THIS IS A SPOILER THREAD. GET THE FUCK OUT OF YOU HAVEN'T BEAT THE GAME!
I figured it was time for this thread since many people are finishing up the game now. I'm not done so I'm staying the hell out, but this is the place to discuss the ending of the game, not the OT.
My contribution isn't exactly directed at the actual events of the story, but rather the execution of the narrative. I think the game is an interesting example of how to set up a great story, have a great middle and end the whole thing below its established standard. You have all of these great characters, interesting events and circumstances, an engrossing fictional world, and so forth. Yet the final conclusion of the game somewhat drops a lot of the plot threads on the ground and the pacing is uneven compared to the earlier chapters. So in that regard I find the narrative of the Witcher 2 peculiar due to the fact that I still think it is a great game, despite not fulfilling much of its narrative potential.
EDIT: Is the title of the thread sufficiently representative of the intended discussion? Isn't it also the narrative/story/storytelling of the Witcher 2 that we are discussing and not just spoilers, i.e. who killed/ploughed/betrayed who?
Some positive comments:
First of all, the first couple of chapters themselves were great self-contained stories, with each chapters ending tying into the next one. It feels like theres a beginning, a middle, and an end to each one. The establishment of characters, conflicts and resolution were well represented and concluded in each part of the game. Secondly, the characters were relatively complex (considering the mediums history) with different motivations, arcs and much debatable morals. For example, in the very end I felt a somewhat compassion with Letho despite him killing several people. I saw him as no different than many other characters in the game Ioverth and Roche had taken many lives as well. In that way I didnt ever feel like I was being pandered simple and accessible moral views, but instead had to engage how and why even the villains were doing what they were doing. On a sidenote: I loved that Letho aka the final boss fight was avoidable if you chose to let him go - up until that point I was dreading the usual cliché of a video game forcing you to fight the person you have been chasing all game.
Some negative comments:
I presume most will agree that chapter 3 and its conclusion fails in relation to the standard the two prior chapters and the prologue set. After chapter 3, the political plot of the Conclave does not feel resolved, Philipa and Sifel just escape, the political factions are suddenly at war, I have no idea what happened to the judgement of Prince Stennis (suddenly King?), Triss was apparently used by the Nilfguardians for some purpose that I did not get to know about, Sifel told me I could find Jennefer in Niflguard, but what did Geralt do with that information? And so on. That being said, obviously some of the threads depend on the choices I made, so had I played differently I might have a better idea what it all ended with.
The only two threads I feel were resolved were Saskias (I chose to save her with Philippas dagger) and Lethos. But both of these were basically just information dumps through conversation (akin to
Vigil
in Mass Effect 1 or
Kreya
in KOTOR2). Nevertheless those two characters were probably the most important, so it was necessary for them to have their final, resolving moments and I think both storylines ended up satisfying to me. I really liked Letho as a villain/anti-hero and I was afraid of Saskia dying, due to her potential as a good queen of Vergen (cant remember the name of the region itself).
Those are just my preliminary thoughts after finishing the game and I will no doubt return to see what happened if I had chosen the many other different paths, but nevertheless the actual story of the game sets a very high bar for itself and ultimately ends up not fulfilling its potential, considering the quality of the beginning and middle of the game. All things considered, this is still probably the best games I've played this year and one of the best RPGs in recent times
so please don't mistake my criticism as one-dimensional hate.
I wonder what the story behind the rush job of chapter 3 is. Did CDProjekt need to make the deadline? Did they have plans for tying up the loose ends as DLC, expansion packs or sequels? It is kind of weird to arrive at the final town and see all of its details go to waste, due to lack of quests and elaborate characters. I hope we get to see more stuff from CDProjekt and I really hope the game is successful both financially and critically, because we need more games of this high quality.
I just returned to one of my prior saves in Flotsam when I have to choose between Ioverth or Roche. In my first playthrough I helped out Ioverth and in the following chapter I controlled Prince Stennis, who was accompanying Saskia to the negotiations with Henselt. This time around when I chose to help Roche in Flotsam, I instead controlled Henselt in the same scenario, but apparently the fight is between Saskia and Henselt instead of Stennis vs. Henselt. The outcome is the same though, meaning that the curse will follow after Henselt kills the priest. But apparently Stennis is now dead, whereas he was an extremely important character in my original playthrough. Furthermore, now Geralt has to help Henselt instead of originally helping Saskia and Stennis with defending Vergen from Henselt. I can't wait to see how the story comes around.
I'm looking forward to seeing how the story will unfold when I choose to save Triss instead of helping either Roche or Ioverth out. It is so great to see choices and consequences resulting in much, much different scenarios and differing viewpoints on the story and its characters. There is so much content that one has to play through this game several times to see the widly different outcomes of Geralt's decisions.
I just returned to one of my prior saves in Flotsam when I have to choose between Ioverth or Roche. In my first playthrough I helped out Ioverth and in the following chapter I controlled Prince Stennis, who was accompanying Saskia to the negotiations with Henselt. This time around when I chose to help Roche in Flotsam, I instead controlled Henselt in the same scenario, but apparently the fight is between Saskia and Henselt instead of Stennis vs. Henselt. The outcome is the same though, meaning that the curse will follow after Henselt kills the priest. But apparently Stennis is now dead, whereas he was an extremely important character in my original playthrough. Furthermore, now Geralt has to help Henselt instead of originally helping Saskia and Stennis with defending Vergen from Henselt. I can't wait to see how the story comes around.
I'm looking forward to seeing how the story will unfold when I choose to save Triss instead of helping either Roche or Ioverth out. It is so great to see choices and consequences resulting in much, much different scenarios and differing viewpoints on the story and its characters. There is so much content that one has to play through this game several times to see the widly different outcomes of Geralt's decisions.
I agree, and after playing chapter 2 with both decisions it was a very different experience. Its great to see a game that is quite strong in what stories are resolved. However, it came at a huge cost. The game was simply rushed at the end. It feels like a ton of the game was just cut and simplified, shoehorned into a single level. The fact that the game completely misses the events occurring inside the city while your fighting the dragon is insane. Almost all of the major plot points are unresolved, or updated in a short chat between you and Triss or you and Letho (or both).
It's a pity because it drags the whole experience down. It also makes me feel like they might drag on the overall story far longer than we had anticipated. They have the war, the move into the south and the rescue, not to mention the other world and the elves.
Question - do we ever discover who the assassin is in the 1st game. I swear I heard Letho only mention his two comrades you see in chapter2
I don't want to say that chapter 3/epi ruined the game for me but it did a good job of smearing the greatness that was the rest of the game. I'm confused why they even thought that chapter 3 could be considered a chapter. It takes 3-5 hours and is followed by a 20 minute epilogue. They should had just combined the 2 into the epilogue as I wouldn't have felt so mislead. Also going from an awesome snowy mountain/cliff path into that circular region of blah wasn't helpful either.
Ending was perfectly fine, i don't get what the big deal is or the whining over it.
The game is called assassins of kings, you find out who the assassins are, who plotted it and had a choice on killing the guy "who 'dun it"
I personally let letho walk, the dude is no different than geralt. You can see why vesemir taught the witchers to simply be a monster slayer, bad shit happens when super-mutants with godly sword skills play politics.
I left him. I chased him to clear Geralt's name and bring him to justice, and Geralt's name was cleared without any intervention anyways. Though he endangered Triss, he saved her, and he backed Geralt up way back when with the Wild Hunt, and cared over Yennefer. technically Yennefer is responsible for him being mixed with Nilffgaard anyways. He said it right, he never was Geralt's true enemy. The real enemies (Nilffgaard, sorcerers, and whoever else) were exposed and the Witcher 3 has to do with dealing with them anyways. If Iorveth and Roche wanted his ass, they'd have to get him themselves. What ultimately convinced me was the vodka. For a bit I was actually expecting poison, but he was honest. So I spared him. As for the murder of Foltest, I actually liked the king. But in the end Geralt was just his hired witcher, not his sworn guardsmen or what have you.
It's not just the ending, it's the pacing towards it as well as Chapter 3's terribleness. Compared to 1 and 2. 3 was a very confined map. I'm assuming half of the camp is Ioverth side, the other Roche side depending on who you chose. It feel very confined and limited and content is much shorter. At the beginning, at least on roche's side, you're walking through a snowy mountainous region which would had been amazing to stay in for a few hours, but its just a path to a corridor filled camp. Had there been some quests out in the mountains and a larger sewer on top of being longer I wouldn't had felt as bad about the ending as I did.
When epilogue hit the screen I audibly said "what the fuck?". I went to google to search for the number of chapters, and sure enough 3.
Great game, chapters 1 & 2 were fantastic. Chapter 3 was too short - everything was locked and barren, like the development team were like "oh shit, yeah I need to pay my mortgage and bills. Ship it." I figured it was a short chapter and was the mid point of the game. I thought there was going to be 4+ chapters. That we'd head off to a new town to fight the new King of the North. Instead it was, oh there's the city we're walking away now. It was like Stargate Universe's ending without a cancellation - no cliffhanger for the next one. Kind of like Witcher 1 left us with the assassination attempt.
I liked the polished cinematic approach, but I think it needs to be balanced with larger maps and towns to explore.
Witcher doesn't normally give a shit about kings, it's not his problem, he's not gonna lead an army against the Empire, nor is he gonna go assassinate that king (unless said king decided to hunt him or Triss down for killing his assassins or whatever I guess, forcing him to meddle in that shit). He did what he set out to do in the game, I have no issues with the resolution itself personally, just the way it was handled and yes the game felt light on content past chapter 1 or so and level/skill/gear progression is way off.
When epilogue hit the screen I audibly said "what the fuck?". I went to google to search for the number of chapters, and sure enough 3.
Great game, chapters 1 & 2 were fantastic. Chapter 3 was too short - everything was locked and barren, like the development team were like "oh shit, yeah I need to pay my mortgage and bills. Ship it." I figured it was a short chapter and was the mid point of the game. I thought there was going to be 4+ chapters. That we'd head off to a new town to fight the new King of the North. Instead it was, oh there's the city we're walking away now. It was like Stargate Universe's ending without a cancellation - no cliffhanger for the next one. Kind of like Witcher 1 left us with the assassination attempt.
Witcher 1's ending cutscene was a cliffhanger for 2. This is much worse, we don't get any continuation, we just deal with the kingslayer and just take off to get ready for a trip to hunt down the sorceresses and deal with a nilffgaardian invasion or whatever else
actually i just regurgitated everything you just said!
Why would he deal with a nilfgaard invasion? the last time they rolled through the north they ravaged the place and left a plagued, bandit and monster infested countryside. That led to a mini revival for witcher services.
Why would he deal with a nilfgaard invasion? the last time they rolled through the north they ravaged the place and left a plagued, bandit and monster infested countryside. That led to a mini revival for witcher services.
Pretty much. That's how different the game ends up being depending on your choices. In my play through Henselt conquers the Pontar Valley. Saskia's mob got trashed and she might be dead herself or not. I have no idea, all I know is that in the ended whatever she was trying to do completely failed and she isn't relevant in any way.
fizzelopeguss said:
Why would he deal with a nilfgaard invasion? the last time they rolled through the north they ravaged the place and left a plagued, bandit and monster infested countryside. That led to a mini revival for witcher services.
Yennefer is in Nilfgaard so Geralt is definitely heading that way. Maybe The Wild Hunt will be the main antagonist in the next game. The whole game definitely feels like a set up for a sequel. But they really need to resolve this Nilfgaard is on the verge of conquering the entire northern region plot. They were on that verge for the past 10 years or something.
fizzelopeguss said:
You can see why vesemir taught the witchers to simply be a monster slayer, bad shit happens when super-mutants with godly sword skills play politics.
Pretty much. That's how different the game ends up being depending on your choices. In my play through Henselt conquers the Pontar Valley. Saskia's mob got trashed and she might be dead herself or not. I have no idea, all I know is that in the ended whatever she was trying to do completely failed and she isn't relevant in any way.
Yes, rather massive difference compared to my playthrough, Saskia suceeds, defeats Henselt's army and becomes the Queen of Upper Aedirn... Shes also the Dragon , but is controlled by Phillipa and by extension the Lodge and is freed from their control in the final fight (i think if you go for Philippa's dagger).
Rather strange feeling for me, going for the Order in Witcher 1 and then the Non-humans in the sequel. (Really wanted Saskia to suceed, the world needs a kingdom where everyone is equal, considering how harsh the world is, plus Dragons seem less susceptible to all that bullshit of the other races)
I think all the choices in Witcher 2 will be muted by the fact you are going to be spending most of your time in the Empire. Won't be as bad as Witcher 1 though. I think that is why the ambassador never gets killed, no matter what.
Scoia'tael, chapter 3: Is there true difference sneaking into the jail different than getting arrested? I know there wasn't trying to get to the Nilfgard camp(you can't not be caught, right?).
The ending wrapped up quickly but I still thought it was a good ending. It managed to rap up the story of the kingslayers while still leaving room open for more Witcher games.
10/10 game though. I had ridiculous expectations and it met them all.
edit: question, does triss actually die if you go with roche instead?
Yes, rather massive difference compared to my playthrough, Saskia suceeds, defeats Henselt's army and becomes the Queen of Upper Aedirn... Shes also the Dragon , but is controlled by Phillipa and by extension the Lodge and is freed from their control in the final fight (i think if you go for Philippa's dagger).
Oh well then I guess Saskia isn't dead. Just got her ass handed to her by Geralt. Bit of a spoiler for me since I didn't play the the scoiatel side yet. Also I thought only gold dragons could shapeshift.
Riposte said:
I think all the choices in Witcher 2 will be muted by the fact you are going to be spending most of your time in the Empire. Won't be as bad as Witcher 1 though. I think that is why the ambassador never gets killed, no matter what.
What? He dead man, dead. Geralt took him hostage so some Nilfgaardy general shot a crossbow bolt through him. Then Geralt proceeded to wipe out, single-handedly, the entire Nilfgaard delegation in Chapter 3. Also the emperor ordered the ambassadors execution.
I liked the ending, it was a good cliffhanger. If you play the Steam version the achievement for finishing the game is called "To be continued" ya know.
I think all the choices in Witcher 2 will be muted by the fact you are going to be spending most of your time in the Empire. Won't be as bad as Witcher 1 though. I think that is why the ambassador never gets killed, no matter what.
Scoia'tael, chapter 3: Is there true difference sneaking into the jail different than getting arrested? I know there wasn't trying to get to the Nilfgard camp(you can't not be caught, right?).
I left him. I chased him to clear Geralt's name and bring him to justice, and Geralt's name was cleared without any intervention anyways. Though he endangered Triss, he saved her, and he backed Geralt up way back when with the Wild Hunt, and cared over Yennefer. technically Yennefer is responsible for him being mixed with Nilffgaard anyways. He said it right, he never was Geralt's true enemy. The real enemies (Nilffgaard, sorcerers, and whoever else) were exposed and the Witcher 3 has to do with dealing with them anyways. If Iorveth and Roche wanted his ass, they'd have to get him themselves. What ultimately convinced me was the vodka. For a bit I was actually expecting poison, but he was honest. So I spared him. As for the murder of Foltest, I actually liked the king. But in the end Geralt was just his hired witcher, not his sworn guardsmen or what have you.
My thoughts exactly. It was a Witcher-thing to do to let him go, he never wanted to get Geralt involved in all of this, and he even tells you he thought he was done for when Foltest entered the monastery with you. Besides, he helped you with the Wild Hunt before and cared for Yennefer, while Geralt was gone.
A bit of lore of the Witcher: all the kings of the North are like described in the game - bastards-breeding morons. Letho was right when saying Ermhyn was so much above them.
I think Chapter 3 was done rather nicely. Sure, it is short, but it is also the Chapter where you have to make the largest number of decisions that affect the game, so I guess coding that also takes time and effort.
Riposte said:
Scoia'tael, chapter 3: Is there true difference sneaking into the jail different than getting arrested? I know there wasn't trying to get to the Nilfgard camp(you can't not be caught, right?).
People are reporting you cannot get your equipment back, which is suicide even on Normal. Fearing that I went through the sewers.
Lostconfused said:
But they really need to resolve this Nilfgaard is on the verge of conquering the entire northern region plot. They were on that verge for the past 10 years or something.
It can just be a backdrop for Witcher 3. Geralt couldn't give a damn about Northern Kingdoms, the reason he went against Nilfgaard before was personal (book spoiler:
It can just be a backdrop for Witcher 3. Geralt couldn't give a damn about Northern Kingdoms, the reason he went against Nilfgaard before was personal (book spoiler:
I believe a return to Nilfgaard is exactly the reason why they're slowly bringing back Geralt's memory. Technically, he still is missing most of the big picture outside of the deal with the Wild Hunt. I'm curious how much they'll bring back because most players won't be familiar with it.
Personally, I'm hoping they don't skimp out on the choices. I'm thinking we'll see Adda next time Redavid pokes his bald ass back into the scene
I was so pumped to see an ending and then...Geralt, Triss and Iorveth leave the gate BANG.
I was wholly satisfied with what had transpired up to that point but I wanted a little cutscene cherry on top. Maybe it was just the expectation that there would be one but I'm not going to like and say that I didn't "what?" when the credits rolled.
I take no issue with the length, the way things came to a head in chapter 3 was incredibly intense and having a drink with Letho in the epilogue was oddly endearing. I fought him just now on my first run to see the battle and I felt a severe pang of guilt when I dealt the final blow.
Of all the allegiances Geralt makes the one with Letho proved the most valuable. He faces the Wild Hunt at his side, takes it upon himself to care for Yennefer despite being a dead weight and makes sure no harm comes to Triss (I was almost certain that she'd suffer the same fate as Eilhart). Letho really had nothing to gain by what he did on Geralt's behalf. When and if a sequel arrives I'm going to carry over the save where I let him walk.
I can't wait to play the next game, fuck I can't wait to play this game again.
Gimme some DLC where I can use my crazy endgame equipment though. By the time I was fully kitted out I only got to use it twice (once if I chose to Letho go).
Adding arbitrary numerical value to express my enjoyment of the game: 9.5/10 (for now) basically because of the screwy leveling system that throws like 2/3rds of all the levels at you in the latter half of chapter 2. Also the lack of baller equipment until the point where you can't even use it.
Still, it's the most engrossed I have been in an RPG since TW1 and it's pretty too.
There has to be post-epilogue DLC: in Chapter 3 one of the recipes requires dragon hide, which I assume you get only by killing the dragon. Also, the game autosaves during post-credits cutscene.
question: so why the wild hunt let go of geralt for a moment is one of the question of the series right?
what I'm thinking is, geralt is very well the tool of chaos for the king. sure, he tries to kick the shit out of geralt now and then, but otherwise he lets geralt run around getting involved with violence and mayhem
another thing that bugs me, is why he wanted the grand master's soul/body or whatever. could it be because the grand master knew of the fate of the world in the ice age? perhaps the king of the hunt is involved with that somehow?
I have a question: Does anyone else feel that the last dialogue with Letho is like one big information dump? It just comes across as blatant exposition when you think about it - it would have been great if CDProjekt could have achieved more elaborate or subtle storytelling instead of this huge "You completed game: Now let me tell everything that is needed to be explained through regular dialogue." Like I mentioned earlier, it reminds me of
Vigil
in Mass Effect 1 and
Kreya
in KOTOR2, which most agree isn't the best way to tie up any loose knots.
It just seems too simple and primitive. I would have liked something a little bit less obvious and 'lazy' (can't think of the correct term).
I accidently right-clicked the last cutscene of Triss, Geralt and Iorveth at the castle gate, what the hell did I miss?
Also, I don't really remember but did Geralt think Yennefer was taken by the Hunt in TW1? I can't remember the instance when Yennefer and who she was was even revealed to him. I should really play TW1 again.
I'd have felt robbed it it wasn't given how I read that situation. From early on, one of Geralt's primary reasons for chasing after Letho, apart from clearing his name, is to ask him questions about their past and the Wild Hunt - he is Geralt's only known source of information. It's different from ME1 where the primary focus was to repel the Reaper attack and Vigil turns out to be a convenient info-dump in aiding Shepard to do so. In Witcher 2, there's no reason for Letho to keep things hidden from Geralt, since he was captured by Nilfgaardian forces while attempting to assassinate their Ambassador, and his involvement in the deaths of Demavend and Foltest was already publicized. All he did was give Geralt a first-hand account of events he is bound to hear.
Letho always came off as reluctant to fight Geralt on account of their past adventures together, and it seemed that he was willing to divulge every bit of information he could if it meant Geralt and Letho could part ways without bloodshed at their inevitable confrontation. There was even a significant line during the Henselt campaign where Letho mentions that Geralt is dangerous purely because he does not know all the facts surrounding his life. If Geralt had chased down Letho and Letho then made all the disclosures he did, then I'd have agreed it was an info dump. Here, it felt that revealing Geralt's circumstances was all Letho wanted to do to escape his possible death, and he even rescues Triss as a sort of insurance for Geralt to at least give him the time of the day. Letho takes the initiative in this case.
As the game went on, I just couldn't see him as the villain anymore - the meddlesome sorceresses and the spider-like Nilfgaardian Ambassador ( and by extension, the Emperor ) were the real villains. All I wanted by the game's end was to have an open conversation with him, and the game delivered on that. I was a tad disappointed at what seemed like a forced fight when Geralt's only conversation option was to choose "I've heard enough. This ends here", or something to that effect, only for the game to positively surprise me by allowing me to walk away.
You know what I love about this game? All of the characters have believable motivations for the most part. There aren't many 'characitures' or clichés. Even if you hate a particular character, you can at least understand why they are motivated to do what they do.
Lime said:
I have a question: Does anyone else feel that the last dialogue with Letho is like one big information dump? It just comes across as blatant exposition when you think about it - it would have been great if CDProjekt could have achieved more elaborate or subtle storytelling instead of this huge "You completed game: Now let me tell everything that is needed to be explained through regular dialogue." Like I mentioned earlier, it reminds me of
Vigil
in Mass Effect 1 and
Kreya
in KOTOR2, which most agree isn't the best way to tie up any loose knots.
It just seems too simple and primitive. I would have liked something a little bit less obvious and 'lazy' (can't think of the correct term).
Normally stuff like this sucks in games, but I thought it worked and made sense with Letho. Letho was the only one in a position to know just about everything. He knew about Geralt, Yennefer, the intentions of Nilfgaard, the Lodge of Sorceresses, etc...
Furthermore, he doesn't want to fight Geralt. They were friends at one point and Letho doesn't want Geralt as an enemy. It was in his best interests to fill Geralt in.
Witcher 1's ending cutscene was a cliffhanger for 2. This is much worse, we don't get any continuation, we just deal with the kingslayer and just take off to get ready for a trip to hunt down the sorceresses and deal with a nilffgaardian invasion or whatever else
actually i just regurgitated everything you just said!
What? The intricate political stuff is just the background for Geralt's story. The only reason Geralt will be going south is to find Yennefer, learn about the Hunt, and recover his memory. Obviously the political stuff is going to play a major role in the next game, but that's not Geralt's motivation. On the whole, he doesn't much give a damn about Nilfgaard or the Sorceresses.
What? The intricate political stuff is just the background for Geralt's story. The only reason Geralt will be going south is to find Yennefer, learn about the Hunt, and recover his memory. Obviously the political stuff is going to play a major role in the next game, but that's not Geralt's motivation. On the whole, he doesn't much give a damn about Nilfgaard or the Sorceresses.
This is what I like about the Witcher games - Geralt always has a personal motive for doing the things he does. Unfortunately for him, he gets in way over his head, and is bullied into doing things by powerful people, like Foltest, Henselt, etc.The one time I made Geralt do something that affected the political future - allowing Henselt to be killed - is the one time I felt like I had made a serious misstep. The thing is, Geralt is not ignorant of the high-stakes political game that the monarchs and sorceresses are playing - he seems well-acquainted to its rules, as evidenced by his profound understanding of Radovid's plans for Temeria. In the end, I don't expect the sorceresses and kingdoms to be wiped out, but for them to indirectly place various obstacles in Geralt's path while he supposedly sets out to the place in Nilfgaard Sile directs him to.
On a related note, I'm wondering what's going to happen to the fates of Geralt and Yennefer, and whether their eventual meeting will end in tragedy as foretold - wouldn't surprise me given how the world is portrayed.
I'd have felt robbed it it wasn't given how I read that situation. From early on, one of Geralt's primary reasons for chasing after Letho, apart from clearing his name, is to ask him questions about their past and the Wild Hunt - he is Geralt's only known source of information. It's different from ME1 where the primary focus was to repel the Reaper attack and Vigil turns out to be a convenient info-dump in aiding Shepard to do so. In Witcher 2, there's no reason for Letho to keep things hidden from Geralt, since he was captured by Nilfgaardian forces while attempting to assassinate their Ambassador, and his involvement in the deaths of Demavend and Foltest was already publicized. All he did was give Geralt a first-hand account of events he is bound to hear.
Letho always came off as reluctant to fight Geralt on account of their past adventures together, and it seemed that he was willing to divulge every bit of information he could if it meant Geralt and Letho could part ways without bloodshed at their inevitable confrontation. There was even a significant line during the Henselt campaign where Letho mentions that Geralt is dangerous purely because he does not know all the facts surrounding his life. If Geralt had chased down Letho and Letho then made all the disclosures he did, then I'd have agreed it was an info dump. Here, it felt that revealing Geralt's circumstances was all Letho wanted to do to escape his possible death, and he even rescues Triss as a sort of insurance for Geralt to at least give him the time of the day. Letho takes the initiative in this case.
As the game went on, I just couldn't see him as the villain anymore - the meddlesome sorceresses and the spider-like Nilfgaardian Ambassador ( and by extension, the Emperor ) were the real villains. All I wanted by the game's end was to have an open conversation with him, and the game delivered on that. I was a tad disappointed at what seemed like a forced fight when Geralt's only conversation option was to choose "I've heard enough. This ends here", or something to that effect, only for the game to positively surprise me by allowing me to walk away.
I was talking about this as a tool for storytelling in a formal way - I didn't mean the motivations for Letho explaining everything as a reason for this info dump. But like Zefah and you mentioned, in this particular case there's an increased valid reason for why he is doing what he is doing. I just figured, considering the way chapter 3 appears kind of rushed, that the use of heavy-handed exposition was due to CDProjekt running out of time and not having the option of conveying the same information in a much more subtle and elaborate way. That's why I in my original post kind of wished they would have done it differently.
But agreed on all accounts. I felt the exact same way about the encounter with Letho. One of the high moments of the game.
Having loaded up a late Act III save from my first playthrough and choosing a different option, I came across completely different events that change the balance of power in the world considerably. Thus, I don't see the game as being rushed; rather, it's similar to Alpha Protocol in that the fates of the various characters are forging ahead in parallel, and Geralt is only able to witness a select few of these, while remaining in the dark about the others during that particular playthrough. If anything, I'm thoroughly impressed that CDPR managed to flesh out alternate paths to such an extent. Now that I've seen two different ways how things work out during Roche's path, I'm itching to give Iorveth's path a try.
I'm curious - are you stating that the game felt rushed because it didn't focus on the eventual fates of the sorceresses or the Nilfgaard invasion ? Or was it because Act III is tiny compared to the colossi that occur before. In that case, what if CDPR had refrained from using acts as a naming convention and left the rest of the game as it is ? I'm getting the feeling that if Witcher 2 had no acts at all and was presented as a continuous story (implicitly it is one already), the notion of it being a tad rushed would tend to dissipate.
I think in the end you really come to realize that Letho was only making himself available. Some of the wretched characters you deal with, scheming, fucking you over, I had no issues letting Letho walk, especially after he revealed the truth about Yennefer, and for a second time protected Triss.
My question is, why hasn't Yennefer searched for Geralt? Could she as well have amnesia?
I think in the end you really come to realize that Letho was only making himself available. Some of the wretched characters you deal with, scheming, fucking you over, I had no issues letting Letho walk, especially after he revealed the truth about Yennefer, and for a second time protected Triss.
My question is, why hasn't Yennefer searched for Geralt? Could she as well have amnesia?
Thus, I don't see the game as being rushed; rather, it's similar to Alpha Protocol in that the fates of the various characters are forging ahead in parallel, and Geralt is only able to witness a select few of these, while remaining in the dark about the others during that particular playthrough. If anything, I'm thoroughly impressed that CDPR managed to flesh out alternate paths to such an extent. Now that I've seen two different ways how things work out during Roche's path, I'm itching to give Iorveth's path a try.
I'm leaning towards this a lot now. I still feel that my first playthrough wasn't completely satisfying but going back and making a few different decisions has been pretty awesome seeing what's changed. I think it just needed to be handled better to provide better closure. They way they presented it made it feel a bit empty. If Geralt had some sort of cool dialogue at the end that would had been nice. Another issue was the false hope after the credits cutscene. I'm not sure why that was even needed.
I looked at the entirety of Chapter 3 and the epilogue as the ending since finding Triss and Letho was all that Geralt was truly driven by at that point in the story. The various reveals during Chapter 3 that the sorceresses were involved in neck-deep dung provided closure to something I've been wanting to hear about since 2007 when I saw Philippa talk to Triss through the mirror. Letho's story conclusion might very well be one of my favorite endings to an 'antagonist'. All in all, the game concluded the story of the Kingslayers while teasing us with what's in store for the series. If they had tried to resolve the matter of the sorceresses and the Nilfgaard invasion in the same game as well, it would have diluted the story's focus, and would have done grave injustice to the issues of the sorceresses and Nilfgaard, which are worthy of full-fledged games of their own.
Regarding the empty feeling, that seems intentional. Listening to the various dialog from Triss and Roche, it appears that it was an utter bloodbath with the armies clashing in the chaos, the mages being hunted, and Geralt was at the heart of it all. There is even a mage woman who goes mad in the ensuing fighting, and Geralt even remarks that the whole world has gone mad. I think the intent was to show that the Northern Kingdoms were reeling, and that the Nilfgaard invasion never stood a better chance. This 'defeated' tone is what made the Letho conversation have such an impact on me - the entire world's gone to shit due to the actions of the two Witchers, and they just share a drink while figuring out where to go from there.
Having loaded up a late Act III save from my first playthrough and choosing a different option, I came across completely different events that change the balance of power in the world considerably. Thus, I don't see the game as being rushed; rather, it's similar to Alpha Protocol in that the fates of the various characters are forging ahead in parallel, and Geralt is only able to witness a select few of these, while remaining in the dark about the others during that particular playthrough. If anything, I'm thoroughly impressed that CDPR managed to flesh out alternate paths to such an extent. Now that I've seen two different ways how things work out during Roche's path, I'm itching to give Iorveth's path a try.
I'm curious - are you stating that the game felt rushed because it didn't focus on the eventual fates of the sorceresses or the Nilfgaard invasion ? Or was it because Act III is tiny compared to the colossi that occur before. In that case, what if CDPR had refrained from using acts as a naming convention and left the rest of the game as it is ? I'm getting the feeling that if Witcher 2 had no acts at all and was presented as a continuous story (implicitly it is one already), the notion of it being a tad rushed would tend to dissipate.
I agree with your first paragraph. That is the exact same way I consider to be CDProjekt's intention. However, even though there is a lot of content depending on your choices, and that the story is only seen from Geralt's viewpoint (so all events are not entirely explained nor experienced), chapter 3 has some issues in regard to pacing and closure, imo.
It mostly stems from the fact that it is paced awkwardly compared to the amount of new stuff that comes to light: the political intrigue for instance or the many new characters you are introduced to. I know this is due to setting up a sequel/expansion, but the amount of interaction with the sorceresses and sudden closure of their plotlines suggest chapter 3 wasn't finished completely as originally intended, compared to the pacing and feeling of resolution in the previous chapters. The former chapters had great beginnings, middles, and ends, but the pacing and lack of content suggest CDprojekt needed to finish up quickly, as far as I can tell. The complete lack of interesting sidequests also seems to indicate something was amiss. The way some of the knots are tied up seems quickly done, e.g. what happened to the judgement of Stennis (NPC shows up -> trigger a short animatic).
And I've mentioned myself that it would have been prudent for CDProjekt to have renamed the chapter 3 to something less akin to Chapter 1+2, which would prepare the player's expectations. It wouldn't have changed my perspective though, seeing how I was already prepared for the sudden closure of the game.
But still, Chapter 3 is not as bad as I make it out to be. Do not misunderstand me on this. It's still a decent experience. However, there's just much potential that wasn't fulfilled, and compared to the excellent previous chapters, it just wasn't up to par.
