Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As I said, it's been a long time.

I kinda wish I played the other games, there's so many references to things and old characters that I feel like I should know really well, but i don't.

One thing, when you get to the Isle of Mists main story quest, do as many of your side quests and stuff as you can before that. It even warns you to do that before you start it. You can't really go back once that whole thing starts. I'm not done with that whole ordeal, but pretty far past it and I haven't been allowed to fast travel anywhere. I guess it's just one huge quest line that leads to the end?

Kinda wish it would let me leave, I wanna go get my master kitty armor :(

 Necros wrote:
I kinda wish I played the other games, there's so many references to things and old characters that I feel like I should know really well, but i don't.

One thing, when you get to the Isle of Mists main story quest, do as many of your side quests and stuff as you can before that. It even warns you to do that before you start it. You can't really go back once that whole thing starts. I'm not done with that whole ordeal, but pretty far past it and I haven't been allowed to fast travel anywhere. I guess it's just one huge quest line that leads to the end?

Kinda wish it would let me leave, I wanna go get my master kitty armor :(

Don't worry, you'll be able to wander and do side quest stuff again after you finish that chain. It's just a very pivotal and important part so you can't wander off and do other stuff until you've made it all the way through that chain.

And there's still a good bit of main story stuff to go through after Isle of Mists.

Oh, I thought it was the end game. I did the big battle, now I'm on a quest after it, something about the 3 witches. I'd like to go wandering for a while and uncover all the ?'s on my map if I can, try and find all the places of power, and other stuff like that before the end.

Some more questions about the witcher world - thanks for the feedback for far. Just trying to get caught up, and the witcher wiki hasn't been too helpful. I'm only level 18 in W3, but I beat AoK some time ago.

1) Radovid's stated purpose for killing mages is because he blames them for the regicides in AoK - specifically the lodge. But as I recall, Letho (working for nilfguard), not the lodge was the one who did the killings. I think phillipa helped kill one, but that shouldn't implicate the rest of the lodge, much less all of the magic-using populace.

Is radovid correct in saying the lodge was behind the assassinations? Or he is just crazy?

2) is there some background reason to hate nilfguard? I mean, if it's revealed later in W3 that they're servants of the wild hunt or eat babies or something, don't tell me. But though they've always been portrayed as the generic "evil empire" of the world, I really don't understand why they're the villian.

Yes, they're invading a country unprovoked. And that's not great. But the northern kingdoms aren't exactly the nicest places either, nor are run by very nice people.

Foltest started a civil war over a family dispute.

Hanselt was a bully and a rapist.

Radovid is burning anything vaguely mage-like he can find.

All the northern kingdoms are pretty hard on nonhumans, which is why the squirrels formed in the first place.

About all I know about nilfguard is that they're ruthless, calculating, and dispassionate, buuuuuuuuuut......

They seem to have a strong and organized government. And the occupied government they've set up seems to be, at the least, tough but fair. They harbor (and utilize) mages, and with letho they have the only active witcher school in the world I know of (I think kaer moren isn't active). So the south is clearly safe for both mages and witchers.

I don't know their policy on nonhumans - they don't seem to have a lot.

I'm rambling a bit, but my larger point is that nilfguard doesn't seem to be so bad, at the least from the point of view of a magic user whose love interests are both magic users. Helping out radovid doesn't seem like a good long-term idea if I don't want to be burned alive.

Is there any background reason I shouldn't like nilfguard, other than the fact that they're invading a region geralt has not particular alliance to?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Some more questions about the witcher world - thanks for the feedback for far. Just trying to get caught up, and the witcher wiki hasn't been too helpful. I'm only level 18 in W3, but I beat AoK some time ago.

1) Radovid's stated purpose for killing mages is because he blames them for the regicides in AoK - specifically the lodge. But as I recall, Letho (working for nilfguard), not the lodge was the one who did the killings. I think phillipa helped kill one, but that shouldn't implicate the rest of the lodge, much less all of the magic-using populace.

Is radovid correct in saying the lodge was behind the assassinations? Or he is just crazy?

2) is there some background reason to hate nilfguard? I mean, if it's revealed later in W3 that they're servants of the wild hunt or eat babies or something, don't tell me. But though they've always been portrayed as the generic "evil empire" of the world, I really don't understand why they're the villian.

Yes, they're invading a country unprovoked. And that's not great. But the northern kingdoms aren't exactly the nicest places either, nor are run by very nice people.

Foltest started a civil war over a family dispute.

Hanselt was a bully and a rapist.

Radovid is burning anything vaguely mage-like he can find.

All the northern kingdoms are pretty hard on nonhumans, which is why the squirrels formed in the first place.

About all I know about nilfguard is that they're ruthless, calculating, and dispassionate, buuuuuuuuuut......

They seem to have a strong and organized government. And the occupied government they've set up seems to be, at the least, tough but fair. They harbor (and utilize) mages, and with letho they have the only active witcher school in the world I know of (I think kaer moren isn't active). So the south is clearly safe for both mages and witchers.

I don't know their policy on nonhumans - they don't seem to have a lot.

I'm rambling a bit, but my larger point is that nilfguard doesn't seem to be so bad, at the least from the point of view of a magic user whose love interests are both magic users. Helping out radovid doesn't seem like a good long-term idea if I don't want to be burned alive.

Is there any background reason I shouldn't like nilfguard, other than the fact that they're invading a region geralt has not particular alliance to?

1) Radovid's just crazy. His hatred for mages mainly comes from years of abuse at Philippa's hand, as well as the Lodge's numerous plottings...

2) Only reason is that Nilfgaard are the aggressors in the conflict. But yeah, you're correct - Nilfgaardian law is harsh, but fair, and the country has a lot less racism, no religious cults, and almost no corruption in the government. But hey, who am I to speak, I'm just a Nilfgaard fanboy

I think there was something about slavery, some vaguely communistic ideas, a pretty tough judicial system, and of course a tyrant. Though they definitely toned it down for the games.

 Tyr13 wrote:
I think there was something about slavery, some vaguely communistic ideas, a pretty tough judicial system, and of course a tyrant. Though they definitely toned it down for the games.

Ah yes, forgot about that - there's slavery in Nilfgaard! It's not very prevalent in the games or the books, but it's mentioned several times. It's worth mentioning that there's actual courts in Nilfgaard, as well. As for the tyrant... eh, just look at some of the Northern Kingdoms. Emhyr's alright

What's nifl's policy on nonhumans - elves and dwarves? Tolerated, persecuted, etc?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
What's nifl's policy on nonhumans - elves and dwarves? Tolerated, persecuted, etc?

Tolerated.

The Nilfgaardians speak a dialect of the Elven Elder Speech, even, since they believe they descended from Lara Dorren/have the Elder Blood flowing in their veins (which is correct in some cases, such as with Emhyr).

There was also the Vriheid Brigade during the Second War, which was mainly made up of Elves.

OH! And there's also a province of the Nilfgaardian Empire that is pretty much an Elven Kingdom.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
What's nifl's policy on nonhumans - elves and dwarves? Tolerated, persecuted, etc?

Nilfigard is actually pretty good compared to Rediana. Where Rediana basically perscutes anyone for studying magic or not being human

I'm amazed by just how much content the game actually has, while still feeling as though you're progressing. My big qualm with Skyrim was that unless I was doing the main quests, I didn't feel like the "world" was advancing at all.

You guys are talking about all this stuff that's happening, and I'm like.. Uhh, I haven't even reached there yet, and I've played over two dozen hours.

 Enigwolf wrote:
I'm amazed by just how much content the game actually has, while still feeling as though you're progressing. My big qualm with Skyrim was that unless I was doing the main quests, I didn't feel like the "world" was advancing at all.

You guys are talking about all this stuff that's happening, and I'm like.. Uhh, I haven't even reached there yet, and I've played over two dozen hours.

You will see once you get to Novgrad.

Unlike game of thrones, characters don't die because they sneeze the wrong way they actually die for real reasons.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Big Mac wrote:
I had watched some game play throughs, but just can't get into it, milf guardians and yennifer, stupid fetch quests; I rather replay dragon age inquisition.

Thats how I know you haven't played it.

Fetch quests? Hahahahaha.

Yeah, I can remember having done one--which, like I've said about it before, was part of a chain, and actually had a point and a noticeable effect for doing it--so far, and that's it.

Yeah but it didn't feel like one.

I have to disagree there. It felt very much like a fetch quest because it was one, but it didn't feel like a bad fetch quest. You weren't being told to gather a spider leg from 20 spiders, which despite having 8 of the things only provide that certain item 1/4 of the time, and in exchange for your troubles you get a neat hat and nothing more about the legs is ever mentioned. You weren't told to go to the edge of a precipice on the other side of the continent to collect a forgotten backpack containing ancient, powerful scrolls, which upon turning it in gifts you a handful of gold and that's the last you hear of it. It felt like a good fetch quest--one that other fetch quests should aspire to be, but ultimately fail because developers use them as little more than filler--but still felt like a fetch quest nonetheless.

 Big Mac wrote:
I had watched some game play throughs, but just can't get into it, milf guardians and yennifer, stupid fetch quests; I rather replay dragon age inquisition.

>> Complain about "stupid fetch quests" despite there being none
>> wants to play a game that's full of pointless "click object X Y times in area Z" "quests"

Seems legit.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Some more questions about the witcher world - thanks for the feedback for far. Just trying to get caught up, and the witcher wiki hasn't been too helpful. I'm only level 18 in W3, but I beat AoK some time ago.

1) Radovid's stated purpose for killing mages is because he blames them for the regicides in AoK - specifically the lodge. But as I recall, Letho (working for nilfguard), not the lodge was the one who did the killings. I think phillipa helped kill one, but that shouldn't implicate the rest of the lodge, much less all of the magic-using populace.

Is radovid correct in saying the lodge was behind the assassinations? Or he is just crazy?

2) is there some background reason to hate nilfguard? I mean, if it's revealed later in W3 that they're servants of the wild hunt or eat babies or something, don't tell me. But though they've always been portrayed as the generic "evil empire" of the world, I really don't understand why they're the villian.

Yes, they're invading a country unprovoked. And that's not great. But the northern kingdoms aren't exactly the nicest places either, nor are run by very nice people.

Foltest started a civil war over a family dispute.

Hanselt was a bully and a rapist.

Radovid is burning anything vaguely mage-like he can find.

All the northern kingdoms are pretty hard on nonhumans, which is why the squirrels formed in the first place.

About all I know about nilfguard is that they're ruthless, calculating, and dispassionate, buuuuuuuuuut......

They seem to have a strong and organized government. And the occupied government they've set up seems to be, at the least, tough but fair. They harbor (and utilize) mages, and with letho they have the only active witcher school in the world I know of (I think kaer moren isn't active). So the south is clearly safe for both mages and witchers.

I don't know their policy on nonhumans - they don't seem to have a lot.

I'm rambling a bit, but my larger point is that nilfguard doesn't seem to be so bad, at the least from the point of view of a magic user whose love interests are both magic users. Helping out radovid doesn't seem like a good long-term idea if I don't want to be burned alive.

Is there any background reason I shouldn't like nilfguard, other than the fact that they're invading a region geralt has not particular alliance to?

1) It was revealed in AoK that the Lodge was framed by Nilfgaard; they were behind the assassinations, and planned to use the chaos from the witch hunts to soften up the Northern Kingdoms for an invasion. Remember that the Nilfgaardian invasion happened just moments after they started killing off their sorcerers, which I imagine would give the Empire a considerable tactical advantage; the Empire can still throw fireballs and lightning, the North can't.
At least on the Scoiatel path. Not sure if they revealed that in the Roche path.

2) I think its because the game is mostly set in the North, so you are exposed to anti-imperial sentiment, and because they are a bit fascist. Its pretty much "do what you are told or else" in Nilfgaard.
Then again, so are the Northern Kingdoms.

I actually looked at the witcher wiki for a refresher, and radovid's issue with the lodge isn't completely unfounded.

Some lodge members did have a plan to use saskia's nonhuman rebellion to carve out a bit of the northern kingdoms so they could have their very own country, and in fact hired letho to kill the king of the region for that very purpose.

This was revealed at the summit at loc muine (I think by geralt), and that's when radovid went all murder-crazy on mages.

That being said, the ploy of a couple of sorceresses doesn't implicate the entire magic-using populace.

And I can't think of a very compelling reason to help radovid out much. Nilfguard might have slaves, which isn't great, but the north is burning innocent people alive, which is considerably worse.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Some more questions about the witcher world - thanks for the feedback for far. Just trying to get caught up, and the witcher wiki hasn't been too helpful. I'm only level 18 in W3, but I beat AoK some time ago.

1) Radovid's stated purpose for killing mages is because he blames them for the regicides in AoK - specifically the lodge. But as I recall, Letho (working for nilfguard), not the lodge was the one who did the killings. I think phillipa helped kill one, but that shouldn't implicate the rest of the lodge, much less all of the magic-using populace.

Is radovid correct in saying the lodge was behind the assassinations? Or he is just crazy?

A little from column A, a little from column B. The Lodge had good reasons... or, at least, understandable ones... for doing what they did but, when your actions involve assassinating certain political rulers to foment chaos and then sell yourselves as the cure... well, you cannot expect mercy when said politicians capture you.

The Lodge was behind the assassinations... or, rather, some members of it. Phillipa Eilhart was a major contributing factor, but by no means the only one. Most of its members share some degree of guilt, even if only as accessories before and/or after the fact.

2) is there some background reason to hate nilfguard? I mean, if it's revealed later in W3 that they're servants of the wild hunt or eat babies or something, don't tell me. But though they've always been portrayed as the generic "evil empire" of the world, I really don't understand why they're the villian.

Yes, they're invading a country unprovoked. And that's not great. But the northern kingdoms aren't exactly the nicest places either, nor are run by very nice people.

Foltest started a civil war over a family dispute.

Hanselt was a bully and a rapist.

Radovid is burning anything vaguely mage-like he can find.

All the northern kingdoms are pretty hard on nonhumans, which is why the squirrels formed in the first place.

About all I know about nilfguard is that they're ruthless, calculating, and dispassionate, buuuuuuuuuut......

They seem to have a strong and organized government. And the occupied government they've set up seems to be, at the least, tough but fair. They harbor (and utilize) mages, and with letho they have the only active witcher school in the world I know of (I think kaer moren isn't active). So the south is clearly safe for both mages and witchers.

I don't know their policy on nonhumans - they don't seem to have a lot.

I'm rambling a bit, but my larger point is that nilfguard doesn't seem to be so bad, at the least from the point of view of a magic user whose love interests are both magic users. Helping out radovid doesn't seem like a good long-term idea if I don't want to be burned alive.

Is there any background reason I shouldn't like nilfguard, other than the fact that they're invading a region geralt has not particular alliance to?

That depends on what you think about shared identities, a sense of national pride, and so forth and so on. Now, the Nilfgaardians are *extremely* strict and, as is pointed out in Velen, are less-concerned about the concept of Justice than they are about the concept of Law.

Nilfgaard sets up camp near a village, everything is fine. Guerillas attack the Nilfgaardians. Nilfgaardians burn the village down and put 2/3rds of the peasants to the sword. Why? Because they might have been guilty.

Also depends on how long you think Nilfgaard will permit mages, witchers and non-humans to live once they've conquered the known world. When you have no more enemies to fight, do you really need sorceresses for artillery? When your soldiers are enough to handle ghouls and wraiths, do you need Witchers? There's enough poor humans in your kingdom... do you really need elves in your slums, too?


I should point out that The Witcher is a game series & story where the concepts of "good" and "evil", as they are normally portrayed in fantasy settings, do not exist. It is rare to find a character who is truly evil or truly good... every character is like a regular human being: some shade of grey. For example, Henselt was a thug and a rapist... he was also a fair king who cared deeply about the lives of his soldiers, and who did not fear to lead from the front, and who ordered the execution of a sorceress in his employ who (in RL terms) committed war crimes in battle, because Henselt refused to be seen as a man who did not fight with honor. Yes, the Scoia'tel are fighting for their rights and to reclaim their homelands... which means they're burning human villages, attacking tradesmen and merchants, and otherwise waging war against people who aren't responsible for the things they're fighting against. The Scoia'tel are, basically, terrorists, in every sense of the word.

Emhyr uses sorcerers for non-combat purposes as well in the books.

What happens in the books is actually kind of irrelevant, according to the author. The stories in the video games are not actually connected to or related to what he's put down in the books.

http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/7/3612690/the-witcher-games-can-never-be-a-sequel-to-the-novels-says-author

You can think of them as "stories inspired by", but they're not sequels/side-stories/tie-ins or otherwise related to the novels, according to Sapkowski.

They are according to CD Projekt though. Sapkowski just doesnt accept them as canon, and if he wrote a new book, he wouldnt include anything from the games. That doesnt mean that the books arent canon to the games.

Right, but the games are not sequels/prequels or anything of the sort to the books. They're just... there.

 Psienesis wrote:
Right, but the games are not sequels/prequels or anything of the sort to the books. They're just... there.

They take place several years after the last book.

Yeah, but that doesn't make them sequels, since another book is (supposedly) in the works, which may invalidate everything contained in this game, which makes it just a "what if?"

Also, some 20 years have passed since TW1, based on Dandelion's progression. Early in TW3, it's commented that Geralt and Triss are both almost a century old (Geralt is obviously not wearing his age nearly so well). The games seem to play rather fast and loose with the timeline of the books, since Yennefer has been mentioned since the first game, and moreso in the second, but this is the first time we're hearing about Ciri.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah, but that doesn't make them sequels, since another book is (supposedly) in the works, which may invalidate everything contained in this game, which makes it just a "what if?"

Also, some 20 years have passed since TW1, based on Dandelion's progression. Early in TW3, it's commented that Geralt and Triss are both almost a century old (Geralt is obviously not wearing his age nearly so well). The games seem to play rather fast and loose with the timeline of the books, since Yennefer has been mentioned since the first game, and moreso in the second, but this is the first time we're hearing about Ciri.

Well in terms of witcher gamers (For geralt anyway this is the last time we get to play as him.)

As he has finally gotten to age where it is hard to fight and being one of the few witchers left I think we are going to see an interesting set of sequels after this.

Who cares? The writer has always been pissy about the Witcher games, likely because they're way more popular than his books ever were.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yeah, but that doesn't make them sequels, since another book is (supposedly) in the works, which may invalidate everything contained in this game, which makes it just a "what if?"

Also, some 20 years have passed since TW1, based on Dandelion's progression. Early in TW3, it's commented that Geralt and Triss are both almost a century old (Geralt is obviously not wearing his age nearly so well). The games seem to play rather fast and loose with the timeline of the books, since Yennefer has been mentioned since the first game, and moreso in the second, but this is the first time we're hearing about Ciri.

Witchers and Sorceresses don't really age - the latter using their magic to prevent them from doing so.

Everything seems to line up with the books pretty well.

Is Skellige as unstable in the books as it is in code? =D

By that I mean, I experienced maybe 2 crashes in all of Velen and Novigrad... Skellige? The game crashes like every 30 minutes. Anyone else having this problem?

 Psienesis wrote:
Also, some 20 years have passed since TW1, based on Dandelion's progression.

More like a year. It's been about six months between the end of TW1 and the beginning of TW2 and another six months between TW2 and TW3.

Triss is much younger than both Geralt and Yen. Yen should be circa 98 in TW3. Geralt is mentioned as just over a hundred, which actually has no impact on his combat performance.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but patch 1.05 hit yesterday: http://steamcommunity.com/games/292030/announcements/detail/134326778451604577

Amongst the fixes is my favourite fix in a game ever: "Deploys the Bovine Defense Force Initiative."

What is the BDFI, and why does it exist? Well, there was an exploit people used where killing cows, looting them for their valuable hides, meditating for an hour in the same spot so they respawn, and rinse repeating provided large amounts of gold. Now? After meditating, you get attacked by the Bovine Defence Force, consisting solely of a single huge, overlevelled monster that spawns after you've meditated.

It can be killed, but by the time you're at a level high enough--with gear good enough--to kill it, the cash-cow exploit is practically worthless.