Since everyone playing this game on consoles (going to play on PS4, after playing 1 on PC and 2 on 360) won't have the choice to import their saves I find myself in the same situation I found myself with Dragon Age: Inquisition, in that while I do remember a lot of plot points of the previous games I don't actually remember all that many decisions I made in the game.

I know that so far people don't know what decisions will actually carry over, especially not what will actually come up in that barbershop scene on consoles, but I'd still like to do some research in advance.

Does anyone know of a place (written or in video form) that details all the important story aspects and decisions of the previous games (preferably detailing all the split paths)? The site's wiki is okay, but not nearly detailed enough for my tastes.

I know there's a similar thread around (concerned with the story only), but this should be a more general thread on the whole world state mechanic.

Will all of you who are playing on consoles even go ahead and create a world state or will you go with the default? (Regardless of if you played the other games.) It's always interesting to me when people just choose to go with the default for whatever reason.

What site are they using to do this? Or is it in the game? World State is extremely important re: Witcher 2, not sure about 1; however since it's impossible to actually make that work 100% I'd hope for maybe a few unique quests or something. But hey a whole free republic existing, various kings being dead or alive, that shit seems actually important, not just a few random lines of dialogue.

@fredchuckdave: Apparently they're handling it Mass Effect 2 style where you can answer questions in-game to solidify the current state of the world. Hopefully it's far more in-depth than that though.

Whether I engage with that or stick with the default depends on whether it's an all or nothing thing. I only played The Witcher 1, so I don't intend to mess with choices from the second game. I might end up going with the default anyway though, since as I recall, the choices in the first game weren't really all that meaningful. (In a world changing kind of way.)

I hope there is something in game to let you choose that stuff. It'd be a real bummer if I got stuck with something other than what I did in The Witcher II.

Already played The Witcher 2 on 360 two years ago, and am currently playing the first one on Steam. There is going to be a bard that sings of Geralt's past choices, and that's how you make those choices.

@ntm: Dandelion I assume? That seems like a smart way to handle it.

@sessh: This seems to cover most of the major decisions from Witcher 2. (Spoilers, obviously): http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/The_Witcher_2_ending

I doubt very much if anything from the Witcher 1 will influence this new game.

Witcher 1 choices had very very little impact long term. The only one I know of for a fact that could have mattered was whether one particular NPC was alive or not and what their rank was in a particular group. The rest was just a rare passing mention here and there. Witcher 2 on the other hand I can see having real impact, especially your final chapter choices regarding certain characters and the whole reason that scenario was playing out in the first place.

If you really want a brush up I feel witcher 2 is worth a replay. Witcher 1 I would just go looking for some save files online that match your needs :p.

@mooseymcman said:

If you don't import a save or are playing on a console, at some point the game will infer your choices from a specific conversation tree. I'm pretty sure Knights of the Old Republic II did the same thing. They haven't said when this happens or with who, but that seems like a pretty neat way of doing it.

There might not be much in the way of influencing but those players are still gonna need to know what happened in 1 and 2 if they've not played them.

@conmulligan: I see! And PS4 is my only option for the game, so there's no importing for me.

@conmulligan said:

I always wondered why more RPGs didn't handle this stuff like KOTOR II did. It can fit into any context (PC getting to know the party, divulges information about self) and side steps the headache of world state imports. I hope you're right that this is the method they're going with for Wild Hunt.

I remember CDPR saying that your choices from the previous games will have a minimal effect and that even your choices in The Witcher 3 won't change the story much, because they want the player to see everything.

I sincerely hope you are kidding when you say your own in game choices wont have much effect in Witcher 3. That is a massive backwards step. Missing something because of "reasons" is a great way to boost replayability. CDPR should know that by now.

@zeik: I don't know if it's him; they just said a bard as far as I know.

@oldirtybearon said:

Oh, they've already confirmed that's how it'll work:

"The way how it works is that the game on the consoles will ask you whether you want to simulate a specific state of the world, coming from previous games," Tost explained. "If you choose 'yes,' then you will get a special conversation at one part of the game - I don't want to spoil where it happens. It's basically a conversation with a character and the conversation is about the adventures of Geralt of Rivia. And you can basically deny or confirm whatever [the character] has heard of whatever tales of [Geralt.] It's actually kind of a cute mechanic. If you don't want to simulate the state then this conversation doesn't take place."

They don't spell out how sophisticated the system is so I wouldn't be surprised if it only handles major decisions. Still, better than nothing!

That's cool that they're dealing with this stuff organically.

Honestly, though, I'm not going into these choice-based games anymore with big expectations. These days, I'm pretty much okay with everything merging into a center path as long as the rationale isn't Rachni Queen dumb.

I'm not kidding. They said the game will not have a branching story like The Witcher 2.

"However, The Witcher 3 will not have branching storylines. CD Projekt RED wanted everyone to experience the main storyline as it is."

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/23783/article/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-details-new-potion-system-no-branching-story-and-more/

@karkarov: @ezekiel: It's not that your choices won't affect the story, the way they've talked about it, it sounds like they're trying to make those consequences more organic. Your choices and actions will affect the story, but not in the way that The Witcher 2 did where they basically had to make two separate games based on a single binary choice.

It's not really surprising when you consider the scope of the game compared to The Witcher 2. That approach wouldn't make sense for this one.

That makes sense.

How long is Witcher 2? I picked it up on a steam sale a while back but haven't gotten very deep in. Would like to complete a playthrough before W3 drops

It's an unfortunate trade off. I guess we'll see how it pans out in the end. I really liked how in the second game you could go in this completely different direction and miss a whole section of the game.

@kishinfoulux: If it works half as well as they've been talking it up then The Witcher 3's direction has the potential to be much more interesting. Branching paths are cool, but it's nothing games have not done before. A story that organically evolves depending on how you interact with the world, even outside of main story quests, is something many have tried, but nobody (that I can think of) has been able to pull off in a meaningful way.

Like I mentioned earlier, I'm currently playing the first The Witcher, and I just got to the part where you have to choose between Triss and Shani; I'm surprised that you have a choice, and yet there's only one canonical choice, which is Triss, since in two, that's who you're with. It's kind of unfortunate.

@bceagles128: I played through it once, and did everything one playthrough can offer (I say this, since some people have said it should have taken longer when I say how long it took me to finish it, but they always seem to factor in playing through more than once), and it took me around 30 hours. To me it felt too short, and I was expecting more from it before going in, because I thought it was going to be a 40 to 60 hour game on one go, but it wasn't. The length isn't its problem though, I just didn't think it spent enough time developing the characters in a way that made me like them as much as I felt I could have, and I felt it was just getting interesting once the ending came. I still enjoyed the game, but was somewhat disappointed by it. I think now though, since I'm playing the first one, the whole character development thing may not be a problem, and I should say that while I didn't think it spent the best time making the best impression on me, I still liked the characters despite it. So, a little more than 30 hours to do everything on one playthrough. The first one may not be longer, I don't know, but it feels long so far, but I'm going to stop doing any contract side quests where I have to hunt certain creatures. I would fully recommend playing the first one before the second; I know you're probably not going to, but I'd still recommend it to anyone that might question whether they should or not. Oh, and I played two on 360.

@brackstone: Thanks for the link.

@ezekiel: @karkarov: @zeik: From what I've heard about the decisions influencing the game it's true that there'll be no split paths for the main story, but a ton of little alterations. (Apparently there are 3 endings with 108 variations.) Most of the decisions will greatly influence certain quests (mostly side quests I guess), tough, especially in the way you can approach certain things. One example I heard of goes something like this:

Geralt meets a trader claiming to have been attacked by monsters in a swamp and left all his stuff there, barely escaping with his life. Geralt decides to help (or declines of course) and looks for the trader's items. He finds everything and can a) just take it back or b) look around for clues, where he then sees that arrows are stuck in the trader's cart. So the guy was lying. Geralt goes back and can a) just give him his stuff back), b) interrogate him further.

Depending on the dialogue the trader will a) talk and tell Geralt of a rebel hideout, which he plans to supply with his items, b) try to flee. Geralt then either lets him go or chases him down (successfully or not). If he's fast enough the quest ends there. If he runs after him long enough he ends up in the rebel hideout and has to a) talk his way out of it there or b) fight everyone.

Whatever you do, it affects follow up quests (no quests in the rebel hideout if you kill everyone obviously) or if you made friends with them they'll help you in a later quest by opening a secret door for you, where if that's not an option you have an option to do 2-3 other quest lines to get where you want. It goes on like that.

It feels a bit similar to the first Dragon Age in it's approach in my opinion, but like Zeik said, more thought out and flexible, which is a definite plus.

You can also see that replayability still seems to be quite high, since you will have a lot of options that lead to you missing certain quests/entire quest lines.

@ntm Depending on if Shani is actually in the game it could still have some impact. Triss kinda is a mainstay in Geralt's life anyway, since she's pretty much the only other woman besides Yennefer he actually seems to have lasting feelings for. (A lot of that backstory is found in the books.)

Fair enough. I am not concerned about missing an entire section due to story issues, I could understand them wanting to go in a different direction there. My concern is them making it so your in game choices have little to no impact on the story or events of the game. That would be pure insanity and I couldn't imagine them doing something that dumb considering every game they have made so far has made a huge point about player choice having a large impact on the story and progress of the game.

Kind of off topic, but I finished the first game this morning, and really liked it; more than two even aside from very few aspects, but I feel that going back to two now (as I install it on 360), I may enjoy it more than what I remember. I think I'll try to get through two again. I think I'm going to skip all of the contracts you get, which are the simple tasks of slaying certain monsters. I believe that was in two if I remember correctly, but I know it was in one, and when I stopped doing that and progressed further in the story faster, it was a lot better. I remember my time with two, but some of the significance of certain things may have been lost on me.

Edit - Alright, yeah. I'm pretty tired, so I'll play again later, but yeah two is better than it initially was to me. I enjoy it more, both because I now know some of the things they mention, so it matters to me more, and the improvements two makes over the first are very impressive, like combat. Visually, on 360 it's being held back, and I find it unfortunate, but it still looks great. I'm really happy I played through the first, and am now going back through the second. I don't know about others, but for me, it was definitely harder, now that I have played the first, to really get the most out of two. I mean, I remember two clearly, but I didn't know what happened in the first, so any mention of characters or happenings from the first game just blew right past me. Foltest mentions Adda for a brief second, and it's kind of a small thing, but it made me happy and more interested knowing who that was, and what happened to her. I also kind of feel like I'll be getting to know some of the newer characters in two again, and I also question where some of the characters are that were in the first. I like knowing where the game starts exactly and what events took place just prior, as well as know more in depth of what the world is about. It's obvious, but those are things you just can't get if you don't play the first. It's great.

@ntm:

See I've gone back and played one, currently on the epilogue and have enjoyed the plot and characters but as a game I've found it really hard to recommend. There are so many examples of poor design where you go and meet one NPC for them to tell you one think only for you to have to go straight back to the person who sent you to tell them something else. It ends up making the game feel very laborious.

Same. They have to tell a story at some point.

@flameboy84: Yeah, you do, do that. That doesn't bother me that much though. It's pretty negligible to me. I also don't feel like it's unique to games like it, or at least it hardly crossed my mind. I should also say that I posted on another thread after I finished two. I think in the end, no matter what, whether the game is good or not, I recommend people play the first and second before getting into three. For me, I know it'll make three a better experience.

@ntm Yeah yeah I do agree. I don't regret playing 1 it has certainly fleshed out the world for me. Also going to go back to the first book and finish that as I abandoned it for some reason!

@flameboy84: I haven't read the books, and can't say I'm interested in it. While CD Projekt Red probably likes to keep things in line with the books (I'm not entirely sure), the writer of the books said he considers the games non-canon to the books.

That really has more to do with the book's relation to the game than the game's relation to the books. In other words, the games are a non-canon "what if" sequel to the books, but the books are the canon prequel to the games. For example, The Witcher 1 had the subplot about Adda and the striga, which is built directly off of that encounter from the first book.

Many of the character's are given importance in The Witcher games purely due to Geralt's past relationship with them rather than anything set up by the games. For example, both Yennefer and Ciri are supposed to be major players in The Witcher 3, not because they've been given any real importance in the games so far, but because they were significant characters in the books.

I don't necessarily believe reading the books is necessary to understand what is happening in the story, but events from the books are often treated with as much importance in the games as the events of the games themselves. Stuff that happened in the books will more than likely have a bigger role in The Witcher 3 than almost everything from The Witcher 1, for example.

@zeik: Hm. Okay. I didn't know when the books took place. Good to know; makes sense. That's interesting.

I actually like that. I like that The Witcher 2 has a lot of branches in its storyline, I think that's one of its strengths, but it's also only a twenty to forty hour linear game, meaning that asking players to play it a second time sounds reasonable because it's just not a ridiculous time commitment. It's a lot, yes, but not so much that someone with a full time job and other things on their hands won't take six months to play through it twice.

The Witcher 3 has a pretty big open world and looks absolutely packed with content. It's more than likely a game I'll probably only want to play through once because there's a lot to it.

@ntm: @zeik: Well, I think that if you truly want to understand the story you do actually have to read the books. At least "The Last Wish" and "Blood of Elves" to get a real understanding of the relationship between Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri.

Sure, things will probably get explained quite well in the game (through the in game diary entries at the very least), but it's never going to be as in-depth.

Also they are really good and not all that long (between 250 and 350 pages), so blazing through them before the game comes out shouldn't pose that much of a problem. (I for one followed the advice given here and am right now replaying the first game.) One other thing: If you do have the option to read it in the original language or at least not in the English translation, you might want to do that, because the English one seems quite clumsy and inconsistent (especially in the later books.)

@sessh: Or, I could just read the wiki? :P I kind of did that. You're correct, though I think playing the games is good enough just in terms of what I do know, and being content with it going into three. To me, it seems like a lot of people that will get, and are interested in three haven't played the first, or even the second, and if I were them, I would have a worse time going into three, even if only slightly. I guess that could be a matter of opinion though, and it may not matter to all; it did to me though is all.

Yeah having now carried on with the first book I'd say as a companion piece (or collection of pieces) to the game series it props it up to a certain extent and provides more background. Like you sighted the first novel pretty much informs an entire pretty pivotal/memorial part of the game.

Hmmm, interesting about not branching the storyline. I think it makes sense, especially considering the rather ballsy move they made with TW2 at the end of the first act. I'm sure there's plenty of people that missed Roache's path or Iorveth's path. Still pretty sure I heard, however, that there's supposed to be something like 20 different endings though...right?

Either way, I'm happy to hear there's a mechanic that will let us affect the world state going in. I wish we could import them, but I'm not sure how that would be possible with a series that started on the PC, wound up on the 360, and is now coming to PC, PS4, and XBO. PC is the only viable option for that lineage to work.

But, I'm definitely on the side that the novels are probably more important to understanding the universe anyway. Having read all the translated novels, it's the reason why I'm excited about Yennefer, Ciri, the Wild Hunt, Emperor Emhyr, and Dijkstra all showing up in the Witcher 3. Having only played the second game, I wouldn't really know who any of those people were, except maybe for Yen.

Okay, this are the questions you are going to be asked about your decisions in The Witcher 2:

So just the big decisions seem to be in play, except for the first one maybe (didn't even really remember that guy personally).