Remember the end of the Witcher 1?
As we had a choice to give Grandmaster to wild hunt or fight him?

I think that's a big decision, but I did not see that it ever mentioned.

Sadly almost everything done in the Witcher 1 and 2 have no effect on Witcher 3.

Iorveth and Saskia are only mentioned for like one sentence throughout the entire game.

Ves and Roche don't care what choices you picked in Witcher 2 at all.

The grandmaster was talked about less than one of his subordinates, Roderick de Wett. (There's a secret room in the Vizima castle with a note about him)

Pretty sure Thaler is magically ressurected for Witcher 3 if you kill him in Witcher 1 as well.

Dammit.
I thought it would be more sophisticated.

Heard some bad rumors,
that it doesn't matter if you kill or not Henselt. Radovid occupy Kaedwen one way or another.
and other.

And what about conclave?
Is there witch-hunt?
How does it justify?
I am playing version where it hunts started at the end of Witcher 2, so I don't know.

Doesn't matter what you do to Henselt nothing changes. (Radovid still takes over, though like 1 sentence in the game explaining what happened changes)

By Conclave I assume you mean the Lodge? You can't really change anything about it to begin with. Everything happens as it should besides Sile.

The enitre city of Novigrad is on a Witch hunt, Radovid hates mages, he wants to kill them all, and Emhyr forces them to either serve him or die pretty much.

ok, thanks.
As I said, I thought it would be more sophisticated.

yeah sadly they didn't carry too much over, but i think it is still fine.
In the recent bioware games (dragon age, mass effect) they tried carrying over tons of stuff, but in the end it was not much more than some in-game e-mails or some strategy table mission with text only.
I'd rather have CD Project spend their time on the witcher 3 and the choices within the game, than to try to include every possible world state from people.


I hope though that in the future stuff like this will be put into games more and more, with budgets growing and DLC coming in as the cash cow for big games like this it would even make sense to put in those decisions in order to keep the players hooked to the series and interested in 2nd playthroughs and DLCs.

If you give the Grandmaster to the king of the Wild Hunt in W1, I think you won't be able to say, in W2, that you fought him. But it doesn't matter in W3 I think. And this is definitely bad, since giving de Aldersberg to the Wild Hunt is like giving them someone like Ciri.

If Thaler dies in W1, I think you won't receive any goods from his spy in Flotsam, but in W3 I think he's always alive.

In W2 you have a neutral good ending for the mages (Radovid won't kill them), but doesn't matter much in W3.

That is a canon ending. Other endings are just options for your adventure to be different. It works exactly the same in MA, DA, I dunno..Baldurs Gate, Kotor?...And wait for the expansions. I bet there will be tons of stuff related to previous games.

What? Thaler can die in TW1? I didn't know that!

Probably because you don't remember that :) You know when you go outside the inn and there are Thaler and De Wett having a fight about Thaler being arrested? Well...

If Henselt is alive in W2, you get told somewhere (or you you just hear it from some random convo, cant remember) that he dies at someplace somewhere blah blah. Basically he ded no matter what since him being alive in the 6 month gap between W2 end and W3 start would have to massively change the world state. Adda and Stennis alive/dead status don't seem to have any actual effect on the world state as well. (raddovid is supposed to be married to adda according to W2 since she was alive in my W1 save import)

Here, confirmation from Foltest @the start of TW2 if you import a save.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WO81ii5DRQ