First of all, the game was a solid 4-star-RPG. An epic tale, which Dragon Age II should have been, with several bad design decisions and a few (very annoying) bugs. The story itself was the strongest part of the game. A journey through epic battles and interesting places. Many enjoyable things to tell about, but... seriously... the last mandatory boss is a major faux pas!

First of all, the game was a solid 4-star-RPG. An epic tale, which Dragon Age II should have been, with several bad design decisions and a few (very annoying) bugs. The story itself was the strongest part of the game. A journey through epic battles and interesting places. Many enjoyable things to tell about, but... seriously... the last mandatory boss is a major faux pas!

Two questions

1) So, The Witcher 3 is definitely happening?

2) Do you want another game?

1.) I don't know anything about the developer's plans. But stroywise, without a sequel this franchise would be incomplete.
2.) Yes, but not earlier than 3 years from now.

I was disappointed with the third chapter of the game - it was far too short, and Loc Muinne was far too constricted of an area to base an entire chapter around.  In fact, the lack of a real, major city throughout the entire game was a big disappointment to me - Flotsam is the closest you get, and it's a shithole.  Henselt's camp was nothing but mud and rocks, and Loc Muinne was nothing but ruins.  Another change I'd like to see for Witcher 3, is the ability to actually travel back and forth to locations as you please, like DA1.  I don't like being forced to "finish my business" in town, before moving the story forward.

I was disappointed with the third chapter of the game - it was far too short, and Loc Muinne was far too constricted of an area to base an entire chapter around.  In fact, the lack of a real, major city throughout the entire game was a big disappointment to me - Flotsam is the closest you get, and it's a shithole.  Henselt's camp was nothing but mud and rocks, and Loc Muinne was nothing but ruins.  Another change I'd like to see for Witcher 3, is the ability to actually travel back and forth to locations as you please, like DA1.  I don't like being forced to "finish my business" in town, before moving the story forward.
The story was definitely the strong point for the game, though I'm officially tired of mandatory sequel-ready cliffhangers in video games, where none of the real conflicts get resolved.  The graphics also made a strong impression on me.

Fighting the dragon wasn't a big deal for me, but the lack of any real closure to the story left me sour.  The dragon wasn't a major foe throughout the game, so having him as the final battle was kind of silly.  At the end of my playthrough Sile, Henselt, the dragon, and Letho were all still alive (because I was trying to play a "good" character) - and while it's really cool to have an RPG where you can essentially not kill any of the major villains, I was still expecting to achieve some measure of closure at some point.

Still though - a way better game than Dragon Age 2, despite the bugs and glitches, and whatever gripes I have.  I look forward to the next one.

- Scott

@Scotto said:

I was disappointed with the third chapter of the game - it was far too short, and Loc Muinne was far too constricted of an area to base an entire chapter around.  In fact, the lack of a real, major city throughout the entire game was a big disappointment to me - Flotsam is the closest you get, and it's a shithole.  Henselt's camp was nothing but mud and rocks, and Loc Muinne was nothing but ruins.  Another change I'd like to see for Witcher 3, is the ability to actually travel back and forth to locations as you please, like DA1.  I don't like being forced to "finish my business" in town, before moving the story forward.
The story was definitely the strong point for the game, though I'm officially tired of mandatory sequel-ready cliffhangers in video games, where none of the real conflicts get resolved.  The graphics also made a strong impression on me.

Fighting the dragon wasn't a big deal for me, but the lack of any real closure to the story left me sour.  The dragon wasn't a major foe throughout the game, so having him as the final battle was kind of silly.  At the end of my playthrough Sile, Henselt, the dragon, and Letho were all still alive (because I was trying to play a "good" character) - and while it's really cool to have an RPG where you can essentially not kill any of the major villains, I was still expecting to achieve some measure of closure at some point.

Still though - a way better game than Dragon Age 2, despite the bugs and glitches, and whatever gripes I have.  I look forward to the next one.

- Scott

If you follow Iorveth path, I at least, think  the dragon was a pretty major thing. And trying to play a "good" character is really not what you should do in this game, all the choices are built around being morally ambiguous, there are no good or bad path in this game.

@gike987 said:

@Scotto said:

I was disappointed with the third chapter of the game - it was far too short, and Loc Muinne was far too constricted of an area to base an entire chapter around.  In fact, the lack of a real, major city throughout the entire game was a big disappointment to me - Flotsam is the closest you get, and it's a shithole.  Henselt's camp was nothing but mud and rocks, and Loc Muinne was nothing but ruins.  Another change I'd like to see for Witcher 3, is the ability to actually travel back and forth to locations as you please, like DA1.  I don't like being forced to "finish my business" in town, before moving the story forward.
The story was definitely the strong point for the game, though I'm officially tired of mandatory sequel-ready cliffhangers in video games, where none of the real conflicts get resolved.  The graphics also made a strong impression on me.

Fighting the dragon wasn't a big deal for me, but the lack of any real closure to the story left me sour.  The dragon wasn't a major foe throughout the game, so having him as the final battle was kind of silly.  At the end of my playthrough Sile, Henselt, the dragon, and Letho were all still alive (because I was trying to play a "good" character) - and while it's really cool to have an RPG where you can essentially not kill any of the major villains, I was still expecting to achieve some measure of closure at some point.

Still though - a way better game than Dragon Age 2, despite the bugs and glitches, and whatever gripes I have.  I look forward to the next one.

- Scott

If you follow Iorveth path, I at least, think  the dragon was a pretty major thing. And trying to play a "good" character is really not what you should do in this game, all the choices are built around being morally ambiguous, there are no good or bad path in this game.

The Witcher has always been a morally ambiguous character, but the game absolutely implies certain morality in the choices you can make.  If you choose not to kill Henselt, Geralt lectures Roche about not stooping to the King's level and being a murderer like him.  If you choose not to finish off the dragon, Geralt tells Triss that the dragon may very well be the last in existence, and he wouldn't want to kill such a strong, proud creature.  So yes - moral righteousness isn't Geralt's thing, but morality is present in these choices.

Also, Saskia being the dragon just makes the dragon fight as a final boss even more silly, though it could provide for an interesting twist in the next game if you chose to spare it's life after the fight.

- Scott

@Scotto: I felt I had enough Closure. All the questions raised at the start of the game were answered , even if we didn't see the consequences of the latter actions.

Geralt's revenge/redemption thread was completed and, while I too wish the final third had been lengthened considerably (and also lamented the lack of a major city to explore), I don't feel short changed. Especially considering how necessary it is to reply the game considering how much things can change in each playthrough. 

@Scotto said:

@gike987 said:

@Scotto said:

I was disappointed with the third chapter of the game - it was far too short, and Loc Muinne was far too constricted of an area to base an entire chapter around.  In fact, the lack of a real, major city throughout the entire game was a big disappointment to me - Flotsam is the closest you get, and it's a shithole.  Henselt's camp was nothing but mud and rocks, and Loc Muinne was nothing but ruins.  Another change I'd like to see for Witcher 3, is the ability to actually travel back and forth to locations as you please, like DA1.  I don't like being forced to "finish my business" in town, before moving the story forward.
The story was definitely the strong point for the game, though I'm officially tired of mandatory sequel-ready cliffhangers in video games, where none of the real conflicts get resolved.  The graphics also made a strong impression on me.

Fighting the dragon wasn't a big deal for me, but the lack of any real closure to the story left me sour.  The dragon wasn't a major foe throughout the game, so having him as the final battle was kind of silly.  At the end of my playthrough Sile, Henselt, the dragon, and Letho were all still alive (because I was trying to play a "good" character) - and while it's really cool to have an RPG where you can essentially not kill any of the major villains, I was still expecting to achieve some measure of closure at some point.

Still though - a way better game than Dragon Age 2, despite the bugs and glitches, and whatever gripes I have.  I look forward to the next one.

- Scott

If you follow Iorveth path, I at least, think  the dragon was a pretty major thing. And trying to play a "good" character is really not what you should do in this game, all the choices are built around being morally ambiguous, there are no good or bad path in this game.

The Witcher has always been a morally ambiguous character, but the game absolutely implies certain morality in the choices you can make.  If you choose not to kill Henselt, Geralt lectures Roche about not stooping to the King's level and being a murderer like him.  If you choose not to finish off the dragon, Geralt tells Triss that the dragon may very well be the last in existence, and he wouldn't want to kill such a strong, proud creature.  So yes - moral righteousness isn't Geralt's thing, but morality is present in these choices.

Also, Saskia being the dragon just makes the dragon fight as a final boss even more silly, though it could provide for an interesting twist in the next game if you chose to spare it's life after the fight.

- Scott

But Phillipa tricked you into making Saskia follow Síle's orders after you spent the whole chapter 2 trying to save her from a poison, so if you have the dagger the fight is pretty justified. If you don't have the dagger it's still a great sad way to end the game.

People seem to have major differences in what they consider the "morally good" decision. I did not have to think twice when I sided with Iorveth and apart from some questionable (possibly lazy written) dialogue options that I was forced to choose due to no "actually good" choice being available, I think my Geralt came as close to a hero as you could get. They do their best to make him say "I don't give a fuck" on almost every occasion, but if you judge Geralt by his actions and not so much by his mere words, siding with Iorveth makes him the defender of the weak and co-founder of a new realm based on freedom, equality and justice.

People seem to have major differences in what they consider the "morally good" decision. I did not have to think twice when I sided with Iorveth and apart from some questionable (possibly lazy written) dialogue options that I was forced to choose due to no "actually good" choice being available, I think my Geralt came as close to a hero as you could get. They do their best to make him say "I don't give a fuck" on almost every occasion, but if you judge Geralt by his actions and not so much by his mere words, siding with Iorveth makes him the defender of the weak and co-founder of a new realm based on freedom, equality and justice.

Whatever you think of the ending I think it couldn't be anything else. This is exactly what a witcher would do - finish his business and walk away. Pure and simple. The politics don't really concern him. Remember that everything he did in the story was done to serve the purpose of finding out the truth. It wasn't his fight, he just tagged along to learn what actually happened and to clear his name. Everything else was just the background. It may not be flash or "cool" but it makes perfect sense.

I think the moral decision was a bit harder this go around, definitely harder than the first game. There was absolutely no reason to side with Flaming Rose in the first game. All of the humans were complete shit heads. I felt like I owed something to Roche for what he did for me in the prologue and start of chapter 1. There was also something really sincere about him. He never did things in a roundabout way, always straight to the point. Despite all his talk about catching kingslayer/revenge, you can tell he just didn't want to lose his kingdom to complete chaos. Roche's ending in chapter 2 is really dark and a bit sad as well, It was rough. Really felt for the guy and his crew. 

I wonder what would happen had I decided to save Phillippa. She's a major bitch in the books as well so I gladly watched her eyes taken out. I love it when games punish the characters I don't like. 

But Phillipa tricked you into making Saskia follow Síle's orders after you spent the whole chapter 2 trying to save her from a poison, so if you have the dagger the fight is pretty justified. If you don't have the dagger it's still a great sad way to end the game.

If you choose not to finish off the dragon, Geralt tells Triss that the dragon may very well be the last in existence, and he wouldn't want to kill such a strong, proud creature.  So yes - moral righteousness isn't Geralt's thing, but morality is present in these choices.

I think the moral decision was a bit harder this go around, definitely harder than the first game. There was absolutely no reason to side with Flaming Rose in the first game. All of the humans were complete shit heads. I felt like I owed something to Roche for what he did for me in the prologue and start of chapter 1. There was also something really sincere about him. He never did things in a roundabout way, always straight to the point. Despite all his talk about catching kingslayer/revenge, you can tell he just didn't want to lose his kingdom to complete chaos. Roche's ending in chapter 2 is really dark and a bit sad as well, It was rough. Really felt for the guy and his crew. 

I like that so many people are assuming every option is the moral one because Geralt rationalizes it afterwards.  That's the ambiguity, right?  Whatever you do, Geralt will rationalize it.  There's no point where you make a decision and Geralt goes, "I did it for devil!  Let's go rape some virgins!"  Every decision can be rationalized so every decision is legitimate.  Now, if the argument is about whether or not Geralt feels like he's making moral decisions throughout the game, I'd entertain that theory, but it doesn't make it any less grey.

I was a fan of the ending, if only because it tells me there will be more Witcher to come in the future, and I can't possibly imagine some of these choices wont come back to haunt me.  The game was far from perfect but I enjoyed it.  My only questions now concern which choices actually made an ultimate impact in the game, and which choices got Dragon Age 2'd and just give you a different strand of dialogue.

I wonder what would happen had I decided to save Phillippa. She's a major bitch in the books as well so I gladly watched her eyes taken out. I love it when games punish the characters I don't like. 

@gike987 said:

But Phillipa tricked you into making Saskia follow Síle's orders after you spent the whole chapter 2 trying to save her from a poison, so if you have the dagger the fight is pretty justified. If you don't have the dagger it's still a great sad way to end the game.

Umm, what dagger are you talking about?

Anyway, where the f- does Iorveth go? We split up and then he never showed up again. That annoyed me. And yeah, Letho's voice actor was not good, he was much better in the trailers. I wonder why the swapped him out.I'm not really disappointed by the conclusion of the story, I think it's plausible enough, but the pacing was totally off, it was rushed as hell and Chapter 3 was not good from a gameplay perspective. The linearity worked in the prologue because it was fairly epic, the storming of a castle, this is just you running around. I would've liked another quest hub.

@kyrieee said:

@gike987 said:

But Phillipa tricked you into making Saskia follow Síle's orders after you spent the whole chapter 2 trying to save her from a poison, so if you have the dagger the fight is pretty justified. If you don't have the dagger it's still a great sad way to end the game.

Umm, what dagger are you talking about?

Anyway, where the f- does Iorveth go? We split up and then he never showed up again. That annoyed me. And yeah, Letho's voice actor was not good, he was much better in the trailers. I wonder why the swapped him out.I'm not really disappointed by the conclusion of the story, I think it's plausible enough, but the pacing was totally off, it was rushed as hell and Chapter 3 was not good from a gameplay perspective. The linearity worked in the prologue because it was fairly epic, the storming of a castle, this is just you running around. I would've liked another quest hub.

The dagger you can force Phillipa to give to you that breaks the spell she uses to control the dragon.

Yes, Letho takes care of Triss. You save the dragon aka Saskia.

I went to save Saskia since I did not expect them to really let Triss die, regardless of what I do. Triss is the female lead. Film logic applies.

That's quite a lot of possible divergence.
I wonder how they'll handle the next game. It would suck if those characters get downplayed because they might not be there.

The ending was just so abrupt, I was expecting something grand. Sixteen different cinematics, showing us what our decisions actually did to the characters involved. But all I got was a five second glimpse at Geralt's back, and before that a one minute scene of walking away. It was a great game, and even the Dragon fight didn't bother me (although I had no idea it was Saskia, don't know if it was because I sided with Roche or not), but just the lack of a wrap-up was disappointing. Great game that leaves a sour taste in your mouth because of that end.

...Never before in a western RPG ...

@Mooqi said:

...Never before in a western RPG ...

Isn't CDProjeckt none american? pretty sure they are from the easternblock, and I honestly consider rpgs made there 'not' western at all... to me it's fable and mass effect taht are western rpgs, and risen/gothic and witcher that are eastern-block rpgs.

The ending was just so abrupt, I was expecting something grand. Sixteen different cinematics, showing us what our decisions actually did to the characters involved. But all I got was a five second glimpse at Geralt's back, and before that a one minute scene of walking away. It was a great game, and even the Dragon fight didn't bother me (although I had no idea it was Saskia, don't know if it was because I sided with Roche or not), but just the lack of a wrap-up was disappointing. Great game that leaves a sour taste in your mouth because of that end.

For a game to have expansions it can't lay everything on the table at the ending.  Also the Witcher is about playing out your consequences, not sitting through six minutes of Ron Perlman going over each location you've visited to cap them off.  I want an expansion to finish what I've started and let me sort some stuff out, and it sounds like we're going to get one.

For a game to have expansions it can't lay everything on the table at the ending.  Also the Witcher is about playing out your consequences, not sitting through six minutes of Ron Perlman going over each location you've visited to cap them off.  I want an expansion to finish what I've started and let me sort some stuff out, and it sounds like we're going to get one.

@BibleDoctor said:

The ending was just so abrupt, I was expecting something grand. Sixteen different cinematics, showing us what our decisions actually did to the characters involved. But all I got was a five second glimpse at Geralt's back, and before that a one minute scene of walking away. It was a great game, and even the Dragon fight didn't bother me (although I had no idea it was Saskia, don't know if it was because I sided with Roche or not), but just the lack of a wrap-up was disappointing. Great game that leaves a sour taste in your mouth because of that end.

Triss/Roche/Iorveth tell you the big picture of the political situation as you walk with them to Letho.And Letho explains pretty much everything else if you talk to him.

Damn, didn't knopw the choices mattered THAT much. Finished it yesterday, and I have no clue what some of you are talking about. Will have to replay it.

Wait, the dragon is Saskia!? When is this explained?
 
Also I hated the dragon boss. It was boring and the combat system just doesn't work well enough to be able to avoid her attacks most of the time.

Wait, the dragon is Saskia!? When is this explained?  Also I hated the dragon boss. It was boring and the combat system just doesn't work well enough to be able to avoid her attacks most of the time.

Hmm, pretty happy with the ending, could have been better.
 
I chose the Iorveths path, pretty happy with that.
Now ill play with the opposite choices, oO

This topic has made me realise how fucking awesome this game is... just how different peoples games have been. 
 
 
Dragon Age nothin'.

Wait, the dragon is Saskia!? When is this explained?

I personally liked the ending(the possibilities!). Imagine how much shit there is to import with your save for another game. Mind-boggling.

I was satisfied with the ending. Fighting the dragon made perfect sense in my storyline (siding with Iorveth), and was a fitting conclusion to the main plot. Letho explained any questions I had (before I killed him), and the game thankfully didn't predict the future and tell me all the consequences of my actions - thus leaving it completely open to a third instalment in the series. I was happy with the decisions I made, so I didn't need the game to confirm if they were right or wrong in some kinda montage.  
 
People feel shortchanged by the fact that the chapters get increasingly smaller from 1 to 3, but if you look at the game as a whole, I certainly felt I got my money's worth. I think the issue people see is three distinct chapters and assume they should all be of relatively equal length, which is absurd. I do find it strange though, that the game supplies you with an abundance of weapons and armour that are only really attainable in Chapter 3, when the game is almost over, and can't really be put to much use.