Story spoiler thread.

[CROmagnon]

Wouldn't be surprised if there was a patch later on that added better ending slides, though.

I think they will. Has anyone noticed how Geralts narration* of the fate of Baron and his wife or Keira Metz for example sounds like he read it from a napkin written note he got 15 seconds ago. Considering the voice acting and direction is superb for the most part this really stuck out for how soulless and horrible it is.

I think CDP rushed the ending slides and narration because they ran out of time in the end. They will probably fix it, both in terms of content and quality, in a year or so.

*English voiceover

 

[Athos]

Did someone manage to get this?

 

[cvv]

Has anyone noticed how Geralts narration* of the fate of Baron and his wife or Keira Metz for example sounds like he read it from a napkin written note he got 15 seconds ago. Considering the voice acting and direction is superb for the most part this really stuck out for how soulless and horrible it is.

The original Geralt is soulless and horrible (kind of) person. Unlike his TW2 and TW3 lookalike he is an anti-hero. The original Geralt murders a couple of drunks just to let everyone know "a badass is in the town".

What we see in the mass market Witcher games is a bit gruff but lovable and kindhearted knight in a shining armor, even though we hear constantly the mutations "stripped him of emotions". Could've fooled me. For me the deadpan commenting on the fates of Baron or Keira Metz are welcome reminder who Geralt should be.

 

[Carrion]

The original Geralt murders a couple of drunks just to let everyone know "a badass is in the town".

Where does this happen?

What we see in the mass market Witcher games is a bit gruff but lovable and kindhearted knight in a shining armor, even though we hear constantly the mutations "stripped him of emotions".

Well, whether or not you're kind-hearted pretty much depends on your choices, as it's possible to be a pretty cold asshole in many places, slaughtering peasants for minor things and not giving a shit if people get murdered in the streets or burned alive in their homes. Being stripped of emotions is an obvious misconception even in the books, as Geralt does show quite a bit of emotion like all the other witchers, especially when it comes to Ciri. Him failing to maintain his neutrality because he cares too much is a common motif in the stories. Monstrum isn't exactly true, you know.

 

[Mrowak]

Has anyone noticed how Geralts narration* of the fate of Baron and his wife or Keira Metz for example sounds like he read it from a napkin written note he got 15 seconds ago. Considering the voice acting and direction is superb for the most part this really stuck out for how soulless and horrible it is.

The original Geralt is soulless and horrible (kind of) person. Unlike his TW2 and TW3 lookalike he is an anti-hero. The original Geralt murders a couple of drunks just to let everyone know "a badass is in the town".

What we see in the mass market Witcher games is a bit gruff but lovable and kindhearted knight in a shining armor, even though we hear constantly the mutations "stripped him of emotions". Could've fooled me. For me the deadpan commenting on the fates of Baron or Keira Metz are welcome reminder who Geralt should be.

I call bullshit on this. From book I Geralt is portrayed as character more knightly than actual knights. Hence his death scene is higly symbolic.

 

[cvv]

Has anyone noticed how Geralts narration* of the fate of Baron and his wife or Keira Metz for example sounds like he read it from a napkin written note he got 15 seconds ago. Considering the voice acting and direction is superb for the most part this really stuck out for how soulless and horrible it is.

The original Geralt is soulless and horrible (kind of) person. Unlike his TW2 and TW3 lookalike he is an anti-hero. The original Geralt murders a couple of drunks just to let everyone know "a badass is in the town".

What we see in the mass market Witcher games is a bit gruff but lovable and kindhearted knight in a shining armor, even though we hear constantly the mutations "stripped him of emotions". Could've fooled me. For me the deadpan commenting on the fates of Baron or Keira Metz are welcome reminder who Geralt should be.

I call bullshit on this. From book I Geralt is portrayed as character more knightly than actual knights. Hence his death scene is higly symbolic.

I haven't read the novels yet, just the short stories, and in there Geralt...well he's not exactly a monster but no knight either. He actually behaves as if the mutations really stripped him of emotions (mostly).

 

[Keshik]

Geralt does mess some people up in the books, but most of the time they start stuff with him or force his hand like in Balviken. But yeah, he's not a great hero (he does his job for pay after all, heh) - but he does help people in danger, I think in the last book he becomes jaded enough to just not care about others and stay out of it (I think some woman is getting raped by Northern soldiers after Brenna and he just shrugs at Dandelion).

 

[Perkel]

Where does this happen?

Literally first short story. Drunks are looking for fight with him he uses his blade instead of fists guards come for him he uses Axii and he goes to dude who is administrator in that town with guards.

Which points that he probably wanted something like this to happen.
Outright murder no but he knew what he is doing when he gone into that bar.

 

[b__B]

Where does this happen?

Literally first short story. Drunks are looking for fight with him he uses his blade instead of fists guards come for him he uses Axii and he goes to dude who is administrator in that town with guards.

Which points that he probably wanted something like this to happen.
Outright murder no but he knew what he is doing when he gone into that bar.

In the first short story the character wasn't really fleshed out yet though. Geralt didn't have the same personality as in the later stories. The first short story was written for a contest and Sapkowski didn't plan to continue it at that time.

 

[Carrion]

Literally first short story. Drunks are looking for fight with him he uses his blade instead of fists guards come for him he uses Axii and he goes to dude who is administrator in that town with guards.

Which points that he probably wanted something like this to happen.
Outright murder no but he knew what he is doing when he gone into that bar.

I thought he did it just to make the best out of a bad situation, although I suppose it's valid to interpret it as deliberate seeing how he specifically chose to go to a sleazy place to begin with, at least if you just look at it as an individual story. That interpretation is not really in line with Geralt's character in the later stories, though, as he outright refuses to fight humans in several stories unless he absolutely has to, and technically it's self-defense either way as he does nothing to provoke the drunks. I always just assumed he was pissed and tired, got attacked and decided to paint the floor with the guts of some low-lifes in a classic sword and sorcery way, more or less spontaneously.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Where is Birna's corpse exactly? I looked for it for a while but then forgot about it.

The peninsula on the west coast of Ard Skellig which has the lighthouse (the one which has a quest attached to it), Birna is chained to a rock on the coast just north of there.

 

[RK47]

Bad End unlocked. Very nice. They even acknowledged this is the end of the road for White Wolf.
If they made this canon, I can dig it.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Carrion]

Can someone point me in more or less right direction?

Spoiler

For the Letho quest, find the crying woman in Lindenvale, Velen.

Didn't find the vampire myself, but it's supposedly in Novigrad, behind a breakable wall, I think somewhere in the Eastern part of the city.

 

[Nryn]

- Didnt find vampire from the vid that tells you to fuck off

Can someone point me in more or less right direction?

Explore the sewers where you do the now or never Triss quest. If I remember right, you should encounter two back-to-back breakable walls when you're at the right place.

 

[MiX]

Has anyone noticed how Geralts narration* of the fate of Baron and his wife or Keira Metz for example sounds like he read it from a napkin written note he got 15 seconds ago. Considering the voice acting and direction is superb for the most part this really stuck out for how soulless and horrible it is.

The original Geralt is soulless and horrible (kind of) person. Unlike his TW2 and TW3 lookalike he is an anti-hero. The original Geralt murders a couple of drunks just to let everyone know "a badass is in the town".

What we see in the mass market Witcher games is a bit gruff but lovable and kindhearted knight in a shining armor, even though we hear constantly the mutations "stripped him of emotions". Could've fooled me. For me the deadpan commenting on the fates of Baron or Keira Metz are welcome reminder who Geralt should be.

In The Lesser Evil he kills Renfri's gang to protect the villagers but the villagers hate him anyway (this is where he earned the nickname Butcher of Blaviken). He also recalls that the first "monster" he killed was a soldier trying to rape a teenage girl but after Geralt killed the solider the girl ended up puking and saw him as revolting. Geralt is very emotional and wants to do the right thing but pretty much every time he tries to help others it ends up a mess which is why he tries to stay to himself and avoid getting involved. Ciri is one of those cases where he would pretty much do anything for her but this backstory with here is mostly in the books so I understand why some people might be annoyed with half the game involving looking for Ciri.

Also, Triss in the games is portrayed in a much better light than she actually is in the books. She's basically Geralt's groupie. And I'm still pissed you can't even bring up the fact she lied to you for two years about Geralt's memory.

 

[Carrion]

And I'm still pissed you can't even bring up the fact she lied to you for two years about Geralt's memory.

She does bring it up herself, though, during one the first conversations you have with her. It's implied that they had a crisis after the events TW2 because of that, which is why they're kind of awkward around each other in TW3, and since they've discussed the matter already there's not much point in bringing it up again.

Triss is a bit more mature in the games than in the books, but I think that's a pretty natural development for her character. It is a bit funny how she's kind of regressed towards what she was in the books, though, as in TW1 she was a very confident and quite serious 30-something (maybe because they wanted to make her different from Shani), in TW2 a feistier and friskier 25-year-old who obviously didn't quite have the same kind of power than her more experienced colleagues did, and in TW3 a barely legal freckle face who doesn't show much power and seems a lot more insecure compared to the previous games, although to be fair that is partly because she's on quite unfamiliar territory.

 

[abnaxus]

The amnesia was a bad plot device from the very beginning.

Did Triss explain in TW1 why she couldn't simply cast a spell to cure Geralt?

 

[MiX]

And I'm still pissed you can't even bring up the fact she lied to you for two years about Geralt's memory.

She does bring it up herself, though, during one the first conversations you have with her. It's implied that they had a crisis after the events TW2 because of that, which is why they're kind of awkward around each other in TW3, and since they've discussed the matter already there's not much point in bringing it up again.

Triss is a bit more mature in the games than in the books, but I think that's a pretty natural development for her character. It is a bit funny how she's kind of regressed towards what she was in the books, though, as in TW1 she was a very confident and quite serious 30-something (maybe because they wanted to make her different from Shani), in TW2 a feistier and friskier 25-year-old who obviously didn't quite have the same kind of power than her more experienced colleagues did, and in TW3 a barely legal freckle face who doesn't show much power and seems a lot more insecure compared to the previous games, although to be fair that is partly because she's on quite unfamiliar territory.

Yeah I guess that makes sense. I don't remember her bringing it up I may have chosen a different dialogue though.

The amnesia was a bad plot device from the very beginning.

Did Triss explain in TW1 why she couldn't simply cast a spell to cure Geralt?

I don't think you need a spell since Geralt gets his memory back by simply talking to people. Yennefer said she got her memory back quicker because Nilfgaard mages helped though. However, if I remember correctly Triss simply lies about the amnesia because she wants the Geralt dong. The amnesia is pretty lame but it would be impossible to do the games without it since the game is actually a sequel to the books.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Carrion]

Did Triss explain in TW1 why she couldn't simply cast a spell to cure Geralt?

I think you can ask her if she can restore your memory, at which point she tells you that she can't and that it's better to just live on and let it come back by itself. In the second game she of course wants to cast such a spell but needs a rose of remembrance for it, and I don't think those are widely available in Vizima.

 

[Perkel]

The amnesia was a bad plot device from the very beginning.

Did Triss explain in TW1 why she couldn't simply cast a spell to cure Geralt?

She said she probably would be able to. By that time things gone awry (the order, coup, assasination etc) so Geralt probably forgot about it when she was showering him with pussy. IN TW2 he goes back to it and by the time they will be doing something finally with this she is kidnapped.

Also in TW1 i didn't connect it but she had constant contact with lodge of sorceress (there is even one cutscene "don't tell him") so her lack of willingness to help him came from probably both work and her being love in him.
She is manipulative bitch like every other sorceress.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Did Triss explain in TW1 why she couldn't simply cast a spell to cure Geralt?

I think you can ask her if she can restore your memory, at which point she tells you that she can't and that it's better to just live on and let it come back by itself. In the second game she of course wants to cast such a spell but needs a rose of remembrance for it, and I don't think those are widely available in Vizima.

I got the sense that Triss in Witcher 1 was extremely manipulative, a typical kind of sorceress, while in Witcher 2 she was a bit more sympathetic to Geralt. Those more clued up on the lore (especially the books) could explain more.

 

[Carrion]

I got the sense that Triss in Witcher 1 was extremely manipulative, a typical kind of sorceress, while in Witcher 2 she was a bit more sympathetic to Geralt. Those more clued up on the lore (especially the books) could explain more.

That's true, and I think it's partly because in TW1 she pretty much represented all sorceresses, whereas TW2 had Philippa, Sïle and Sabrina Glevissig among others. TW1 also had Shani, who was a young and sympathetic redhead, and they probably wanted to make Triss a bit different from her, make her seem more confident and authoritative in comparison. The Triss in the last two games is clearly closer to the one in the books, but having a book-like Triss in TW1 might've given the wrong first impression about sorceresses to those unfamiliar with the books.

 

[made]

Question about the Mortal Sins quest in Novigrad: is there any way you can fail the quest, or better yet convict the wrong person? At that point I was utterly sick and tired of running around Novigrad so I turned on quest markers to get it over with faster. With markers on it becomes very straight forward: exhaust all clues ion one location, move on to next, inevitably find out that the Fampyr was behind it all. All you can do is choose whether you kill the clergyman or not, which may or may not have consequences later on.