Gangrelrumbler
Arcane
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2014
- Messages
- 4,189
I see your point, but wasn't that already the case in TW2? Free Vergen was always portrayed as a pipe dream if not an outright lie, Anais was a bastard and her claim to the throne seemed shaky at best, and the Nilfgaardian invasion made most of the other choices less meaningful than they seemed at first, or something that would only really have an effect after the war was over (i.e. after TW3).The Witcher 2 tried to convince you that the struggle in Vergen, assassinations of kings other than Foltest and Roche's chase were relevant, and then TW 3 revealed that they didn't really matter. This is what makes me angry.
Leaving the events of TW2 on the background always seemed like s a necessity because of their magnitude, but at least on my first playthrough I felt my choices in the previous games were reflected appropriately, including the death of Henselt and the stories of returning characters like Roche. I know it is fluff and in most places they probably just changed a couple of lines of dialogue for the desired effect, but as long as it works... Might be just because I happened to make the "right" choices, and maybe a second playthrough will reveal some more cracks. The fate of Anais might certainly be one such thing.
Henselt dies even if he's alive, Roche is your bro even if you backstabbed him twice. There are no choices. I'm also not talking about choices being reflected but about Witcher 2 being anything else than a filler between the Saga and the games - storywise.