[Megathread] Witcher 3

[Velshin]

Well, for starters, those vampires are straight from Buffy. Look at their faces man?

Secondly, vampires in witcher universe looked normal, they didnt have any "beast mode" which changed their physical appearance. I talk about higher vampires ofc.

There was also no bullshit rules like "only vampire can kill a vampire" created solely to justify fan service.

You know, I liked that new info about only high vampire kill another high vampire because it give us a chance to see Geralt being overpowered by another enemy. Because let us be honest for the most part of Witcher 3 Geralt seems unbeatable and you can see how he defeated Eredin in the cinematic. Only Imlerith gave him a challenge.

[Aliven]

You know, I liked that new info about only high vampire kill another high vampire because it give us a chance to see Geralt being overpowered by another enemy. Because let us be honest for the most part of Witcher 3 Geralt seems unbeatable and you can see how he defeated Eredin in the cinematic. Only Imlerith gave him a challenge.

But Geralt didnt get overpowered.
You talk about gameplay, i talk about lore.

[Velshin]

But Geralt didnt get overpowered.
You talk about gameplay, i talk about lore.

No I meant in lore in Witcher 3 Geralt was way too powerful to the point he was defeating his enemies with ease and without breaking a sweat. Only Imlerith put out a good fight (talking about lore and cinematic not gameplay stuff). So watching Geralt almost lost in his first fight there with Dettlaf and how he got stomped by the Elder vampire was a nice change

[Jastall]

Storywise i would consider the first one to be the least relevant, while it obviously starts off the story, Witcher 2 does bring you the fundamental points early on to understand the story.
Witcher 2 is kinda relevant to understand a rather massive sideplot of Witcher 3, while Witcher 3 also tries to explain this, it's not as good for someone totally new to the Witcher Universe (or game series).

Lastly, the first one has rather bad gameplay, the second one is at least passable but most certainly makes up with it's story.
In a vacuum i enjoyed the main plot of Witcher 2 more than Witcher 3.

Witcher 2 however has the massive disadvantage of having one of the worst prologue stages i have ever played in a video game, on easier difficulties you can just brute force your way through it but on higher difficulties it's one of the most difficult points in the entire game.

Oh I remember the release of TW2. It was even worse at the time, the fight with that prince dude was crushingly difficult, so was that Nekker-filled cave in Flotsam. Easily one of the worst balanced early game I've seen too.

[Aliven]

No I meant in lore in Witcher 3 Geralt was way too powerful to the point he was defeating his enemies with ease and without breaking a sweat. Only Imlerith put out a good fight (talking about lore and cinematic not gameplay stuff). So watching Geralt almost lost in his first fight there with Dettlaf and how he got stomped by the Elder vampire was a nice change

But he didnt get stomped by Detlaf.
Also, Geralt was doing his job for decades, no wonder he can easily overpower most enemies with experience and skills.

[Velshin]

But he didnt get stomped by Detlaf.
Also, Geralt was doing his job for decades, no wonder he can easily overpower most enemies with experience and skills.

Getting stomped by the Elder Vampire not talking about Dettlaf. Also it was a fact that Geralt first fight with Dettlaf if Regis didnt interrupt the fight, Geralt would have been dead.

[Aliven]

Getting stomped by the Elder Vampire not talking about Dettlaf. Also it was a fact that Geralt first fight with Dettlaf if Regis didnt interrupt the fight, Geralt would have been dead.

I didnt actually get Elder Vampire or whatever it was called. Was so irritated with the whole story and characters that i just wanted it all end as fast as possible.

Also, please, the fight in the warehouse was classic example of shitty story. You OWN Dettlaff like there is no tomorrow and basically kill him gameplay wise only to jump into cinematic showing how he is badass.

[Velshin]

I didnt actually get Elder Vampire or whatever it was called. Was so irritated with the whole story and characters that i just wanted it all end as fast as possible.

Also, please, the fight in the warehouse was classic example of shitty story. You OWN Dettlaff like there is no tomorrow and basically kill him gameplay wise only to jump into cinematic showing how he is badass.

Well yeah but it was you who wanted lore and gameplay wise am I correct? :P lorewise Geralt would have lost that fight at the end but yeah gameplay wise is something else I agree. :P

Pity that you didn't do the Elder vampire route I think you would love the dlc better because that route is dark and not as colorful and dandy as the other one haha. :P

[Aliven]

Well yeah but it was you who wanted lore and gameplay wise am I correct? :P lorewise Geralt would have lost that fight at the end but yeah gameplay wise is something else I agree. :P

Pity that you didn't do the Elder vampire route I think you would love the dlc better because that route is dark and not as colorful and dandy as the other one haha. :P

I actually liked color and dandies :P Nice change from mostly bleak base game and HoS :P

[Velshin]

I actually liked color and dandies :P Nice change from mostly bleak base game and HoS :P

Haha change of style for sure.

What I liked about the elder vampire route that it ties up to the "Night to Remember" trailer with Orianna, which was a nice touch indeed.

[Drakain]

Magic in the Witcher world isn't actually hereditary unfortunately. In fact mages "breeding" so to say, especially together, has a higher risk of leading to medical issues. Vilgefortz was also an anomaly, the most powerful sorcerer known to man at that point. A lot about him is entirely unkown as he rejected his initial recruitment into Ban Ard (the male mage school) and went about on his own instead. Weaving magic and the staff he uses together in combat wouldn't allow for a Witcher type of combat in that sense, you wouldn't be a Witcher anymore, you'd just be a sorcerer.

I'm also not entirely sure whether the need for Witchers is as high as we'd like to think. While an all out conjunction right here right now at the time of the Witcher 3 would be disastrous, we already know that regular knights are becoming more capable in regards to monster hunting. The Flaming Rose even focus on it in large parts and in the books it's said that the biggest threat to humanity would really just be dragons (they're mostly extinct as far as we know), not regular monsters. Regular monsters are seen as a nuisance at best and while they require a bit of manpower we also have to take into account technological advancements. Monsters are already somewhat dealt with now, but once better weapons become available there will be even less need for Witchers.

Don’t forget that Yennefer is the one that made that particular argument and, as with a lot of things, she had an ulterior motive for wanting to have a dragon killed. Witcher’s weren’t needed as much, but remember that dandelion pointed out that there was plenty of work in cities. It just that geralt, and Witcher’s in general, weren’t really welcomed in cities because people were afraid of them. So part of it might also be a consequence of geralt avoided those places.

[Aliven]

Magic in the Witcher world isn't actually hereditary unfortunately. In fact mages "breeding" so to say, especially together, has a higher risk of leading to medical issues. Vilgefortz was also an anomaly, the most powerful sorcerer known to man at that point. A lot about him is entirely unkown as he rejected his initial recruitment into Ban Ard (the male mage school) and went about on his own instead. Weaving magic and the staff he uses together in combat wouldn't allow for a Witcher type of combat in that sense, you wouldn't be a Witcher anymore, you'd just be a sorcerer.

I'm also not entirely sure whether the need for Witchers is as high as we'd like to think. While an all out conjunction right here right now at the time of the Witcher 3 would be disastrous, we already know that regular knights are becoming more capable in regards to monster hunting. The Flaming Rose even focus on it in large parts and in the books it's said that the biggest threat to humanity would really just be dragons (they're mostly extinct as far as we know), not regular monsters. Regular monsters are seen as a nuisance at best and while they require a bit of manpower we also have to take into account technological advancements. Monsters are already somewhat dealt with now, but once better weapons become available there will be even less need for Witchers.

Vilgefortz wasnt the most powerful sorcerer. He was pretty amazing as of somebody in his age. Hen Gedymeith, Tissaia de Vries and plenty of others were much, much more powerful. Dont forget that our books protagonists, Yen and Triss are also considered "young". Hell, Francesca Findabair openly threaten Yennefer that she can pack her again if she misbehave.
Also, magic users could not have babies. Minus of magic. It was one of the motivation of Yennefer to find a cure.

And yes, the world, presented in the books, didnt need that much of witchers because for the past centuries witchers systematically exterminated monsters to the point of extinction most of them. And what can do one Manticore without one we can also see in the books.

- - - Updated - - -

Don’t forget that Yennefer is the one that made that particular argument and, as with a lot of things, she had an ulterior motive for wanting to have a dragon killed. Witcher’s weren’t needed as much, but remember that dandelion pointed out that there was plenty of work in cities. It just that geralt, and Witcher’s in general, weren’t really welcomed in cities because people were afraid of them. So part of it might also be a consequence of geralt avoided those places.

Not really, witchers were ignored in cities mostly. For common folk it was just another mercenary type.

[FireVoodoo]

Hello guys!

I posted it on Reddit & Nexus couple of weeks earlier but apparently those forums are dead. Will try my luck here.

So I just spent two last month in W3 universe (yes I’m little bit slow but hey – it is better late than never) and after picking my jaw from the floor I must declare W3 is not just the best game to this day, it is masterpiece.

Now I would like to discuss the cannon ending for the series and the game itself a little bit. First things first though: I would like to apologize for my English, I am Russian, but I will do my best not to butcher it too much.

Regardless whom you chose Triss or Shani you’ll end up with Triss at the start of W2. Shani will even scold you in HoS for leaving her. Likewise, whether you spare Aryan his mother will end up with Nilfgaardians. Even better: whether you chose Roche or Iorveth, the latter is nowhere to be seen while the former will act as if you are old pals in W3. Rescuing Sheala will only end up with you granting her coup de grace in prison in W3 (oh the ridiculousness of it).

Therefore there IS some cannon ending in W3 which will provide the state of the world for W4 (whatever the name or MC).

The main questions of W3 are the outcome of the war and Ciri’s destiny. As for the latter, I’m not entirely sure and will discuss it later, while the former is clear: Nilfgaard won & Temeria is its vassal state.

My reasons are obvious parallels both books and games provide with the actual medieval European powers of predominantly XIII-XIV centuries (with some minor anachronisms). Because we know the outcome of their struggles, we can safely predict the outcome of struggles of their W-counterparts.

First, let’s look at the South and the North in general. Both worship something the same but not entirely the same: Great Sun of the South vs Eternal Fire of the North. Which is clear metaphor for the different flavors of Christianity. In this sense, The South is obviously Catholic part of Slavic world, while the North represents the Orthodox. Both books and game lore are very clear on that. If you still think, it is the other way around - there is Toussaint (literally “All Saints’ Day” in French) for you. In the South. Obviously, Southerners and Nordlings love each other dearly like good Catholics and Orthodox did back then.

As for the kingdoms themselves. Nilfgaard is the Kingdom of Poland circa XIII-XIV, Temeria – is the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (thus Vizima is Wilno), Redania is Grand Duchy of Moscow apparently, while all other northern realms are the rest of warring Russian kingdoms and principalities like Principality of Tver etc. Novigrad is Novgorod (geopolitically at least) – though visually it is more like Gdansk, while Oxenfurt is Kiev and thus Oxenfurt Academy is kind of Kiev Mohyla Academy. Btw townies and villagers of Kiev area shared Stjepan’s sentiments towards Kiev Academy’s students wholeheartedly. Wild Hunt thus is kind of Golden Horde. Btw despite all the cliché about the Horde in the West it was the one of the most technologically developed military power at the time with very sophisticated Chinese siege machinery, logistic systems etc. Orient-inspired architecture of their settlements included.

There are heavy political, cultural and even visual allusions in both books and games for that.

Nilfgaard. The most influential and civilized power of the W-world (created by Poles) is clearly the Kingdom of Poland in its glory days when it spread the Light of Catholicism, Western culture etc. to those unwashed Orthodox barbarians.

Unique political system. While Nilfgaard is still normal medieval European monarchy, there are already the signs of things to come: rise of powerful and ignorant aristocracy undermining power of the king (and eventually of the whole state in couple hundreds of years). The history of Emhyr’s struggle with his magnates is very telling: he managed to defeat the coup to impose Morvran Voorhis on his throne, but Morvran himself ended up being the general of the most powerful military unit. He then openly discuss his plans for crown with apparently anyone willing to hear and even ended up becoming the emperor indeed. In any other European monarchy he would rot in prison despite his apparent innocence (neither him nor his father knew about conspiracy) just to be sure, just in case.

Both books and game-narrative (Gwent-cards descriptions included) emphasize that the bulk of Nilfgaard forces is powerful and well-organized cavalry consisted of heavily armored knights with winged helmets. While the rest of its enemies heavily rely on hordes of “pore f***ing infantry”. Obviously, it is famous undefeatable “Husaria”. Poles got the best heavy armored cavalry in Eastern Europe for centuries. For hundreds of years Husaria lost exactly zero battles. The peak of its might was “the Battle of Klushino” in 1610 where 6 800 hussars defeated combined 35 000 Russo-Swedish army. Polish general was none other than famous Stanislaw Zolkiewski. He then proceeded and took over Moscow by the orders of Polish king though he himself was strong opponent of this whole Russian adventure where Poles spent great deal of resources with no practical end.

Nilfgaardian Field Marshal Menno Coehoorn is obvious nod to Zolkiewski (despite his name being reference to other general from Netherlands). The most emotional part of Coehoorn story – circumstances of his death, depicted in book saga – is basically the depiction of Zolkiewski’s failed raid against Ottoman Empire. It was the time when Vienna was about to become the border city between Europe and Turkey so no shame to lost to enemy like that. Hundred years later the first Russian emperor Peter the Great barely escaped with his life from exactly the same sport on the bank of river Prut where Zolkiewski perished.

I can go on and on proving Nilfgaard is Poland, but it is the wall of text already, so my last point is Toussaint – The most beautiful and the easiest recognizable part of the W-world. Supposedly vassal state but apparently said vassal pays no tribute to its Nilfgaard sovereign, takes no part in its military endeavors while its ruler even scolds her suzerain for brutalities of war with the North and demands to stop it at once (sic!). There should be another wall of text about special relations between Poland and France, but I’ll pass.

Temeria. European-styled capital, monarch and aristocracy with clearly Malo-Russian (or Malo-Poland – depending on point of view) looking countryside and peasants. Just check out walls in the inn and other homes in the White Orchard (and in parts of Velen which is in itself clear reference to the Wild Fields – Ukraine (literally “Borderland”) between Poland and Russia) – you can find those ornaments on any folk souvenir in Kiev any day. Along with Toussaint-France, there is yet another absolutely direct and unmistakable historical reference - the “Wild ones” – who are none other than Cossacks (literally “freemen” in Turkish). Not surprisingly, they are placed in Velen. There was only one such state in medieval Europe - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Unlike modern-day Lithuania it stretched from Baltic to Black sea thus being on par with Poland in terms of size and relative military power. The only problem was Lithuanian elite being such a minority they were forced to use Russian in their official documents, with Orthodox Christianity dominating their spiritual life. Thus it safe to say they were de-facto more part of the “North” but more than willing to swap sides. The only problem was – the loss of their Russian territories.

Redania – “Protector of the North” – with its drive to consolidate northern realms - is obvious reference to Grand Duchy of Moscow, which always sought to consolidate ancient Russian lands. While Radovid V – thin tall cleanly shaved power hungry and little bit mad king – is little bit anachronic reference to Peter the Great creator of Russian Empire - who lived couple of hundreds years later.

Now to summarize the geopolitical outcome of W3 all we need is to remember the outcome of the struggle between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: they formed common state called Rzeczpospolita (literally “Republic”) where Poland played the leading role, while Lithuania, forfeiting its Russian lands become minor partner.

In a way, W-games do not continue the story of book saga but rather adopt it in a very creative manner. They adopted it while claiming it is a continuation. Very awkward story with Geralt’s amnesia and voila! Geralt is alive and ready to roll. Still many of his new stories are adaptations of his former ones. Like the story of Renfri killed by Geralt (for which he got his infamous title the “Butcher of Blaviken”) is recycled at least twice in W3. First time when he is to deny the Little Red to exact revenge over traitor-informer (he is to slaughter her altogether with her gang to that). Second time – the whole story of Sylvia Anna (like Renfri – princess exiled because of the Black Sun curse). The list goes on. The main plot repeats book saga main plot as well: Nilfgaard took Temeria as vassal state (Foltest turned on his alleys) while Geralt dies in the end in a very symbolic manner. W3 also tells the story where Geralt is to find and deliver Ciri to Emhyr (the only difference is this time he does know he is her farther). In book saga he does it and is ordered to kill himself by Emhyr along with Yenn. Emhyr’s only clemency is couple of hours Geralt to spend with Yenn before that. The moment Geralt submits he dies regardless of the change of thought Emhyr did after that. Sapkowski illustrates thus the power of destiny when shortly after that Geralt is killed anyways by some no-name peasant with pitchfork and dies along with Yenn who exhausted herself to death trying to heal him.

Anyways as far as geopolitical outcome concerned, we can safely assume, based on historical parallels and on book saga grand finale, that Nilfgaard took Temeria as Vassal state.

A for Geralt and Ciri – I’m not so sure. In book grand finale, Ciri took Geralt and Yenn to Avalon – obvious symbolic metaphor of Paradise. In game series which are in a way rather adaptation than continuation – Geralt ends up in game version of Avalon paradise – Toussaint. In a way, it might be a hint that the cannon ending of W3 is the variation of so-called bad-ending where Geralt physically perishes after taking vengeance to the last Crone while still ending up in Toussaint paradise. Flashbacks from future suggest Morvran Voorhis is the emperor while Ciri is nowhere to be seen.

So what are your thoughts guys?

[GennGreymane]

I've personally taken it as Nilfgaardians winning as cannon as they don't really show signs of being in a weakened imperial state and have a force/garrison ready ingame for you to visit. (very far south in map of Velen)

As for Ciri/Geralt.... I just want the ending where she lives and is a Witcher with Geralt because thats just how I am.

[Airlick]

You are fundamentally wrong in your assumptions, since Redania is obviously modelled after Poland (just looking at their sigil and red & white color palette, in addition to it having a very numerous nobility that is supposed to have equal rights), and Nilfgaard is quite clearly supposed to be Holy Roman Empire. The elven heritage Nilfgaard is boasting is a throwback to Holy Roman Empire claiming it's a successor to Rome. It also makes sense Novigrad is a point of contention since Gdańsk was historically that between Poland and Germany. Nilfgaard is comprised of many semi-independent lands, all only subservient to the emperor on paper., just like Holy Roman Empire. Even their elections are similar.

[Deleted]

Most interesting theory, you lay out some really good cases for Redania being Grand Duchy of Moscow.

That being said, I think the author intended for Redania to represent Poland defending itself from Nilfgaard, the Holy Roman Empire.

[Kralljin]

First off, from a canon standpoint for the Witcher 2 path.

Iorveths path is most likely the canon one, there was a comic released with HoS that took place after Loc Muinne, which shows Vergen victorious and Saskia being (mostly) freed from the spell.

Iorveth however is mentioned and stated that he left Vergen shortly after Loc Muinne.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/The_Wi..._of_Conscience

As for the ending of Witcher 3:

You are looking this from the wrong perspective, historic parallels are there but what decides the actual fate of the north? Geralts decision to (not) aid the asassination of Radovid.

If he doesn't, Radovid wins, plain and simple, the game even mentions (altough rather offhand) that Nilfaardian nobles and Trade Union are pissed at Emhyr for constantly trying to conquer the North, hence they seemingly are holding back a lot of Nilfgaardian forces, setting him up to lose.
Radovid on top of that is stated to be quite the tactician and outplay Emyhr on a military level, even early in the game the Nilfgaardian side outright concedes that they have been played by Radovid by just waiting out the Winter while Radovid used the time to conquer Kaedwen and absorb its forces.

So that is the bottom line: Would Geralt aid Djiskstra and Roche in their coup? Second, would he help Roche against Djiskstra?

And that is in my opinion a difficult question to answer, Djikstra said it best when he accused Geralt after he citied the infamous witcher neutrality "That's a convenient excuse you lot are hiding behind whenever the heat rises"

On the one hand, Geralt has been accused of being a Kingslayer and wants to stay out of politics, on the other it's clear that he has no love for Radovid, Djikstra also tries to win Geralt over by telling him that Radovid will go after Yen and Triss if left unchecked - rather fair points and Geralt been known to disregard a lot of rules if people he likes / loves are in danger.

So, i think Nilfgaard wins the war, but for different reasons:
1.Because Geralt would choose to help Djikstra and Roche to kill Radovid
2.And because he would aid Roche against Djikstra, if Geralt would think entire situation through and knows that this would mean total victory for Nilfgaard he might decide otherwise, but in this heated situation he would probably see just Djikstra as betrayer and aid Roche.

However, as player i find this the most difficult story decision of the entire game, i like Roche but hate Nilfgaard, i like Djikstra and the fact that secures a free North (in the context of being free of Nilfgaardian rule) with some sane leadership, instead of religious fanatics but hate the fact that he betrays Roche and you are supposed to walk away from it like nothing happened.

[Deleted]

Fuck off you ruskie twat.
No offence.

[Deleted]

Most interesting theory, you lay out some really good cases for Redania being Grand Duchy of Moscow.

Yea it make sense. REDania.

[Deleted]

Yea it make sense. REDania.

I fail to see your point. Why bold RED?