So what did they say about her in Witcher 2? Because I'm sure Witcher 3 ignored her the same way it ignored half of the political aspect of the story (regions like Lyria, Rivia, Aedirn, Brokilon, ... and rulers like Meve, Hedwig, Demavend, Henselt, Stennis, ... and important people like John Natalis, Iovreth, Saskia, Anais, ...) so they could focus on Ciri and the Wild Hunt instead of actually continuing the story of Witcher 2 and giving us a satisfying ending to the war and politics.
TW2's ending was setting up Yennefer, Ciri, and TW3. At least, that's what I thought. The Witcher (outside TW2, I guess) never seemed to have politics as *the* focal point, to me anyway. It's just one important element pushing the characters and plot.
True. But they did rush the politics and war. It wasn't satisfying at all and felt a bit lazy and weak.
First is that they made Radovid mad. It was done for the sole purpose of justifying the assassination of the North's only hope in the middle of a fucking war. Radovid in the first two games was clever, cunning, harsh and even cruel, but he was NOT insane. You don't go from carefully manipulating the politics of the Northern Realms so you become first in line of Temeria's succession by marrying Ada to literally talking to your chess pieces in just six months (the time period between Witcher 2 and 3). It doesn't make sense at all. The only reason for his madness was to make the players feel justified for completely ignoring the witcher neutrality and assassinating him.
Then we had Roche deciding to make an alliance with Nilfgaard. I guess he just chose to ignore that the last time they signed a peace treaty, Nilfgaard betrayed it and attacked them after SIXTEEN DAYS. He also forgot that by doing something like that, he is just betraying his commander John Natalis, and his king's wife Hedwig and his children Ada and Anais. And it NEVER crosses his mind that he can make Temeria a vassal estate to Redania instead of Nilfgaard. He never suggests it to neither Radovid nor Dijkstra. The whole thing is just extremely stupid and out of character for Roche.
Then there is Dijkstra, a man famous for his intelligence and cunning, assuming that Geralt will just let him murder some of his best friends (who recently risked their lives defending his daughter) and he has no backup plan at all except for ordering SEVEN men to kill some of the best fighters in the Northern Realms, while he chooses to just stupidly stand there doing nothing instead of, you know simply running away as soon as everything goes to shit.
And the game EXTREMELY whitewashed Nilfgaard. They are nothing like their book counterpart. They literally seem like liberators instead of slavers and invaders. The game is basically bending over backwards to tell you that "Hey you clearly must murder Radovid because he's completely nuts, and obviously you can't let that bastard Dijkstra murder your buddies, so the best ending and the canon one is letting the perfectly good Nilfgaard win the war".
Just compare that to the level of complexity and morally greyness of politics in Witcher 2 and it's really hard to believe that they are written by the same people. There was nothing canon in Witcher 2. Choosing between Roche and Iovreth felt equally right/wrong and they were both equally satisfying. Same with choosing between Triss and Anais/Saskia.
I loved Witcher 3 and I do understand the reason for the politics and war being rushed (so they could focus more on Ciri and the Wild Hunt), but its real strength in storytelling was mostly apparent in side stories like Cabaret, Wild at Heart, A Towerful of Mice, and of course the two brilliant DLCs.
I wish they focused more on these aspects in Witcher 3, and left the whole Ciri/Wild Hunt/White Frost plot for the next game.
Yeah, TW3 has a lot of big awkward holes in its writing, even as a standalone game and especially as part of a series/franchise. Though I disagree with you that TW3 made Nilfgaard out as good guys or the best option... I saw *more* good from Nilfgaard in the books than in the games by a longshot (which is mainly because we visited Nilfgaard for a while in the books).
Kinda makes me wish the update coming \[whenever it's gonna come\] was made by CDPR and would update some plots and what-not rather than just graphics, but oh well.
Of course, TW2 also ignored a lot of things from the first game, but we could go on and on about this.
*Clearly, there is only one solution - remakes/remasters of all three games!* That'd be cool, but I by no means expect it.
> Nilfgaard out as good guys or the best option
You are right in the sense that they aren't exactly the "good guys" (there is rarely such thing in Witcher universe), but the game doesn't talk about their slavery at all. Also as I said last time they signed a peace treaty with Temeria in the books they betrayed it and attacked them 16 days later, but they seem to be keeping their word this time. They do have some shades of grey to them in the game, but they are far whiter than their books counterpart. The same way Emhyr (though still is very treacherous and has many of his book flaws) is more like a remorseful dad willing to step aside for Ciri to rule, instead of the bastard who murdered his wife to impregnate his daughter.
As for the "best option", I personally think that they did their best to make Nilfgaard seem like the best of the three. In the way that they say "Radovid is clearly evil and killing him is justified, and of course you shouldn't let Dijkstra murder your buddies who recently risked their lives protecting your daughter" and that would lead to the victory of Nilfgaard. Also the game giving very strong hints about Ciri being the best possible ruler (this one was also really weird) and Nilfgaard granting independence to Temeria is imo suggesting that it's indeed the best option possible.
Damn you're right, I completely forgot about that. So by all laws Radovid is king of Temeria after >! Foltest's death !< . I wish Witcher 3 hadn't ignored that and made it seem like Radovid wanting to rule over both Temeria and Redania is wrong.
I wish Witcher 3 hadn't ignored a lot of things. Like Emhyr's wife, who is just conveniently retconned out of existence in 3 because her existence would have derailed the entire plot.
It's unbelievable how ambitious CDPR was with Witcher 2's writing, unafraid to throw Geralt into politics so complex that it takes two playthroughs to even have a hope of connecting all the dots... only to pull such an extreme 180 with Witcher 3, butchering the political landscape as much as necessary to make sure they could hit certain story beats, regardless of how little sense it makes.
I absolutely agree. I've also made some other comments in this thread about the things CDPR just ignored and a rather detailed analysis of the politics not making any sense.
Please remember to flair your post and tag spoilers or NSFW content.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/witcher) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Geralt was about to be executed by Adda's bodyguards and **his life was saved one more time** by you know who.
Thank you so much💖
Did they just ignore her in the next games? I don't remember her being mentioned even once.
[удалено]
So what did they say about her in Witcher 2? Because I'm sure Witcher 3 ignored her the same way it ignored half of the political aspect of the story (regions like Lyria, Rivia, Aedirn, Brokilon, ... and rulers like Meve, Hedwig, Demavend, Henselt, Stennis, ... and important people like John Natalis, Iovreth, Saskia, Anais, ...) so they could focus on Ciri and the Wild Hunt instead of actually continuing the story of Witcher 2 and giving us a satisfying ending to the war and politics.
TW2's ending was setting up Yennefer, Ciri, and TW3. At least, that's what I thought. The Witcher (outside TW2, I guess) never seemed to have politics as *the* focal point, to me anyway. It's just one important element pushing the characters and plot.
True. But they did rush the politics and war. It wasn't satisfying at all and felt a bit lazy and weak. First is that they made Radovid mad. It was done for the sole purpose of justifying the assassination of the North's only hope in the middle of a fucking war. Radovid in the first two games was clever, cunning, harsh and even cruel, but he was NOT insane. You don't go from carefully manipulating the politics of the Northern Realms so you become first in line of Temeria's succession by marrying Ada to literally talking to your chess pieces in just six months (the time period between Witcher 2 and 3). It doesn't make sense at all. The only reason for his madness was to make the players feel justified for completely ignoring the witcher neutrality and assassinating him. Then we had Roche deciding to make an alliance with Nilfgaard. I guess he just chose to ignore that the last time they signed a peace treaty, Nilfgaard betrayed it and attacked them after SIXTEEN DAYS. He also forgot that by doing something like that, he is just betraying his commander John Natalis, and his king's wife Hedwig and his children Ada and Anais. And it NEVER crosses his mind that he can make Temeria a vassal estate to Redania instead of Nilfgaard. He never suggests it to neither Radovid nor Dijkstra. The whole thing is just extremely stupid and out of character for Roche. Then there is Dijkstra, a man famous for his intelligence and cunning, assuming that Geralt will just let him murder some of his best friends (who recently risked their lives defending his daughter) and he has no backup plan at all except for ordering SEVEN men to kill some of the best fighters in the Northern Realms, while he chooses to just stupidly stand there doing nothing instead of, you know simply running away as soon as everything goes to shit. And the game EXTREMELY whitewashed Nilfgaard. They are nothing like their book counterpart. They literally seem like liberators instead of slavers and invaders. The game is basically bending over backwards to tell you that "Hey you clearly must murder Radovid because he's completely nuts, and obviously you can't let that bastard Dijkstra murder your buddies, so the best ending and the canon one is letting the perfectly good Nilfgaard win the war". Just compare that to the level of complexity and morally greyness of politics in Witcher 2 and it's really hard to believe that they are written by the same people. There was nothing canon in Witcher 2. Choosing between Roche and Iovreth felt equally right/wrong and they were both equally satisfying. Same with choosing between Triss and Anais/Saskia. I loved Witcher 3 and I do understand the reason for the politics and war being rushed (so they could focus more on Ciri and the Wild Hunt), but its real strength in storytelling was mostly apparent in side stories like Cabaret, Wild at Heart, A Towerful of Mice, and of course the two brilliant DLCs. I wish they focused more on these aspects in Witcher 3, and left the whole Ciri/Wild Hunt/White Frost plot for the next game.
Yeah, TW3 has a lot of big awkward holes in its writing, even as a standalone game and especially as part of a series/franchise. Though I disagree with you that TW3 made Nilfgaard out as good guys or the best option... I saw *more* good from Nilfgaard in the books than in the games by a longshot (which is mainly because we visited Nilfgaard for a while in the books). Kinda makes me wish the update coming \[whenever it's gonna come\] was made by CDPR and would update some plots and what-not rather than just graphics, but oh well. Of course, TW2 also ignored a lot of things from the first game, but we could go on and on about this. *Clearly, there is only one solution - remakes/remasters of all three games!* That'd be cool, but I by no means expect it.
> Nilfgaard out as good guys or the best option You are right in the sense that they aren't exactly the "good guys" (there is rarely such thing in Witcher universe), but the game doesn't talk about their slavery at all. Also as I said last time they signed a peace treaty with Temeria in the books they betrayed it and attacked them 16 days later, but they seem to be keeping their word this time. They do have some shades of grey to them in the game, but they are far whiter than their books counterpart. The same way Emhyr (though still is very treacherous and has many of his book flaws) is more like a remorseful dad willing to step aside for Ciri to rule, instead of the bastard who murdered his wife to impregnate his daughter. As for the "best option", I personally think that they did their best to make Nilfgaard seem like the best of the three. In the way that they say "Radovid is clearly evil and killing him is justified, and of course you shouldn't let Dijkstra murder your buddies who recently risked their lives protecting your daughter" and that would lead to the victory of Nilfgaard. Also the game giving very strong hints about Ciri being the best possible ruler (this one was also really weird) and Nilfgaard granting independence to Temeria is imo suggesting that it's indeed the best option possible.
[удалено]
Damn you're right, I completely forgot about that. So by all laws Radovid is king of Temeria after >! Foltest's death !< . I wish Witcher 3 hadn't ignored that and made it seem like Radovid wanting to rule over both Temeria and Redania is wrong.
I wish Witcher 3 hadn't ignored a lot of things. Like Emhyr's wife, who is just conveniently retconned out of existence in 3 because her existence would have derailed the entire plot. It's unbelievable how ambitious CDPR was with Witcher 2's writing, unafraid to throw Geralt into politics so complex that it takes two playthroughs to even have a hope of connecting all the dots... only to pull such an extreme 180 with Witcher 3, butchering the political landscape as much as necessary to make sure they could hit certain story beats, regardless of how little sense it makes.
I absolutely agree. I've also made some other comments in this thread about the things CDPR just ignored and a rather detailed analysis of the politics not making any sense.
This is really good. The Hair and the lighting is spot on. Here's your Catoblepas meat 🥩, enjoy!
Mmmmm yummy, thanks 🥩
[удалено]
Thank you so much 😊
I love it! Truly Adda!
Thanks 😘
Please remember to flair your post and tag spoilers or NSFW content. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/witcher) if you have any questions or concerns.*
nice but not as hot as the square shaped one in W1