What was the Witcher 2 even about? [Heavy W2&3 spoilers inside]

[Gangrelrumbler]

The game was fun, but mostly pointless in the grand scope of things. I mean look at that. The game had a few different plotlines going on, but they all ended up not mattering at all
-Assassinations of kings - You can finish the game with 2 kings (Stennis and Henselt) both alive or dead depending on how you played. Yet their presence doesn't affect their war effort in any way. One character even comments about Henselt being dead despite me choosing a path where he couldn't be killed
-Founding of the capitule - doesn't change situation of mages in any way, they are still fucked because of Radovid
-Inner politics of Temeria - royal children are supposed to be important, yet they ended up not mattering at all. Temeria ends up as a vassal or part of the Northern empire no matter what. This would be especially easy to implement. Just make Temeria prospect as Nilfgardian vassal state if Roche got the kids and make it a backwater nowhere if he didn't.
-Liberation of Aedirn - Aedirn ends up either as part of the northern empire or as a part of Nilfgaard, which means that it doesn't mean anything if it was liberated
-The only important part was Leage of Sorceress being exposed, which didn't have anything to do with what Geralt was doing. Except for the dragon fight at the end. The fight was also pretty pointless as letting the dragon burn everyone would probably make everything better for the north by getting rid of Radovid before he could start his own third reich.


Hope they will fix it at least a bit with Enchanced edition of whatever.

 

[Perkel]

They won't "fix" it because there is nothing to fix.
politics and nations stuff was always secondary thing in all TW games.
I think you expect TW being something like Song of Ice and Fire where POV of witcher always is personal story.

I noticed how many people playing TW2 loved Foltest as he was their "bro"

Problem is that Foltest basically imprisoned geralt and made him as his bodyguard. Made him fight in lavalette castle siege which is totally against his code.

As of Upper Aedirn. It didn't have chance either way. By the time of TW2 Aedirn overall is wasted as it was part of Nifgard empire for a time (Aedirn was completely conquered) and Demavend had to flee.

So again attack by Nilfgard was sure to fuck it up.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

The point is that the Witcher 2 feels kinda pointless now, it already fealt like a big prologue to the Witcher 3 and now it turned out that anything that happened in TW 2 hardly mattered in TW 3.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

its Mass Effect 2 all over again. No one gives a fuck about shit from second game(human reaper, proteans, Cerberus) in third one¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Basileus777]

Eh, every Witcher game's main plot is somewhat self-contained. There are some overarching things that carry over, but it's not as if it's one story told in three parts.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

This is true about the first game. The second felt like a giant lead-up to something that never happened.

 

[Eyestabber]

Triss Merigold's booty, then Vex's perfect ass, Hot Sorceresses lesbian scene and...I think that was the point, yeah.

 

[Perkel]

This is true about the first game. The second felt like a giant lead-up to something that never happened.

What lead up exactly ? Whole game you are chasing Letho. At the end you meet him and everything is resolved, Geralt gets his memory back completely and he is cleaned from charges.
Nilfgard attacks and Geralts starts journey to find Yennefer.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

This is true about the first game. The second felt like a giant lead-up to something that never happened.

What lead up exactly ? Whole game you are chasing Letho. At the end you meet him and everything is resolved, Geralt gets his memory back completely and he is cleaned from charges.
Nilfgard attacks and Geralts starts journey to find Yennefer.

Yeah, but he's killing kings in a preparation for the incoming war, that's his motivation. Finding out that it didn't really matter if he succeeded or not and that Geralt's presence didn't help at all is a bit of a bummer.

 

[Perkel]

This is true about the first game. The second felt like a giant lead-up to something that never happened.

What lead up exactly ? Whole game you are chasing Letho. At the end you meet him and everything is resolved, Geralt gets his memory back completely and he is cleaned from charges.
Nilfgard attacks and Geralts starts journey to find Yennefer.

Yeah, but he's killing kings in a preparation for the incoming war, that's his motivation. Finding out that it didn't really matter if he succeeded or not and that Geralt's presence didn't help at all is a bit of a bummer.

Letho did succeed and this is why Nilfgard attacks in first place as he killed both Demavend and Foltest and his group was close to killing Hanselt. In Loc Muin he probably wanted to kill Radovid but he couldn't do it thus why he talk with Geralt as he knew he would fallow him.

As for Geralt he doesn't have any stake in kings staying alive. He is a witcher. Nobody really. Thus Nkingdoms and Nilfgard is pretty much the same for him.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

This is true about the first game. The second felt like a giant lead-up to something that never happened.

What lead up exactly ? Whole game you are chasing Letho. At the end you meet him and everything is resolved, Geralt gets his memory back completely and he is cleaned from charges.
Nilfgard attacks and Geralts starts journey to find Yennefer.

Yeah, but he's killing kings in a preparation for the incoming war, that's his motivation. Finding out that it didn't really matter if he succeeded or not and that Geralt's presence didn't help at all is a bit of a bummer.

Letho did succeed and this is why Nilfgard attacks in first place as he killed both Demavend and Foltest and his group was close to killing Hanselt. In Loc Muin he probably wanted to kill Radovid but he couldn't do it thus why he talk with Geralt as he knew he would fallow him.

As for Geralt he doesn't have any stake in kings staying alive. He is a witcher. Nobody really. Thus Nkingdoms and Nilfgard is pretty much the same for him.

Henselt's death has no impact on the war. Also the fact that the main character didn't have any stakes in main plotline of the game is also a big of a bummer.

 

[chestburster]

What I enjoy most from Witcher 3 is the heavy dose of Paganism. Haven't seen that much paganism in any mainstream media in a long time.

 

[Malpercio]

They didn't even let you import the tattoo you got with your bro Roche.

Dicks.

 

[Perkel]

They didn't even let you import the tattoo you got with your bro Roche.

Dicks.

It is imported actually.

 

[Forest Dweller]

The game was fun, but mostly pointless in the grand scope of things. I mean look at that. The game had a few different plotlines going on, but they all ended up not mattering at all
-Assassinations of kings - You can finish the game with 2 kings (Stennis and Henselt) both alive or dead depending on how you played. Yet their presence doesn't affect their war effort in any way. One character even comments about Henselt being dead despite me choosing a path where he couldn't be killed
-Founding of the capitule - doesn't change situation of mages in any way, they are still fucked because of Radovid
-Inner politics of Temeria - royal children are supposed to be important, yet they ended up not mattering at all. Temeria ends up as a vassal or part of the Northern empire no matter what. This would be especially easy to implement. Just make Temeria prospect as Nilfgardian vassal state if Roche got the kids and make it a backwater nowhere if he didn't.
-Liberation of Aedirn - Aedirn ends up either as part of the northern empire or as a part of Nilfgaard, which means that it doesn't mean anything if it was liberated
-The only important part was Leage of Sorceress being exposed, which didn't have anything to do with what Geralt was doing. Except for the dragon fight at the end. The fight was also pretty pointless as letting the dragon burn everyone would probably make everything better for the north by getting rid of Radovid before he could start his own third reich.


Hope they will fix it at least a bit with Enchanced edition of whatever.

All of this applies to the Witcher 1 as well.

 

[dragonul09]

Instead of Witcher 3 Wild Hunt ,they should call this game Find Ciri:The Game.This was a horrible idea for a plot,to put aside all the interesting characters like Natalis,Iorveth,Saskia,Henselt,Sille,Philipa,Dethmold and in return you get bitchy Yennefer and the brat Ciri.
There was nothing interesting in the main quest because everything was about finding Ciri and you had to do favors for everyone and i mean everyone.Instead of being a witcher,Geraldo should apply for a job as an errand boy,because i have never seen in any game so many quests that made you look like the paper boy.


They ruined everything that The Witcher 2 created.

Radovid-in 6 months he got more looney than a drowner,he was such an interesting character in W1 and W2 but they had to go the bioware way and ruin everyhing.
Natalis-Another interesting character that got removed because why the fuck not,they even mention that nobody knows where he is,what a bunch of fucking idiots.
Anais-She was a pretty important ''piece'' for Temeria but somehow she just disappeared.
Saskia-Another nice character that no one seems to mention at all...
Iorveth-From what i understand ,he's dead,he got killed by a few archers.

The main plot was horrible and i got much more enjoyment for doing contracts and side quests.Such a fucking bad ending(s) for this trilogy..

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

All of this applies to the Witcher 1 as well.

Not really, in Witcher 1 you stop Order of the Flaming Rose from unleashing armies of mutants upon the world. In The Witcher 2 you stop a bunch of socreresses from burning some people at a meeting, most of which would proably manage to escape unharmed (Letho, Triss) or are better off dead anywya (Radovid).

 

[Perkel]

Radovid-in 6 months he got more looney than a drowner,he was such an interesting character in W1 and W2 but they had to go the bioware way and ruin everyhing.
Natalis-Another interesting character that got removed because why the fuck not,they even mention that nobody knows where he is,what a bunch of fucking idiots.
Anais-She was a pretty important ''piece'' for Temeria but somehow she just disappeared.
Saskia-Another nice character that no one seems to mention at all...
Iorveth-From what i understand ,he's dead,he got killed by a few archers.

The main plot was horrible and i got much more enjoyment for doing contracts and side quests.Such a fucking bad ending(s) for this trilogy..

Radovid ? Dude that dude has whole northern kingdom future on his mind and doesn't have any other allies (kovir is neutral) When you meet him you see him as he constantly think of war. Whoreson was his agent and when its use was done he didn't have problem to rat him out.
If you don't assasinate him he wins the war with Nilfgard.
He is brilliant dude.
Natalis had like 5 minutes in whole game.
Anais - There is no Temeria. Nilfgard conquered all of Temeria. Vizima in which you had audience with Emhyr was capitol of Temeria. Radovid either way is married to Adda or probably will later marry Anais when war is done.
Saskia - There is no Aerdin. Nilfgard conquered it. So either Saskia is dead or she run away (if she was alive by end of TW2)
Iorweth i think is dead

 

[Turisas]

Also, why do people call Roche a bro? Isnt he towelhead who tortured you in the dungeon and a turncoat?

Still better than some stinking scoia'tael fagit.

 

[Carrion]

Not really, in Witcher 1 you stop Order of the Flaming Rose from unleashing armies of mutants upon the world. In The Witcher 2 you stop a bunch of socreresses from burning some people at a meeting, most of which would proably manage to escape unharmed (Letho, Triss) or are better off dead anywya (Radovid).

The persecution of sorceresses has a pretty big role in TW3, though, both in the main quest and the whole setting, whereas the mutant threat was all but forgotten in TW2. The other big points of TW2 were Geralt recovering his memory and discovering what the Wild Hunt actually was. I don't think you can remove it from the trilogy without losing some essential pieces in the process.

Save imports are almost always fluff more than anything else, but I thought the game did a nice job explaining how your previous actions lead to the current state of the world (went full Roche in TW2), like Radovid uniting the North by taking control of kingless Kaedwen. It's mostly just an illusion, sure, but what did anyone really expect? I would've liked to see a bit more politics as a continuation of TW2's story, though, as TW3 is very simplistic in its approach, even notably more so than the first game. The whole assassination subplot felt kind of tacked-on, and I hoped that there would've been at least a way to expose it to Radovid, even though I sided with Thaler and Roche in the end because they're fucking Thaler and Roche.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Not really, in Witcher 1 you stop Order of the Flaming Rose from unleashing armies of mutants upon the world. In The Witcher 2 you stop a bunch of socreresses from burning some people at a meeting, most of which would proably manage to escape unharmed (Letho, Triss) or are better off dead anywya (Radovid).

The persecution of sorceresses has a pretty big role in TW3, though, both in the main quest and the whole setting, whereas the mutant threat was all but forgotten in TW2. The other big points of TW2 were Geralt recovering his memory and discovering what the Wild Hunt actually was. I don't think you can remove it from the trilogy without losing some essential pieces in the process.

Save imports are almost always fluff more than anything else, but I thought the game did a nice job explaining how your previous actions lead to the current state of the world (went full Roche in TW2), like Radovid uniting the North by taking control of kingless Kaedwen. It's mostly just an illusion, sure, but what did anyone really expect? I would've liked to see a bit more politics as a continuation of TW2's story, though, as TW3 is very simplistic in its approach, even notably more so than the first game. The whole assassination subplot felt kind of tacked-on, and I hoped that there would've been at least a way to expose it to Radovid, even though I sided with Thaler and Roche in the end because they're fucking Thaler and Roche.

The whole prosecution of the wtiches would happen regardless of Geralt's involvement if Radovid got away and if he didn't Dijkstra would take over without killing Roche, which would make everything better. It means that Geralt actually made everything worse by stopping Filippa, which is a bummer. You know, they didn't have to do much to make The Witcher 2 relevant they could just let the North regain it's borders from the end of TW 2 after winning the war, and make Redania/Nilfgaard fully take over Temeria if Roche dind't get Anais. It's not rocket science. On the other hand if Geralt wasn't involved in TW 1 Wizima would pobably be razed to the ground during the riots, and Order of the Flaming Rose would probably overrun the North with their army of supermutants.

 

[Carrion]

The whole prosecution of the wtiches would happen regardless of Geralt's involvement if Radovid got away and if he didn't Dijkstra would take over without killing Roche, which would make everything better. It means that Geralt actually made everything worse by stopping Filippa, which is a bummer. You know, they didn't have to do much to make The Witcher 2 relevant they could just let the North regain it's borders from the end of TW 2 after winning the war, and make Redania/Nilfgaard fully take over Temeria if Roche dind't get Anais. It's not rocket science. On the other hand if Geralt wasn't involved in TW 1 Wizima would pobably be razed to the ground during the riots, and Order of the Flaming Rose would probably overrun the North with their army of supermutants.

How is Geralt's direct involvement in the events even necessary? Geralt was always a minor player in TW2's events, one who got caught in them unwillingly and was always primarily pursuing his personal goals or helping his friends (which may include Roche or Iorveth). I think the criticism for Geralt serving only a minor role in the big picture of TW2 is definitely valid, but it's just as valid even if you leave TW3 out of the equation completely. In the "grand scope of things" the events of TW2 certainly bear more weight than the mutant threat of TW1, in any case.

I gave Anais to Radovid in my TW2 playthrough, so I don't know what effect it has if you went with Natalis. What you're proposing sounds reasonable, though.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Carrion
-If you give her to Natalis Temeria is supposed to survive
-Giving her to Radovid means Temeria getting annected by Redania
-Not doing shit causes balkanization of Temeria

As for "why is it necessary". The whole game makes you care about political bullshit by forcing you into the grand politics and then it's revealed in TW 3 that everything was unnecessary. It would be all right though if you had to save Triss. It's a good story, a guy tries to save a girl and gets tangled into political affairs on the way. Only it's not really the case as it's revealed that Triss would be saved by Letho anyway. A mutant threat is not relevant because you stopped it in the Witcher 1, you've actually tried to make the order irrelevant. The analogy would be correct if you had an option to stop the order from making mutants or let them make more and then it was revealed in TW 2 that the mutant factory didn't matter anyway. 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.

 

[Carrion]

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.

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).

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.

 

[Severian Silk]

The Witcher series is not really that good, guys.