The Witcher 2 was praised on the podcast, by critics and consumers, but it took a long time for me to truly delve into it. I had heard it was hard to get into, and I can be a real pussy when it comes to play "hard" games. I'm glad I didn't stay away though, cause The Witcher 2 is now one of my favorite games. I did every monster quest, side quest, dice poker and arm wrestling competition. I even tracked down every little side thing from the sign enhancing shrines to the Vran armor and legendary weapons. I can truly say that I haven't been this immersed in a games universe and lore since Skyrim. It might also explain why my first playthough of The Witcher 2 ended up taking around 53 hours.

The choices you are forced to make really made me stop and think about the consequences at times, especially near the end. My view of Geralt is that he always prioritizes his own path, though still caring for those closest to him. The worlds political workings and machinations are not his concern, and when faced with them he only gets involved if they benefit his path or prove unavoidable. He doesn't kill humans unless absolutely necessary, and is loyal to the path of the witcher.

The first major choice you are faced with is to choose between Roche or Iorveth. I chose Roche as I felt an obligation to him and that his path might lead to more answers. In hindsight I somewhat regret this as I felt responsible for the outcome of the race war. Though I have to say I loved the side quests and secondary plot of the chapter. The curse, characters and surroundings were terrific. It'll be interesting to see what drastic changes will occur if I choose Iorveths path the second time around.

I let Roche kill king Henselt, something that probably didn't help the Kingdom, but I found him unfit to rule. He would meet his demise sooner or later. On to the third chapter and I faced the hardest choice so far... save Triss or help Roche secure Foltests children. I chose Triss, as I felt this was ultimately about Geralds story and ambitions, and he should choose accordingly. This is something I don't regret.

For the final confrontation, I chose to fight and kill Letho. My reason for not letting him go is that I view him as a "lost" Witcher. He was bought by promises I doubt would be kept, and in the process formed into and an assassin that no longer held any code or life sacred. A shell of his former self, like a sick dog that needed to be put down. I might choose differently the next time.

I couldn't be more excited for Witcher 3 now, and I'm also thinking about jumping into the books. The fiction really fascinates me and I'd love to learn more.

What choices did you guys make? I'd like to hear some differing opinions.

Some screenshots:

Gallery

@fetchfox: I also only played it for the first time this year, pretty much made the same decisions as you did. I was trying to base my decisions off what I think would be the most reasonable for Geralt the character, rather than what I the player would do, and that made the Iorveth/Roche decision kinda hard. Ultimately I went with Roche because I didn't really see any advantages to going with Iorveth. He's a great character, but motivation wise, if Geralt tries to be neutral and not get into politics, siding with a wanted terrorist who's previously tried to kill him (and in my case, who was in prison because of me) made little sense. As far as Geralt wanting to find Triss, it was a journey of several days either way, and the few hours you lose siding with Roche don't make much of a difference, but you do get to save a town from an oppressive crook, so even if Geralt is the kinda guy that wants to get involved and help people, it still works out.

Also with regards to the war, you have a greater affect on the outcome (though in the opposite way) if you side with Iorveth. Apart from getting rid of the curse, you don't really do much to help Henselt's cause, and the curse was a threat to both sides anyway. Essentially, Roche's path felt more neutral and "witcher-y" than the LotR/Freedom Fighters style plot on the other side.

I actually played through a large part of both Iorveth and Roche's chapter 2 at the same time. Got a bit into Roche's, went back and got into Iorveth's a bit, and so on. I think Roche's is more interesting, and has better pacing, but Iorveth's path is still good. The main problem I had with Iorveth's path is that there's a lot instances where a character goes "we won't let you continue with this thing until you do this thing" and then "the person that told you to do that thing is gone, go do some other stuff til they get back".

I also chose Triss over Foltest's kids, and don't regret that at all. Roche's ending when you do that is pretty awesome anyway, but I do highly recommend loading a save and choosing the other option to see what happens. Roche does some pretty wild stuff.

Also, was anyone ever able to lie about Roche's killing of Henselt? I could say that Geralt did it, but attempting to say I knew nothing always failed, even with my persuasion maxed out.

I made the same choices as you except that I let Letho go as I knew he would have my back if we ever ran into each other again.

I highly recommend the books, they are really good and the translations are well done.

I bought the game a year ago and finally got deep into it the past few weeks. It's really, really cool. It has a unique feel and some damn good combat. Kingdoms of Amalur was being sold as a big RPG with a twitch-combat system (which it was), but The Witcher 2 already pulled that off a year prior.

Read The Last Wish and found a fan-translation of Sword of Destiny. Now I'm working through Blood of Elves and enjoying every minute in that world.

Finished this a couple of months ago, literally gave me a gaming hangover for 4 weeks. Everything I put in gave me no pleasure, I ended up slumming it with old 6's I had in my backlog as I knew I wasn't going to get much from them. CANNOT wait for 3!

I've finished it earlier this year and on my first playthrough, I chose exactly the same options than you. But, as the credits rolled, I wasn't happy. So, immediately, loaded a previous save, right before the decision of choosing between Roche or Iorveth. This time, I sided with Iorveth. The game is so much different on the second chapter with a bunch of new characters to know and a whole new place to explore with different quests. You miss litteraly half a game if you play it only once. Now, I have two final saves to use on Witcher 3, but it's almost certain I will use the Iorveth one. It's the one it feels right.

Witcher 2 is fantastic, though perhaps the best part is Henselt's belt; I mean look at that thing.

Letho is too good of a character to just die I think, be interesting to see what they do with him in 3. Roche is awesome, Iorveth is alright.

@brackstone Seems we have a similar view of that world. I also could not lie, only take blame for the killing. @corevi I'll definitely check out the books when I get the time.

@moldiver I'm afraid I might fall into the same "hangover". I at least won't be playing anything ells that big for some time. @bakumatsu I've kept a save right before the Roche/Iorveth choice so I'll probably soon jump into that part of the story. Who knows, I might import that into Witcher 3 instead. For those of you that didn't know, save import is confirmed, at least on PC. It'll be interesting to see how it impacts the story and world.

I've recently finished my second playthrough. And man, was I blown away again. The first time I sided with Roche and killed Letho, this time I went with Iorveth and let Letho go. It almost felt like a completely different narrative with the way the second and third chapters played out. I would strongly recommend a second playthrough just to see how different the consequences are if you make different choices. Also, you'll learn some new stuff about some of the characters and meet some new ones. Can't wait to try out both saves in The Witcher 3.

@fetchfox: I wouldn't expect too much from the save import. I used a Witcher 1 save in Witcher 2 and it changed very little. Just some dialogue and 1 or 2 sidequests.

@dimi3je: I just started up again and went with Iorveth. I'm really interested to see if it spawns any significant changes towards the end. @corevi: I think it'll be more than that. Considering they announced it and talked about it (even looking into options to make it work on console). I sincerely hope it'll be more than just some gear like last time.

I liked the Witcher 2, but I disliked its gameplay enough that I don't feel much inclination to go back and beat it again, even if I slightly regret siding with Iorveth. I also thought the first Witcher had a much more interesting story. Certainly a more compact story.

@corevi: Well functionally the world is lacking more or less kings and may or may not have a free nation ruled by something that isn't human, presumably all of those things would play into the story somehow. Redania isn't very far from the Pontar Valley.

I also sided with Roche, mostly because I really didn't like Iorveth at all, and ever since the first game I have an immense dislike for the Sociatel, since their idea of freedom is to pretty much be terrorists and murderers themselves. I know humanity was putting them down, but by doing this, they're just making it worse for the people they're supposedly fighting for. Roche on the other hand didn't even give a shit about the whole conflict, and instead wanted to find the King Slayer. Easy decision for me.

The hardest choice in the game was definitely whether to spare or kill Henselt, and in the end I ended up letting the guy live. At that point there was literally no reason to kill the King other than personal revenge. He already won, his Kingdom was thriving due to him, so if you let Roche murder him, you cripple an entire nation - just look at what happened to Temeria. So despite the fact that even I really wanted to murder the bastard, I kept him alive for the sake of the North.

I just let Letho live, since like Henselt above, there was absolutely no reason to kill him at that point since he won. He successfully dismantled the leadership of the North as he was tasked to do, so killing him is utterly pointless and does nothing to stop the war that's going to be arriving. Plus, he's actually a pretty cool dude at the end, explaining absolutely EVERYTHING to you - seriously, that conversation goes on for like twenty minutes if you let him explain everything. In the end he was just doing his job, like any other Witcher would do.

Man I'm SUPER excited for the third game though. I'm so bummed that it isn't coming out this year, but I know it'll be even better because of it.

@veektarius: What didn't you like about the gameplay? I love it personally, it's amazing when you master the moves and signs to fully work for you. @random45 You should really check out Iorveths side, it's an interesting tale. Don't focus on him alone when choosing. I might let Letho live this next time as I'm interested in how he might be a part of The Witcher 3.

@fetchfox: It was just very clicky and not very tactical. And aside from the combat there was a lot of time wasted on retracing your steps/hunting through confusing maps for something in particular. I like the idea of the traps and toxins and what have you, but in your average encounter they weren't very important. I'd say typically I just used Yrden on anything that I couldn't hack to death through clicking.

I made all the same choices as you save one; in the end I let Letho live. Yes he was an asshole, but at that point killing him would have served no one.