It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Salutations.

I recently finished the game in a Roche playthrough, and am interesting in discussing just what exactly Geralt accomplishes in the end.

Essentially, it seems to me that for the most part, Geralt's accomplishments are more on a personnal level than "world-shaping" (as it were).

After all, the assasin's ploy actually works: Nilfgaard is on the warpath and the Northern Kingdoms are in disarray due to the Kingslayer's actions. For the most part you are after the Witch's circle (well, Sile at least), which is precisely what Nilfgaard wants.

Just about the only major change effect Geralt might accomplish is that he eventually finds out that Nilfgaard was behind the assassins' work, and so hopefully this will help the Northern Kingdoms unite to oppose the empire, as they realize they were manipulated into fighting one another precisely so the empire can move in.

Beyond that, however, Geralt's achievements are definitely more personnal and more Witcher-specific: you defeat powerful monsters and curses that threatened innocents (and get paid for it), you save Triss (or Foltest's daughter, or something else if you are with Iorveth, I woudln't know), you defeat/cure the dragon and generally go around help people. And, of course, Geralt also unlocks his memories (which ultimately is more important for him).

But ultimately, none of this has any major effect to the actual state of the world as of the end of the game: Nilgaard's plan works out and the invasion has begun. Things would likely not have differed much if Geralt had never gotten involved.

Now, I am not complaining, as this does fit with The Witcher's theme in general: focus on the smaller accomplishment, and where a Witcher should make a difference, Geralt definitely did. And of course his personal quest continues (I imagine the next game will not be about stopping Nilfgaard, but rather finding Yennefer in Nilfgaard... though it is likely THAT will require fighting the empire of Nilgaard at some point *grin*).

I think that this is an interesting topic to discuss, and wanted to share my thoughts on the matter, after spending some time pondering the ending. :)

Thank you.

Itkovian
Post edited May 27, 2011 by Itkovian
avatar
Itkovian: Salutations.

I recently finished the game in a Roche playthrough, and am interesting in discussing just what exactly Geralt accomplishes in the end.

Essentially, it seems to me that for the most part, Geralt's accomplishments are more on a personnal level than "world-shaping" (as it were).

After all, the assasin's ploy actually works: Nilfgaard is on the warpath and the Northern Kingdoms are in disarray due to the Kingslayer's actions. For the most part you are after the Witch's circle (well, Sile at least), which is precisely what Nilfgaard wants.

Just about the only major change effect Geralt might accomplish is that he eventually finds out that Nilfgaard was behind the assassins' work, and so hopefully this will help the Northern Kingdoms unite to oppose the empire, as they realize they were manipulated into fighting one another precisely so the empire can move in.

Beyond that, however, Geralt's achievements are definitely more personnal and more Witcher-specific: you defeat powerful monsters and curses that threatened innocents (and get paid for it), you save Triss (or Foltest's daughter, or something else if you are with Iorveth, I woudln't know), you defeat/cure the dragon and generally go around help people. And, of course, Geralt also unlocks his memories (which ultimately is more important for him).

But ultimately, none of this has any major effect to the actual state of the world as of the end of the game: Nilgaard's plan works out and the invasion has begun. Things would likely not have differed much if Geralt had never gotten involved.

Now, I am not complaining, as this does fit with The Witcher's theme in general: focus on the smaller accomplishment, and where a Witcher should make a difference, Geralt definitely did. And of course his personal quest continues (I imagine the next game will not be about stopping Nilfgaard, but rather finding Yennefer in Nilfgaard... though it is likely THAT will require fighting the empire of Nilgaard at some point *grin*).

I think that this is an interesting topic to discuss, and wanted to share my thoughts on the matter, after spending some time pondering the ending. :)

Thank you.

Itkovian
I could see a few things Geralt had done though (looking overall and not just Act 3):
1) He saved Henselt which might or might not be a good thing. Aedirn is lost to that scumbag but in turn there is stability in that region which might help out in case a war breaks out.
2) He saved the important political personnels from being annihilated the dragon.
3) Revealing the Nilgaardians plot is actually pretty huge. It prevented the black ones from infiltrating into the Northern Kingdoms under the guise of alliance and diplomacy.

Mainly he does what a witcher does while the kings do what they do. Geralt said that he does not care much for politics, he started out with the main motivation to clear his name (and to a lesser extent to avenge Foltest's death) and I believe he has achieve precisely that.
Post edited May 27, 2011 by vAddicatedGamer
This, I think, is a very good thing. There are too many games that are about saving the world. While at times it can be fun to go on a big, epic, save the world quest (that's why so many games use them) it is refreshing when a game makes it more personal too.

Geralt is not really trying to stop the Kingslayer's plot. He's just chasing after Letho to clear his name, learn a bit about his own past, and possibly get some revenge for making him look foolish. Eventually to save Triss too. Geralt doesn't really care about the politics, so the fact that he didn't stop the Nilfgaardian plot doesn't matter. He was not trying to do that in the first place.

In the end Geralt gets to achieve his personal goals and take part in some pretty epic events while doing so.
Good points made by both of you. Personally I felt that it was really fresh that the game doesn't end in the usual lone-hero-saves-the-world kind of way, yet still coming out making me feel like I took part in something epic and memorable. That for me elevates the game to a higher place compared to than other cRPGs in its class.

It is enough that what I, as Geralt did something that will influenced the outcome of a greater scheme of things, even if he wasn't the center and focus of it all.

As you all have mentioned, all of this fits in really well with the themes of the series. Not only do I feel that this arrangement makes things all the more realistic, it is also more thought-provoking and encourages us to look at things in a with a different than usual perspective.
Aye, that was pretty much my conclusion too, but I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything in particular.

Though I would think that defeating the dragon was also a big deal: it allows the conclave to survive and further prevents the complete destabilization of the north, so they have a chance against Nilfgaard.

Though on the other hand, the dragon had nothing to do with Nilfgaard, who were already attacking. Perhaps, however, they were planning on the Witches to retaliate to the accusations of kingslaying somehow, and were hoping for that retaliation to further disrupt things (which if would have, had Geralt not been there).

Itkovian
Saving Temeria from being divided (by saving Foltes's daughter and NOT giving her to Radovid) is also pretty huge on the global scale.
Best ending imho.
My Geralt saved Henselt 3 times for Vernon Roche :-)
I was hoping to see Adda at some point..... to bad
Post edited May 31, 2011 by BiggusD1
avatar
Xayoz: Saving Temeria from being divided (by saving Foltes's daughter and NOT giving her to Radovid) is also pretty huge on the global scale.
Best ending imho.
I got the impression it likely would be divided if Anais were given to the Temerians. I gave her to Radovid to be cared for by her half sister, who owes her life to me, where she will be faithfully protected by Roche. Really, I saw that as the best option for Temeria.

Ironically, I destroyed the leadership of Kaedwen for largely personal reasons (Roche, Ves).

All this is from my second playthrough.

As far as, large scale accomplishments, they seem to be largely what state the Northern Kingdoms, Kaedwen, Temeria, Pontar/Lormark region, are left in.
There are a lot of world shaping decisions actually. Some of them probably will have great consequences in the next game. For example on my first playthrough i tried to take every single "bad" decision. :D Something that would've probably won me a complete "Renegade" status in terms of Mass Effect or what you can call "lawful evil". Here goes:

1. Betrayed Iorveth and joined forces with Roche.
2. Left Iorveth in the dwarf city and went after the sorceress. Why is that bad? Because it effectively puts an end to the non-human revolution, basically decapitating them and leaving them with no leader.
3. Left Roche to kill Henselt. Killing a king - always bad, no matter that Henselt deserves even worse end but if you look globally - killing the king leads to wars, revolutions, dividing of the territories...
4. Left the dragon alive. Why is that bad? Because it's still mind controlled and still can destroy a lot of lives and possibly kingdoms.
5. Watched Síle die - effectively destroying the Lodge since she was one of the most powerful members and one of the founders. Whatever plans for global changes the Lodge had... it's over now.
6. Saved Triss, instead of Foltest's daughter. This "selfish" act leads to obliterating a lot of "important" nilfgardians. And yea, somehow i don't feel that Roche is strong enough to defend the child, i'm (almost) sure that something will happen. After all... he's no Geralt. :)
7. Killed Letho. There are a lot of other kings left, he could've been... trouble in future. For Geralt's plans, who cares about those fat bastards. :D

So... depending on your choices there are a lot of world shaping global decisions you make all the way to the... end?
Man, you've got to play the Iorveth path as well. The whole dragon business will look quite different.
avatar
Tally: I got the impression it likely would be divided if Anais were given to the Temerians. I gave her to Radovid to be cared for by her half sister, who owes her life to me, where she will be faithfully protected by Roche. Really, I saw that as the best option for Temeria.
I was rather skeptical about that.
As I see it, that would maker Temeria merely a puppet of Radonia.

John Natalis, the victor of Brenna, on the other hand, would undoubtably make a loyal Lord Protector who can keep Temeria united. Anais also appeared badass in that ending (asking for a sword so she could one day avenge her father).
avatar
Ren02: Man, you've got to play the Iorveth path as well. The whole dragon business will look quite different.
Yep, i know, i'm playing the Iorveth path now. On my first playthrough i just wanted to play with the most "evil" decisions. That's how i do it always. :)
Post edited May 31, 2011 by Draka