren't really important to Geralt's personal story. He doesn't really care about them. The reason why we see madman Radovic is because we try to find Ciri near a town where he happens to be and where he somehow crossed out paths.
So implementing an artificial scene of Nilfgaardian terror just for the sake of making a poltical message to the player? That would be incredibly cheap imo.
And if you truly roleplay Geralt (the predefined character) with his basic believes you wouldn never decide about politics in the first place. Your reasoning would be much more personal and prrivate. As a witcher you're not really interested in who rules the land. A witcher is always needed, no matter the ruling force. So the games just reflect the POV of its predefined character. If you - personally, as a player - want to deviate from this formula, you can. And you can find story bits about Nlfgaardian war crimes. Or you could just imagine it. But I don't think the game needs to show them.
As i said there's also the very odd treatment of the Fringilla compared to previous mage lodge traitor.
Given the Ciri empress is a positive ending where you have top max out positive choices i can see why they wanted to make Nilfgaard less obviously negative.
Well, yes, but that works both ways. Neither the Redanian soldiers nor the Nilfgaardian soliders are shown in war actions and respective brutality to a bigger extend. The game could have shown a lot more action between the factions but imo that affects both and doesn't make Nilfgaard softer on purpose.
That's true. The whole Fringilla plot is a stupid, unnecessary and inconsistent cameo moment. Too bad they didn't came up with something meaningful and consistent for her. And yes, that also affects Nilfgaard.
Well, I geuss you already know what I think about the Ciri choices in general...
Last edited:
Well, it was what Sapkowski told, but he agreed with comparison to Napoleonic France. I don't like people dragging Nazis into the picture because it has unwarranted connotations. We do not judge Nazi Germany the same way as other empires of old. Sure, people did not like Napoleon, but he is not Hitler, you know. What Nazies did with their policy of genocides was an apotheoses of inhumanity. It is a real "empire of evil", as far as I am concerned. But Nilfgaard did not sent millions to concentration camps to be exterminated, for example. Sure, they are a bit similar to Rome (their conquests), and to Byzantium (their diplomacy), and Imperial Russia (court relations), but not exactly. It is a fictional empire inspired by a lot of different states throughout history, but not "an empire of evil". As far as I see, they are no more evil than Kaedwen, or Temeria.I agree that CDPR's concept of Nilfgaard isn't the same how Sapkowski envisioned it himself (Third Reich vs Rome). But that concepts from 20th century like totalitarism had nothing to do in medieval games while arguing that ancient concepts would be perfectly ok is kind of weird. They both don't fit the time. And they don't have to. After all, this is a fantasy world in which concepts and political views don't have to reflect our own history. So even a combination of Third Reich and Rome is perfectly valid as comparison for factions in a literary work of fantasy. The point is that we - as modern readers - understand the concepts and that we can relate to them and that we can be emotionally and mentally challenged by them. Fantasy and history can be two very different topics..
It wasn't my intention to compare them to Nazi Germany. I only pointed out that modern concepts (like totalitarism, which is not exclusive to Nazi German) can work in a game like Witcher in the same way as let's say ancient concepts can work.
From the Sword of Destiny:
"Not this war, Geralt. After this war, no-one returns. There will be nothing to return to. Nilfgaard leaves behind it only rubble; its armies advance like lava from which no-one escapes. The roads are strewn, for miles, with gallows and pyres; the sky is cut with columns of smoke as long as the horizon. Since the beginning of the world, in fact, nothing of this sort has happened before. Since the world is our world... You must understand that the Nilfgaardians have descended from their mountains to destroy this world."
From the Time of Contempt:
“War to the castles, peace to the villages,” Coehoorn said to his commanders yesterday. You know that principle,’ he added at once. ‘You learned it in officer training. That principle applied until today; from tomorrow you’re to forget it. From tomorrow a different principle applies, which will now be the battle cry of the war we are waging. The battle cry and my orders run: War on everything alive. War on everything that can burn. You are to leave scorched earth behind you. From tomorrow, we take war beyond the line we will withdraw behind after signing the treaty. We are withdrawing, but there is to be nothing but scorched earth beyond that line. The kingdoms of Rivia and Aedirn are to be reduced to ashes! Remember Sodden! The time of revenge is with us!’
‘Vengerberg fell after a week-long siege,’ finished Dandelion. ‘It may surprise you, but the guilds courageously defended their towers and the sections of wall assigned to them until the very end. So the entire garrison and all the townspeople were slaughtered; it must have been around six thousand people. When news of it got out, a great flight began. Defeated regiments and civilians began to flee to Temeria and Redania en masse. Crowds of fugitives headed along the Pontar Valley and the passes of Mahakam. But not all of them managed to escape. Mounted Nilfgaardian troops followed them and cut off their escape . . . You know what I’m driving at?’ ‘
No, I don’t. I don’t know much about . . . I don’t know much about war, Dandelion.’
‘I’m talking about captives. About slaves. They wanted to take as many prisoners as possible. It’s the cheapest form of labour for Nilfgaard. That’s why they pursued the fugitives so doggedly. It was a huge manhunt, Geralt. Easy pickings. Because the army had run away, and no one was left to defend the fleeing civilians.’
The treatment of Nilfgaard in this game is ridiculous. Empires and nations on missions of conquest are not soft bringers of civilization, they are nasty nasty folk as we see with Henselt in Vergen and the Nilfgaard were much-much worse than the "normal" conquests of the North. They were systemized, industrialized death and destruction. They also practiced slavery and mass kidnappings.
NONE of this is shown.
So I say, with all due respect, but "Plough Nilfgaard with a rusty shovel."
Last edited:
And neither the opposite. Nowhere in the game Nilfgaard is presented as "soft bringers of civilization", at least not outside their own propaganda.
Their invasion resembled pretty much ancient and pre-Christian concepts (submission or annihilation and slavery) which is imo not really "systemized, industrialized death and destruction." That's pure exaggeration and the "industrialized" term isn't fitting at all.
But I do agree that the war aspect in Velen was quite underdeveloped. Not a single fight, no battle at all between Redania and Nilfgaard. Lost potential indeed.
None of it is shown... but then most may not actually have happened. That is the opinion of the viscount de Lettenhoeve, who is not known for his versimiltude, and a known progagandist for the North.
From the Sword of Destiny:
"Not this war, Geralt. After this war, no-one returns. There will be nothing to return to. Nilfgaard leaves behind it only rubble; its armies advance like lava from which no-one escapes. The roads are strewn, for miles, with gallows and pyres; the sky is cut with columns of smoke as long as the horizon. Since the beginning of the world, in fact, nothing of this sort has happened before. Since the world is our world... You must understand that the Nilfgaardians have descended from their mountains to destroy this world."
From the Time of Contempt:
“War to the castles, peace to the villages,” Coehoorn said to his commanders yesterday. You know that principle,’ he added at once. ‘You learned it in officer training. That principle applied until today; from tomorrow you’re to forget it. From tomorrow a different principle applies, which will now be the battle cry of the war we are waging. The battle cry and my orders run: War on everything alive. War on everything that can burn. You are to leave scorched earth behind you. From tomorrow, we take war beyond the line we will withdraw behind after signing the treaty. We are withdrawing, but there is to be nothing but scorched earth beyond that line. The kingdoms of Rivia and Aedirn are to be reduced to ashes! Remember Sodden! The time of revenge is with us!’
‘Vengerberg fell after a week-long siege,’ finished Dandelion. ‘It may surprise you, but the guilds courageously defended their towers and the sections of wall assigned to them until the very end. So the entire garrison and all the townspeople were slaughtered; it must have been around six thousand people. When news of it got out, a great flight began. Defeated regiments and civilians began to flee to Temeria and Redania en masse. Crowds of fugitives headed along the Pontar Valley and the passes of Mahakam. But not all of them managed to escape. Mounted Nilfgaardian troops followed them and cut off their escape . . . You know what I’m driving at?’ ‘
No, I don’t. I don’t know much about . . . I don’t know much about war, Dandelion.’
‘I’m talking about captives. About slaves. They wanted to take as many prisoners as possible. It’s the cheapest form of labour for Nilfgaard. That’s why they pursued the fugitives so doggedly. It was a huge manhunt, Geralt. Easy pickings. Because the army had run away, and no one was left to defend the fleeing civilians.’
The treatment of Nilfgaard in this game is ridiculous. Empires and nations on missions of conquest are not soft bringers of civilization, they are nasty nasty folk as we see with Henselt in Vergen and the Nilfgaard were much-much worse than the "normal" conquests of the North. They were systemized, industrialized death and destruction. They also practiced slavery and mass kidnappings.
NONE of this is shown.
So I say, with all due respect, but "Plough Nilfgaard with a rusty shovel."
When we travel through these lands during the later books we see refugees, some devastation but also cruelty, rapine and threatened rape.... but mostly from undisciplined Northern bandits and irregular columns.
What 'scorched earth' was practised was beyond the planned culmination point, and as *this* was a war of conquest, not of frontier re-arrangement, this issue wouldn't arise. Kaedwin, Redania, Temeria and Aedirn are to be provinces in Nilfgaard, as are Beauclair, Maecht, Mettina, Cintra, it is counterproductive to oppress the work force and destroy the economy more than is strictly necessary... and in fact there are villages which were utterly destroyed by Northern forces to prevent their being used by Nilfgaard... while Nilfgaard was shown to practice decimation as a punishment for *actual* support of Bandit groups.
Corrected.
But I very much agree with your take on perspective. There is no ultimate truth here, just perspectives, both in books and games.
I agree. Nilfgaard is there to conquer and incorporate these lands into the empire. Scorched land policy is counterproductive. As you see in game, Nilfgaard is actually trying to preserve the land and protect its people - Bloody Baron is in charge by appointment, and he is a fair man (just compare to his sergeant and what happens after the Baron is gone), conversations with peasants, Geralt is hired to hunt down a griffin, for example.
You can't really compare it to the Second Nilfgaardian War because that war started as a punishing expedition into Aedirn, after the Northern forces attacked Nilfgaardian territory. Somehow everyone conveniently forgets this fact. Sure, Emhyr was planning a conquest, but so were Foltest, Henselt, and Demovend. The Blood of Elves starts with their meeting where, after a pretty successful First Nilfgaardian War, and their victory at Sodden Hill, they discuss how their combined forces will cross Yaruga, and start a bit of their own conquering. In this case Emhyr reacted, not acted.
I guess people prefer to see them as sub-human orc horde who devastate the land just because. Well, not in TW universe. There is LOTR for this purpose.
Last edited:
Not really, but someone doesn't have to reach Mordor/Nazi level before I consider them evil.
There is a lot of talk of "how in the book" etc which from people who have only played the games I do not feel helps, I am reading the books now but it isn't good design if a series I have been following decides to make the w3 a sequel to the books I have not read yet, instead of the other games I have played. In the w2 I felt part of the story, shaping it, making hard decisions that often shocked me how they played out. In the w3 I felt I was being told a story (albeit a very good one) and that my actions had little impact on events.
With Nilfgaard I just felt you needed it reinforced the idea they were bad from first hand experience and then have the game subvert your expectations, like they did so well in the w2 and in many parts of the w3 with other things. I was told Nilfgaard was evil most the damn game and saw precious little of it first hand. i saw a couple of cruel individuals sure but it was a war zone so none of it shocked me. I wanted to hate Emhyr and then by the end of the game respect him or at least feel I understood him but in the game he is just dull. He wants his daughter badly but doesn't mind jeopardizing not only his own position as Emperor (the whole people at home wanting him to step down) but also creating an incredibly hostile environment in which his daughter could be killed. He just came across as stupid to me.
As an example, I expected Skellige to have oily diplomats like the one from w2 trying to convince Skellige to stay out of it all in exchange for being spared. I expected clever ploys (for all that Crach would likely tell them to go to hell) and then your choice of who will be King of Skellige to change things that way. I honestly thought the way they talked about Cerys being clever and not a warmonger etc that if you made her Queen she would deal with the Nilfgaard to spare her people. She might of done but if she did you will never know. In the final act he apparently uses his navy to try and invade Skellige (although instead just sits out at sea which against a pirate viking raiding nation doesn't seem that smart) but surely that would of weakened him in Velen? And then we have no idea what came of that fleet.
I just felt like a huge empire like Nilfgaard would have many moving parts and it would all seem cruel and relentless but with ordinary people trying to scratch out a living and instead they were just a static thing in the distance, seemingly only there for plot reasons.
With Nilfgaard I just felt you needed it reinforced the idea they were bad from first hand experience and then have the game subvert your expectations, like they did so well in the w2 and in many parts of the w3 with other things. I was told Nilfgaard was evil most the damn game and saw precious little of it first hand. i saw a couple of cruel individuals sure but it was a war zone so none of it shocked me. I wanted to hate Emhyr and then by the end of the game respect him or at least feel I understood him but in the game he is just dull. He wants his daughter badly but doesn't mind jeopardizing not only his own position as Emperor (the whole people at home wanting him to step down) but also creating an incredibly hostile environment in which his daughter could be killed. He just came across as stupid to me.
As an example, I expected Skellige to have oily diplomats like the one from w2 trying to convince Skellige to stay out of it all in exchange for being spared. I expected clever ploys (for all that Crach would likely tell them to go to hell) and then your choice of who will be King of Skellige to change things that way. I honestly thought the way they talked about Cerys being clever and not a warmonger etc that if you made her Queen she would deal with the Nilfgaard to spare her people. She might of done but if she did you will never know. In the final act he apparently uses his navy to try and invade Skellige (although instead just sits out at sea which against a pirate viking raiding nation doesn't seem that smart) but surely that would of weakened him in Velen? And then we have no idea what came of that fleet.
I just felt like a huge empire like Nilfgaard would have many moving parts and it would all seem cruel and relentless but with ordinary people trying to scratch out a living and instead they were just a static thing in the distance, seemingly only there for plot reasons.