The Witcher Officialsky Witcherovda 2 Impressiovna Threadskaia

[Havoc]

Spoiler

Bullshitz. Letho is a smart man, I'm sure he can take one short look at Dol Blathanna and decide freedom under the emperor isn't exactly freedom. I'm not saying the only choice is to kill Letho, I'm saying that a game with characters as great as in The Witcher 2 owes more than a "I chose the good king"-explanation.

Spoiler

Yea, maybe. We don't know everything about Letho. He is a smart guy who used his looks and added some HURR DURR to make mages think he's stupid, but he isn't the political mastermind like the Emperor. Too little said, but enough to like the character in the end (until the end I hated him as a character).

Spoiler

Philippa or Triss is a fake choice, as we have already established. And I can see from your response that you think I'm looking for more choices in the endgame. I'm not. I'm looking for a resolution to some things. What your relationship with some characters are at the end is not finalised. I'm not looking for answers to the stuff that TW3 will obviously revolve around, just personal relations.

Spoiler

Wait... wut? Fake choice? How about saving Phillipa gave a knife that can undo the magic that Saskia is under? In the other choices (Triss in Iorveth, Triss or Roche) Saskia is still under the spell and you guys don't know how to undo it.

BTW. The trailer looks good... for a person who played the game already. If I saw it before playing I would be... meh. The other ones were better.

 

[Phelot]

Overall, I like how your choices seem very natural, generally speaking. That is, they appear to be missing TW1's "EPIC CHOICE COMING UP WHO WILL YOU CHOOSE?" kind of feel. They just kind of flow very smoothly, sometimes giving you the impression that you're not making a decision, just acting.

I couldn't help but feel that there were certain options that Geralt simply didn't have a dialogue choice for.

Spoiler

I just finished chapter 1. I was a little confused that I didn't seem to have an option to side with Loredo? I originally said I would work with him (before hand I broke his ballista, so maybe that has something to do?) but later on I seemed to be shut off from him. I found Margot's note that said she was working with the elves, but never had an option to confront her or Loredo about it.

Some of the choices I've made... I can't figure out what they actually do unless they appear later on. What difference does it make what you ask Dethmold when you're suddenly Trish (Which is really stupid, BTW) What happens if you decide not to take Trish with you? Why couldn't I use the flower to remember my memories right then and there?

 

[Black_Willow]

The trailer for xbawx version -

 

[Grunker]

Spoiler

Yea, maybe. We don't know everything about Letho. He is a smart guy who used his looks and added some HURR DURR to make mages think he's stupid, but he isn't the political mastermind like the Emperor. Too little said, but enough to like the character in the end (until the end I hated him as a character).

I liked him to begin with but hated him in the end

Spoiler

Wait... wut? Fake choice? How about saving Phillipa gave a knife that can undo the magic that Saskia is under? In the other choices (Triss in Iorveth, Triss or Roche) Saskia is still under the spell and you guys don't know how to undo it.

Precisely. There is ONE right way to choose, making it a problem, not a true choice. Saving Phillipa will yield the same as all the other choices plus something really fucking good.

Spoiler

Saving Phillipa should fucking kill Triss or something along those lines. It's cheap that it yields no punishment to choose to save her and neglect the other choices.

 

[Havoc]

Spoiler

I just finished chapter 1. I was a little confused that I didn't seem to have an option to side with Loredo? I originally said I would work with him (before hand I broke his ballista, so maybe that has something to do?) but later on I seemed to be shut off from him. I found Margot's note that said she was working with the elves, but never had an option to confront her or Loredo about it.

Some of the choices I've made... I can't figure out what they actually do unless they appear later on. What difference does it make what you ask Dethmold when you're suddenly Trish (Which is really stupid, BTW) What happens if you decide not to take Trish with you? Why couldn't I use the flower to remember my memories right then and there?

Spoiler

3 Different storylines? Good, but too much production time. But about the confronation you're right. I had a similiar thing in Vergen when I found the receipt for the golden cup. Couldn't do shit with it.

You can't use the flower. You need a mage and a mage needs time. Not taking her will make you lose a sex scene.

Grunker

Spoiler

Letho wouldn't let Triss die. He's a fucking bro. But... do you want to see Triss die? This game doesn't pull off the biowarian "LOL YOUR LOVE DIED IN THE END! LOLOLOLOL" stuff.

 

[made]

Hoping for TW2 expansion: The Adventures of Letho. With co-op mode on Xbox live where you control Letho/Geralt, get pissed, and tour the brothels of Nilfgaard.

 

[Grunker]

A fucking bro eh? That's why he let you take the blame?

And are you really arguing that it's a good thing there's no bad consequences in that last choice? It's fucking retarded to have choice, choice and choice+. All choices should have upsides and downsides, or at least different upsides or downsides.

 

[Mrowak]

Spoiler

Yea, maybe. We don't know everything about Letho. He is a smart guy who used his looks and added some HURR DURR to make mages think he's stupid, but he isn't the political mastermind like the Emperor. Too little said, but enough to like the character in the end (until the end I hated him as a character).

I liked him to begin with but hated him in the end

Spoiler

Wait... wut? Fake choice? How about saving Phillipa gave a knife that can undo the magic that Saskia is under? In the other choices (Triss in Iorveth, Triss or Roche) Saskia is still under the spell and you guys don't know how to undo it.

Precisely. There is ONE right way to choose, making it a problem, not a true choice. Saving Phillipa will yield the same as all the other choices plus something really fucking good.

Spoiler

Saving Phillipa should fucking kill Triss or something along those lines. It's cheap that it yields no punishment to choose to save her and neglect the other choices.

One thing I disliked, especially in comparison with the novels is overal weaker characterisation of almost all characters.

Spoiler

I mean the way Philippa is double-crossed by her assistant stands in stark contrast with her scheming, manipulative all-knowing personality we know from the books. If someone is able to out-smart the chief of Redanian Intelligence Service, mother-fucking Djikstra she should not fall for petty first-impressions, which she should have already known, are deceiving.

The same with the lodge being tricked by Letho. I mean come-fucking-on they have millions of better ways to dispose of Demevend than hire a witcher - which is pretty risky considering that they don't know anything about him. They performed better, more efficient assassinations before - poisoning, accidents etc. Why bother laying the fate of the whole endeavour in the hands of some random guy they just met?

Btw, the fact that they didn't do a research concerning Letho's past and his dealings with the Empire and decided to hire him just like that is stupid beyond my grasp.

Also the lodge acting against its principles they established in the novels by pushing Triss away from the conclave. In the shitstorm in the books this organisation had perhaps most solid foundations of them all. In TW2 it disintegrates all too easily.

There are plenty more things like that in the scenario.

If the game weren't called The Witcher, I wouldn't now bitch about all of the above. As it is, it is unfortunately evident that Sapkowski didn't have anything to do with the script.

 

[Havoc]

A fucking bro eh? That's why he let you take the blame?

And are you really arguing that it's a good thing there's no bad consequences in that last choice? It's fucking retarded to have choice, choice and choice+. All choices should have upsides and downsides, or at least different upsides or downsides.

No memory. Geralt wanted to kill him. Letho still didn't harm Triss nor killed Geralt.

Depends. If you go Roche, the non-humans will have a worse future ahead of them. There aren't no direct bad consequences (like friends dieing and stuff), but there are some that aren't direct.

Mrowak - yea, but how about this... in the novels Geralt is DEAD! DUM DUM DUUM! Died at the hands of a fucking peasant. So you want to tell me that Geralt, the master swordsman/kickasser can die like this (Sapkowski's writings)... but the Lodge can't be more womanized (the most dominating women wanted to have more control), due to their bickerings can't be tricked (and you have to take account that they wanted it fast and shit was happening all around - Henselts war, Foltest war and soon to the pile Demawend's death) by a witcher (CDPR writings)? Oh come on...

 

[Storyfag]

And are you really arguing that it's a good thing there's no bad consequences in that last choice? It's fucking retarded to have choice, choice and choice+. All choices should have upsides and downsides, or at least different upsides or downsides.

Well, do note that

Spoiler

Only saving Triss leaves the Northern Kingdoms with a stable organisation of sorcerers. Allowing the Nilfgaardians to reveal the Lodge's role in the assassinations of kings begins a senseless witch hunt against *all* sorcerers. This pretty much means the Nilfgaardians won a complete victory, as the North won't use sorcerers in the upcoming war too frequently on top of being egulfed in chaos due to 2+ regicide incidents.

Allowing Triss to reveal the Lodge's role leads to a sensible witch hunt against members of the Lodge alone. This denies the Nilfgaardians their total victory outlined above.

So, guise, any chances for that Act III beggining on youtube? PLS?

 

[Havoc]

And are you really arguing that it's a good thing there's no bad consequences in that last choice? It's fucking retarded to have choice, choice and choice+. All choices should have upsides and downsides, or at least different upsides or downsides.

Well, do note that

Spoiler

Only saving Triss leaves the Northern Kingdoms with a stable organisation of sorcerers. Allowing the Nilfgaardians to reveal the Lodge's role in the assassinations of kings begins a senseless witch hunt against *all* sorcerers. This pretty much means the Nilfgaardians won a complete victory, as the North won't use sorcerers in the upcoming war too frequently on top of being egulfed in chaos due to 2+ regicide incidents.

Allowing Triss to reveal the Lodge's role leads to a sensible witch hunt against members of the Lodge alone. This denies the Nilfgaardians their total victory outlined above.

So, guise, any chances for that Act III beggining on youtube? PLS?

Oh, yea and that.

Why do you need the intro for Act III?

 

[Grunker]

That's all speculation about consequences in TW3 - thus a fake choice unless the consequences of that very choice will appear in TW3.

 

[Havoc]

That's all speculation about consequences in TW3 - thus a fake choice unless the consequences of that very choice will appear in TW3.

"Nie dzielmy skóry na niedźwiedziu"

Let's wait and see.

Oh and the slides shows in Fallout 1 (of different places) were also fake choices, thus bad things?

 

[Storyfag]

Why do you need the intro for Act III?

I'm curious if it has my Nilfgaardian language after all

That's all speculation about consequences in TW3 - thus a fake choice unless the consequences of that very choice will appear in TW3.

Not all of it is speculation, I should think. I haven't reached that far in the completed game yet, but shouldn't there be differences in

Spoiler

Radovid's treatment of sorcerers on the spot

depending on that choice? You know the

Spoiler

Knights of the Flaming Rose

merely attempting to arrest

Spoiler

Sile

or turning on

Spoiler

all sorcerers

and trampling the

Spoiler

new Conclave's founding document

?

 

[Grunker]

Hmm. I stand corrected it seems. That's good to know!

Although, it's completely unclear that that's a direct result of that choice

Spoiler

(it could just as easily happen if Letho saves Triss, and it's kindda weird if it doesn't, actually)

 

[Storyfag]

But

Spoiler

does Triss appear at the summit if Letho saves her? If she doesn't, it's rather obvious why the Nilfgaardians can tell their version of the story to everyone else...

 

[Grunker]

Spoiler

Indeed, but there's no explanation for why Triss would not hurry to the summit after Letho saves her. I don't know whether she appears or not.

 

[Havoc]

Spoiler

Indeed, but there's no explanation for why Triss would not hurry to the summit after Letho saves her. I don't know whether she appears or not.

Because that happens after the dragon. When Geralts gets back, the chaos already stopped, kings went their ways and Letho saved the day.

 

[Storyfag]

So, let me ask again:

Spoiler

What language are Shilard and Assire var Anahid speaking at the beggining of Act III?

 

[Havoc]

Act III

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEA0o1fhLmE

 

[Mrowak]

@Havoc, Grunker, Storyfag

Hmm..., looking at your discussion I reach some interesting conclusions. I think that the whole deal with the 'fakeness' (only for the lack of the better word) of the whole choice at the end is twofold.

Firstly, due to rather abrupt end we cannot see the consequences of all that we've done at the end. There isn't even customary slideshow to show the bigger picture of things e.g. how Temerain nobles reacted to the news from Loc Muine, what was the situation of elves and dwarves, how the appearance/disintegration of the Wizard's council affected the shape of poitical map etc.

Secondly, TWitcher 2 suffers from the disturbing lack of personal consequence.. None of the decisions you make impact you or those really close to you. Everything that happens to them is always beyond your control -

Spoiler

Triss always gets abducted. Zoltan always joins the Aerdinian revolt. Dandelion is always outside of the most important events. Triss is always saved from Nilfgaardian captivity. Both Iorveth and Roche are alive and well by the end of the game regardless of which path you pursued.

This stands in direct contrast with the events in the novels where the 'bigger picture' is intertwined with personal lives and with what directly impacts the characters. Protagonsits and antagonists alike take advantage of political upheaval to achieve their distinct goals. Often they are behind the higher-level changes just to reap their own personal profit. Frequently, the social and political chaos prompted events that spiralled out of control and impacted heroes' lives profoundly e.g.

Spoiler

Geralt's death in the pogrom in Rivia

There's, I feel, nothing like that in The Witcher 2. Damn shame, I say.

 

[Havoc]

Spoiler

Both Iorveth and Roche are alive and well by the end of the game regardless of which path you pursued.

Spoiler

If you go Triss on Iorveth path, you can meet Iorveth while going to Letho. He is badly injured. You have a choice there "Leave him to die or make Triss help him". Didn't chose the leave option, but will go and check. If he will live regardless, I will post.

Edit: Yea, you can just walk away. Dunno if somebody saves him.

 

[Black_Willow]

Ffs guys, make a "Witcher 2 spoilers" thread.

 

[anus_pounder]

By any chance is the Nilfgaard Empire based on the Holy Roman Empire? Sounds silly, I guess, but I can't get this thought out of my head and had to ask.

 

[Mrowak]

Mrowak - yea, but how about this... in the novels Geralt is DEAD! DUM DUM DUUM! Died at the hands of a fucking peasant. So you want to tell me that Geralt, the master swordsman/kickasser can die like this (Sapkowski's writings)... but the Lodge can't be more womanized (the most dominating women wanted to have more control), due to their bickerings can't be tricked (and you have to take account that they wanted it fast and shit was happening all around - Henselts war, Foltest war and soon to the pile Demawend's death) by a witcher (CDPR writings)? Oh come on...

Actually, Geralt's death is more believable than you seem to have the impression of. Geralt does not die because he is not enough of a badass swordsman. He dies because because of his profound character-flaw - despite being called a mutant, a freak he is too humane. He spares a peasant who pleads for his life. The farmer stabs him with the fork at the given opportunity. Interestingly - it's not really because the peasant is such a bastard - He kills Geralt simply out of reflex, confusion, fear, mob's rage and adrenaline running through his veins.

In dying this way we fully understand Geralt's tragedy - an ubermensch created to have none of human emotions is ultimately defeated because of them. The scene is also made more paramount by the few scenes back when he discusses with Zoltan and Yarpen his cynism and lack of belief in humanity. Then he professes he shan't play a hero anymore. It's truly tragic that he dies exactly because he goes against the promise he made to himself a few moments back. He dies protecting non-humans from an angry mob. He dies at the hands of the man whose life he spared.

Regarding my earlier observations. I am not accussing the characters of the lack of depth. I am only saying that they are shadows of their former selves in comparison with what we had in the novels. This does not mean they are not written well. This only means they are not written well enough to meet very very high expectations.