The more I think about it the more I'm happy I never played the Iorveth path. It feels so wrong...
The more I think about it the more I'm happy I never played the Iorveth path. It feels so wrong...
The more I think about it the more I'm happy I never played the Iorveth path. It feels so wrong...
I, on the other hand, feel like the only way Roche path can be justified even remotely, is if Geralt ignores all the politicking altogether, and immediately rushes to save Triss.
But I don't care enough to argue over it!
I, on the other hand, feel like the only way Roche path can be justified even remotely, is if Geralt ignores all the politicking altogether, and immediately rushes to save Triss.
I think the opposite is true tbh. Both paths are kind of lacking but Roche's is imo the lesser evil one.
Which path leads to saving Triss sooner or more likely is kind of completely unkown at that point anyway.
i played both paths, and they both complete each, in fact...
iorveth path had more hints about the wild hunt, and geralt was able to collect information about it
which, made me even more hyped for the third game
.but let us get back on topic, shall we ?
@alternative ending: are we to understand that you propose a split between two clearly bad endings (some of main characters die) and two clearly good endings (only the villain!Avallac'h dies), and the only path to a good ending strictly requires certain arbitrary choices in a three of earlier interactions with Ciri and Avallac'h??? that'd be cure-worse-than-disease.
I, on the other hand, feel like the only way Roche path can be justified even remotely, is if Geralt ignores all the politicking altogether, and immediately rushes to save Triss.
Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Even if to put aside that Geralt never was a big fan of scoia'tael, joining Iorveth is joining a self-admitted and known kingslayer. Iorveth is as much guilty in death of Foltest as Letho himself, because he was a part of the conspiracy to commit that murder. Joining him Geralt pretty much admits every damn suspicion about him, that he himself was somehow involved, and that's exactly why later in Loc Muinne everyone is after him. So by joining Iorveth he pretty much ditches his plan to prove his innocence, and simply goes after Triss. Sure, he gets off the hook on a summit, either by Letho's testiminy, or by Triss pointing at Sile, but it is simply a by-product of the actions of others.
While on Roche's path Geralt sticks to Roche, whose goal is to catch a kingslayer, and goes to work for Henselt who promised to clear Geralt's name regardless, if Geralt lifts the curse.
That's exactly why I played Iorveth's path only twice, to get particulars of the story - I sure as hell do not care about Triss, but I do care about clearing Geralt's name.
Last edited:
Well, that depends first on how you define good and bad. I actually think that none of my endings is really good. But you're right that in my ending certain preconditions are required to reach a state in which all main characters survive. In both of these endings there is no "they'll live happily ever after" state reached. The empress ending (which is a bit different in my proposition) is imo rightfully called the "bittersweet ending" and the eternal wanderer ending just results in Ciri being basically on the run again while Emyhr hunts them all and the Aen Elle still try to invade the world. I wouldn't call that the "good" ending after all. Actually the two most "hopeful" endings are the "The Lady of the Lake" and the "The new sun" endings imo. In both there is some progress reached, of course progress that doesn't come without sacrificies. In the first one Geralt and Yen and Triss are killed but Ciri broke the circle and freed herself of death and decay (which is pretty much what Geralt and Co. always wanted and how the novels ended), in the latter one Ciri tries to find compromises for everyone (Nilfgaard, North, humans, elves, Aen Elle, ...) while sitting in a snakes pit, sacrificing her own freedom for "the greater good". So in the end, there are a lot of elements to be balanced, profane elements, symbols and higher concepts. Like I said before, much of it depends on what you personally see worthwile and important. I tried to weight different elements in all my endings, both good and bad, both sacrificies and hopes. Of course these elements might be stronger or weaker in different situations, but they're never clearly good or bad. Pretty much the only exception is the "Symbol of death" ending, that might appear sadder and "worse" than the other endings but this one is built upon the "bad" ending of the already existing pattern in TW3 and it's basic idea is to set back Geralt to the state where he was before he met Ciri ("lonely Witcher"). That's perhaps a sad ending, but it has its "atmosphere" as well imo and there are quite some people who don't like the whole Ciri stuff (already in the books) and who would perhaps enjoy an ending that just sets Geralt back to the guy he was before the book pentalogy about Ciri.
And then, how do you know that my choices that will define whether you will be able to safe everybodies life will be arbitrary before I have even written or presented them ??? I think it's a bit unfair to call them arbitrary while you know pretty much nothing about them yet...
---------- Updated at 06:36 PM ----------
I have to admit my prime reason to go with Roche was that I just didn't trust Iorveth. After all, it's Geralt's job to protect humans, even if they don't like or downright hate him. He never had any sympathies for Scoia'tael and he knows that most of them are just muderers, not freedom fighters. They kill civilians without remorse and that's something Geralt cannot let happen or even support. It's a traditional "the lesser evil" choice imo, pretty much in the vein of Blaviken. While Geralt understands the motives of the elves he doesn't share them and he won't endanger humans just to meet his own goals, if the respective danger is right in front of him. For Geralt, "the lesser evil" always means to ban "direct" danger. It's a very practical view, not a high concept. But then of course much depends on how your personally wage elements like trust, danger and likeliness to reach different goals.
Last edited:
I asked what I asked because I expected to hear an answer like this one:
"No, actually the boxes on my diagram which look like simple yes/no decision filters are placeholders for some larger yet-to-be-written chunks of dialogue and/or action, such that the choice from earlier quests is an input influencing the designed difficulty of the scene (think somewhat affecting chances of outcome assuming player picks dialogue answers in purely random manner), but not forcing any of the outcomes. That would be silly indeed, to effectively require players to replay large portions of Act 3 in order to achieve a non-killing-protagonists ending. Even if it's been announced that there won't be a sequel so our heroes are technically as worthy dead as alive."
"No, actually the boxes on my diagram which look like simple yes/no decision filters are placeholders for some larger yet-to-be-written chunks of dialogue and/or action, such that the choice from earlier quests is an input influencing the designed difficulty of the scene (think somewhat affecting chances of outcome assuming player picks dialogue answers in purely random manner), but not forcing any of the outcomes. That would be silly indeed, to effectively require players to replay large portions of Act 3 in order to achieve a non-killing-protagonists ending. Even if it's been announced that there won't be a sequel so our heroes are technically as worthy dead as alive."
Yep, that's right. That's why I really dislike Iorveth's path - there is no sensible motivation to go with Iorveth at all, both from Geralt's character, and from his immediate goals, and later it simply becomes incomprehensible why he is doing what he is doing. It is nice to pick up some pieces of a story unavailable otherwise, but as far as I am concerned, TW2 for me is Roche's path only.
So you are saying that scene with Ciri in the end of the game isn't emotional? Very interesting. Of course it's your POV but for me it was different. It was very hard to accept and my emotions were spinning around like crazy. I've defeated Wild Hunt at last I can have Ciri in my hands but what?! I need to let her go... seriously?!!! How this choice is not important for you? Also all her plan to save the world reveals only in last minutes of the game it's a BIG surprise. This is why I don't agree with you about last battle.
The quest with Imlerith battle isn't wrong. You just need to read books to understand Ciri motivation. Here I agree that games fails to propper introduce Ciri and her characters. This quest totaly fits Ciri character from the books. And yes Ciri is evil and want's vengeance not Geralt. This is also perfectly fine with their characters.
Boss fights are everywhere in this game. What about first fight with Griffon at the start of the game? It's not designed as boss fight? And many other fights with Witcher contract monsters are designed as boss fights. Even in story quests there are boss like fights... look and Keira quest line for example.
Ehhh, you guys either choose to omit crucial information or really have missed a lot.
Humans are transporting the non humans prisoners to Drakenberg, a hellish torture prison for the non humans. Pogroms everywhere and whatnot. Anything the non humans have done in their rebellion doesn't even come close to what humans are doing on a much larger scale, every day. So much for that.
It's like the Nazis vs Somalian pirates comparison.
Geralt detests politics and King Foltest. They weren't friends. Foltest is an asshole, why would Geralt care if he died? (it's rhetorical btw). All Geralt from the books would care, is to clear his name, and even that one is not a 100%.
You're thinking that the book Geralt, who died protecting the non humans being massacred by humans, would abandon his dwarven friends fighting for a better future in Vergen, to play James Bond with Roche and do politics for the whole second and third act? Goes directly against book lore, and against Geralt's character.
Roche is not Geralt's friend, he blackmails him into helping him find the king slayer. Under that condition, I felt no trust or loyalty towards him. Also, Roche is not a saint, but a brainwashed killer who thinks the service for king and country somehow makes what he does good.
On the other hand, Iorveth, even though we started as enemies, shows honour and integrity, and even goes as far to trust Geralt with the same. If we put aside propaganda and rumors, and judge people based on their action, I'd have to be a piece of shit to just hand him over all tied up to Roche.
At the end of the day, Iorveth may be often blinded by rage and deceived by humans (Letho, Nilfgard), but his end goal is freedom from oppression and a chance for their place under the sun. This he proves later down the track, I don't want to spoil anything.
Roche's end goal is to serve as a spy for his king and country, neither which hold any real value, especially not to Geralt. It gave Roche some sense of meaning and reason for living, being a mindless piece of trash when Foltest found him. How inspiring.
But we can reiterate our interpretations till the end of time, it comes down to personal perception and principles.
Humans are transporting the non humans prisoners to Drakenberg, a hellish torture prison for the non humans. Pogroms everywhere and whatnot. Anything the non humans have done in their rebellion doesn't even come close to what humans are doing on a much larger scale, every day. So much for that.
It's like the Nazis vs Somalian pirates comparison.
Geralt detests politics and King Foltest. They weren't friends. Foltest is an asshole, why would Geralt care if he died? (it's rhetorical btw). All Geralt from the books would care, is to clear his name, and even that one is not a 100%.
You're thinking that the book Geralt, who died protecting the non humans being massacred by humans, would abandon his dwarven friends fighting for a better future in Vergen, to play James Bond with Roche and do politics for the whole second and third act? Goes directly against book lore, and against Geralt's character.
Roche is not Geralt's friend, he blackmails him into helping him find the king slayer. Under that condition, I felt no trust or loyalty towards him. Also, Roche is not a saint, but a brainwashed killer who thinks the service for king and country somehow makes what he does good.
On the other hand, Iorveth, even though we started as enemies, shows honour and integrity, and even goes as far to trust Geralt with the same. If we put aside propaganda and rumors, and judge people based on their action, I'd have to be a piece of shit to just hand him over all tied up to Roche.
At the end of the day, Iorveth may be often blinded by rage and deceived by humans (Letho, Nilfgard), but his end goal is freedom from oppression and a chance for their place under the sun. This he proves later down the track, I don't want to spoil anything.
Roche's end goal is to serve as a spy for his king and country, neither which hold any real value, especially not to Geralt. It gave Roche some sense of meaning and reason for living, being a mindless piece of trash when Foltest found him. How inspiring.
But we can reiterate our interpretations till the end of time, it comes down to personal perception and principles.
You argue with stuff that didn't happen before you have to decide whether you go with Roche or Iorveth. That's a typcial logical failure when talking about choices in games, arguing with the respective consequences. For a "true" evaluation of a choice the consequences are out of the question, they can't even be integrated at all in the evaluation. Only the stuff that happened before and how people interpret the possible(!) consequences, besides principles.
I've spoken about the first impressions both characters have left on me, and how it affected my decision on who to join up with. You've latched on a very small portion of my post and are trying to discard the whole of it based on out of context quotation.
Yes, I've gone beyond the choice and onto the consequences, which only further ensured me I've made the right choice.
I was expecting a better comeback lol.
They may not be friends but they are bedfellows and Roche (in the games) always did right by Geralt. If you play Iorveth's path in TW2, when he breaks through to the Elven bath house, should you choose to leave with Triss, he's angry but he understands. He doesn't try to coerce him, doesn't attempt to re-arrest him to prevent him leaving. he trusts Geralt to make good on his promise. Later, upon crossing the mist and running in to Roche, he helps you in your search for Triss and/or obtaining Hensalt's blood. He doesn't attempt to arrest him, doesn't refuse to help him, doesn't attack him, he choose to help him. You could say he does it because it serves his purpose but arresting Geralt and sailing out on one of the ships also serves that purpose. There is no reason for him and his special forces cadre to fight for Hensalt, it's not their war so mist or no mist makes no difference.
When meeting again in TW3, he doesn't ask Geralt to him him with his 'Ves problem' before agreeing to help Geralt, he helps Geralt first and then asks for his help in return, even trusting Geralt to do what's right by him when he says he'll "think about it". Later, when Geralt is in need of help defending Kaer Morhen, Roche immediately agrees to help. Does he owe him? Sure but is helping kill a few Nilfgaardians the equal of taking on The Wild Hunt? It was a big ask by Geralt and again he did right by him.
Why does he do this continually? Because he's a man of honour. He lives by a code. You may or may not agree with that code but you can respect it. He continually demonstrates as much honour as Iorveth does because, like Iorveth, like all the characters in the second game, he's not black and white but shades of grey. He's a complex, nuanced character. Of course he thinks doing his service to his King and Country makes him right, that's precisely what everyone thought in feudal society so judging him by modern standards is to deeply misjudge the character.
My opinion: the game has a superb first act: Velen and the crones is fantastic, Novigrad and Triss, amazing, Skellige and Yennefer, great. The second act worsens, but the battle of Kaer Morhen is fantastic and it has other great moments. The third act goes totally south. It has some good moments, but in general is a great disappointment. That thing about the "White Frost" is stupid. What the hell is the White Frost? Is Al Gore going to do a documentary about, or something? As in the books, the whole story becomes in a stupidity when it centers in Ciri as the intergalactic traveler, the elves, the travels inter worlds, the white frost, etc. Anyway, the characters are so good and the open world so well done that I enjoyed the game a lot. But the scrip writers should return the payment for the last act. It´s a nonsense.
IMO act 1 is perfect, Novigrad part is great but that Whoreson Junior beat down scene looked a bit weird animation wise, act 2 is great but Kaer Morhen needed more screen time. Act 3 Novigrad part is good but Rita needed more screentime. The skellige part is bad tho, Fringilla Vigo like when I first played it through I was like who the hell is she and why is she so limited. The white frost made no sense at all and the wild hunt needed more developing.
I don't know why the scriptwriters they failed to take much more advantage of some the great characters ot the books, as the sorceresses of the Loggia, and dedicated so much time to all that nonsense of the elves of parallel worlds and that thing of the White Frost, whatever it is. At the end of the game, I wanted to know what happen with the main characters, what happen with Temeria, Redania, Niilfgard, the Loggia, etc. but I don't give a damn for the Elves of the parallel words and the white frost.
It needed more areas as well with people spread around the keep, not just confined to the Great Hall. It was especially stupid seeing Keira using that as her bedroom, especially given that there are several unoccupied bedrooms you can explore in the keep.
Ok so Inwill also add my 50 cents to the discussion. The biggest problem with the ending is that it totally lacks any connection to your choices in the rest of the game for example the decision made in the "Ladies of the woods" quest there is no LONG TERM consequence to your action when there were clearly oporunities for it . The same problem with the "Tower of mice" and Skellige narrative. I mean the end Act is just a series of choices that which were the only thing that influenced the epilog while the epilog in the W1 though all endings included the same boss fight it had a aftermath of all your choices from the whole game from wich you gained bufs or debufs. moreover the first game could block entire quests because of your consequences.
And here are just some moments of the game that had potiential but were boring.
-Blockade of Novigrad was terribly underplayed
-The south of the map should have less fast travel points. It's supposed to be a place to get lost, to roam through.
-The point of having all of the map unlocked from the get go also spoils a lot of fun from the exploration.
-The world doesn't react to your decissions mid game too. In W1 you decissions gave discounts in shops, opened/locked vendors.
-Where the heck is fake Ciri?
-Treasure hunts are plain stupid. Why give the player quest marks for the witcher gear? If you can just stick to treasure hunts to get the best gear then why should you waste maney on the thousand pieces of obsolete gear?
-Arbitrary limitations on freeroaming a.k.a you can't go full assasins creed in Novigrad.
-You can beat the game without most of the skills.
-Arbitrary level caps that punish players for taking on the harder ones.
-After clearing an area there is no point to return, no new quests or monsters will appear.
-The wild hunt isn't interested in Geralt's actions for some reason.
Last but least - How do you thing will the Skelligian's react when realise that THEY SURVIVED THE END OF THE WORLD IN THEIR RELIGION.
And here are just some moments of the game that had potiential but were boring.
-Blockade of Novigrad was terribly underplayed
-The south of the map should have less fast travel points. It's supposed to be a place to get lost, to roam through.
-The point of having all of the map unlocked from the get go also spoils a lot of fun from the exploration.
-The world doesn't react to your decissions mid game too. In W1 you decissions gave discounts in shops, opened/locked vendors.
-Where the heck is fake Ciri?
-Treasure hunts are plain stupid. Why give the player quest marks for the witcher gear? If you can just stick to treasure hunts to get the best gear then why should you waste maney on the thousand pieces of obsolete gear?
-Arbitrary limitations on freeroaming a.k.a you can't go full assasins creed in Novigrad.
-You can beat the game without most of the skills.
-Arbitrary level caps that punish players for taking on the harder ones.
-After clearing an area there is no point to return, no new quests or monsters will appear.
-The wild hunt isn't interested in Geralt's actions for some reason.
Last but least - How do you thing will the Skelligian's react when realise that THEY SURVIVED THE END OF THE WORLD IN THEIR RELIGION.
One of the biggest problems with Acts 2 & 3 are that the game suddenly becomes linear rather than open world because of the lack of high level quest material. Sure you can go wondering around the open world but most side quests and Witcher contracts are completed, leaving you only with main story line quests to complete, hence turning the game in to a linear hack and slash.