13812 réponses à ce sujet

[horacethegrey]

Just finished both paths to this amazing game. But I got to ask, which path did you guys favor more. Iorveth's or Roche's?


WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!


Iorveth's path felt like the right path IMO. As it has you fighting for the cause of the lower classes (peasants and nonhumans) of Upper Aedirn. You also find out that Iorveth's not really that bad once you get to know him, and you can renuite Geralt with some of his old buddies like Yarpen Zigrin. Saskia is probably the kindest and most level headed ruler you'll meet in the game (despite her secret). And things really become more awesome once the Siege of Vergen happens, which is kind of like The Witcher's version of Helm's Deep. And once that's done, it's immensely gratifying to watch that fat pig Henselt bow his head in defeat.

Not to say Roche's path is the lesser of the two, because some great stuff happens in it. But some of most horrible s**t happens here as well. Yeah, you get to kill that ass**** Bernard Loredo, but you also find out what a real bastard he truly is. King Henselt is also shown to be quite the royal douche in this path. I don't care if his presence is important to the stability of the North, you don't rape Ves and get away with it. Speaking of Ves, she and Roach are pretty intriguing characters as well. And I enjoyed the Enhanced Edition quest that had you investigating the fate of King Foltest's children.

So again, I have to ask. Which path did you people enjoy more?

[milena87]

I don't know really. Iorveth still feels like the best path to me (even in The Witcher 1 I prefer siding with the Scoia'tael at the beginning, before choosing the neutral way), but Roche's path is full of awesome moments and characters.

And at the end of act 2 of Roche's path there's one of the most difficult choices in the game for me: killing Henselt or letting him go. It was much easier letting Letho go.

[horacethegrey]

milena87 wrote...

I don't know really. Iorveth still feels like the best path to me (even in The Witcher 1 I prefer siding with the Scoia'tael at the beginning, before choosing the neutral way), but Roche's path is full of awesome moments and characters.

And at the end of act 2 of Roche's path there's one of the most difficult choices in the game for me: killing Henselt or letting him go. It was much easier letting Letho go.

Why spare Henselt? I don't get how letting him live benefits Geralt in any way. 

[Sebby]

horacethegrey wrote...

milena87 wrote...

I don't know really. Iorveth still feels like the best path to me (even in The Witcher 1 I prefer siding with the Scoia'tael at the beginning, before choosing the neutral way), but Roche's path is full of awesome moments and characters.

And at the end of act 2 of Roche's path there's one of the most difficult choices in the game for me: killing Henselt or letting him go. It was much easier letting Letho go.

Why spare Henselt? I don't get how letting him live benefits Geralt in any way. 

It benefits the North by providing it with better stability.

[horacethegrey]

Seboist wrote...
It benefits the North by providing it with better stability.

Yeah I get that. But I don't see how that excuses him for raping Ves. Geralt would never stand for it.

[Babli]

horacethegrey wrote...

Seboist wrote...
It benefits the North by providing it with better stability.

Yeah I get that. But I don't see how that excuses him for raping Ves. Geralt would never stand for it.

Even when he is still known as a kingslayer at that point?

[Dave of Canada]

horacethegrey wrote...

Why spare Henselt? I don't get how letting him live benefits Geralt in any way. 

North is stable, Geralt doesn't condemn Roche to be known as Kingslayer for the rest of his life and everybody is happy.

[Sebby]

Dave of Canada wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

Why spare Henselt? I don't get how letting him live benefits Geralt in any way. 

North is stable, Geralt doesn't condemn Roche to be known as Kingslayer for the rest of his life and everybody is happy.

"Thousands of Kaedwenis live better lives because their ruler is an amoral ruthless son of a **** who's stands above the law"

[Chromie]

horacethegrey wrote...

Seboist wrote...
It benefits the North by providing it with better stability.

Yeah I get that. But I don't see how that excuses him for raping Ves. Geralt would never stand for it.

Wait you would condemn the entire North by make them less stable and easier to invade when Nilfgaard reaches their borders just because Vess was raped?

[horacethegrey]

Babli wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

Seboist wrote...
It benefits the North by providing it with better stability.

Yeah I get that. But I don't see how that excuses him for raping Ves. Geralt would never stand for it.

Even when he is still known as a kingslayer at that point?

I always figured Geralt, for all his cold and practical nature, to have a great sense of right and wrong. Yeah, he'd prefer it if he caught Letho and clear his name, and killing Henselt probably wouldn't help in that regard. But the fat ****** had just raped someone close to him, and I'd figure he'd just say "f**k the consequences", and let Roche have his way.

[slimgrin]

horacethegrey wrote...

 But the fat ****** had just raped someone close to him, and I'd figure he'd just say "f**k the consequences", and let Roche have his way.

And yet the other decision is arguably just as gratifying. The dialog between Geralt and Roche made it worthwhile for me.

Modifié par slimgrin, 03 mai 2012 - 07:43 .

[Chromie]

horacethegrey wrote...
I always figured Geralt, for all his cold and practical nature, to have a great sense of right and wrong. Yeah, he'd prefer it if he caught Letho and clear his name, and killing Henselt probably wouldn't help in that regard. But the fat ****** had just raped someone close to him, and I'd figure he'd just say "f**k the consequences", and let Roche have his way.

Geralt isn't stupid though. One woman being raped and her unit being killed is not worth the instability Henselt's death would cause especially during an invasion.

[milena87]

horacethegrey wrote...

milena87 wrote...

I don't know really. Iorveth still feels like the best path to me (even in The Witcher 1 I prefer siding with the Scoia'tael at the beginning, before choosing the neutral way), but Roche's path is full of awesome moments and characters.

And at the end of act 2 of Roche's path there's one of the most difficult choices in the game for me: killing Henselt or letting him go. It was much easier letting Letho go.

Why spare Henselt? I don't get how letting him live benefits Geralt in any way. 

I play Geralt as neutral and compassionate as possible: part of him really wanted Henselt killed for what he did (and not only to Ves), but killing him would bring even more chaos to the Northern kingdoms.

I let Roche get revenge on Dethmold though (instead of finding Triss), I hope it was satisfying enough for him.

[Dave of Canada]

 Killing Henselt serves no purpose except for vengeance, "right or wrong" be damned. It's an impulsive decision made to give players satisfaction but ultimately serves no purpose, you're supposed to want to kill him. The Divine Right of Kings means nothing when you don't care about it.

Everybody involved in Henselt's life will suffer, even those who killed him. You damn the North, you damn Roche, you potentially ruin your own chance of innocence and much more. How does one's sense of right and wrong matter when everything hinges on the man's life?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 mai 2012 - 08:00 .

[horacethegrey]

Funnily enough, on Iorveth's path when it came to decide whether to save Triss or rescue Philippa Eilhart, I always chose to rescue Philippa. Because rescuing Philippa meant I could free Saskia (who is revealed to be a Dragon) from her control. It was worth it though, as Saskia can provide a safe haven for the peasants and nonhumans in Vergen. Saskia is a kind and just ruler, and I think her continued survival is worth Triss' life.

Sure, sparing Henselt would have guaranteed stability and peace in the North. But it doesn't change the fact that he's a despicable human being. I'd gladly let Roche slaughter him every time.

Modifié par horacethegrey, 03 mai 2012 - 08:08 .

[Addai]

horacethegrey wrote...

Why spare Henselt? I don't get how letting him live benefits Geralt in any way. 

Even though it's Roche's decision ultimately, the last thing Geralt needs is to be implicated in another king's death.

I really don't know what is better for the North.  Henselt's an ass, but in the face of the Nilfgaardian threat he would provide more stability.  Do we know who his heir is?  I can't remember.

I prefer Iorveth's path as well, but both are satisfying.  Really I don't think the "dream" of Aedirn is very realistic but maybe they can provide a model for other realms.  In my game I choose to save Triss, though, so Saskia's fate is unclear.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 mai 2012 - 08:33 .

[Sebby]

Henselt has no heir. His son died in a hunting accident.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Seboist wrote...

Henselt has no heir. His son died in a hunting accident.

My name is Rufus. Henselt's cousin eats unicorns!

[KJandrew]

I think one of the reasons I prefer the Witcher over DA2 and Origins is that it feels much more grounded in reality. In Dragon Age you slaughter your way through hordes with only three others. Yet in the Witcher Dethmold is actually surprised that Geralt, who is famed for his skill, managed to kill six soldiers all by himself

[horacethegrey]

KJandrew wrote...

I think one of the reasons I prefer the Witcher over DA2 and Origins is that it feels much more grounded in reality. In Dragon Age you slaughter your way through hordes with only three others. Yet in the Witcher Dethmold is actually surprised that Geralt, who is famed for his skill, managed to kill six soldiers all by himself

I agree. I love DA: Origins, but The Witcher 2 has it beat on story and atmosphere any day of the week. I like Origins' plot mind you, but what CDProjekt  has done with TW2's narrative is nothing short of miraculous. And the fact that it's based on published material (Andrzej Sapkowski's Witcher series) makes it all the more remarkable. Goes to show that licensed games can be a goldmine if the team working behind it is passionate. 

As for DA2, while I do like the characters, it's gameplay, story, and endless repeating dungeons make it fall short in comparison.

[hangmans tree]

I hope I'm not being stereotipical here and let me assure you I dont mean to generalize, but I see a tendency of the female audience to sway for Iorveths path more often than not. AS for male gamers I see the pragmatism, a little washed out of idealism maybe, taking the Roches path.

How do you see it people? And why it is exactly?

[horacethegrey]

hangmans tree wrote...

I hope I'm not being stereotipical here and let me assure you I dont mean to generalize, but I see a tendency of the female audience to sway for Iorveths path more often than not. AS for male gamers I see the pragmatism, a little washed out of idealism maybe, taking the Roches path.

How do you see it people? And why it is exactly?

I'm a guy, and while I do like Iorveth's path, I find the Roche path to be infinitely more interesting. While the Iorveth path is more akin to high fantasy, the Roche path is far more personal and intimate, with a greater emphasis on the political realities of Geralt's world. It also means that Geralt gets to deal with some pretty dispicable people like Henselt, Dethmold, Baron Kimbolt and Count Maravel. 

[milena87]

hangmans tree wrote...

I hope I'm not being stereotipical here and let me assure you I dont mean to generalize, but I see a tendency of the female audience to sway for Iorveths path more often than not. AS for male gamers I see the pragmatism, a little washed out of idealism maybe, taking the Roches path.

How do you see it people? And why it is exactly?

I can see idealistic people preferring Iorveth's path, yes (being them female or male).
You meet poeple fighting for their ideals, for a world without Scoia'tael and segregation, while on Roche's path you mostly meet people fighting for their country, their king or their personal gain. Of course there are exceptions on both sides.

Personally, being the idealist that I am (I'm also a girl), I found Iorveth's path to be the right one, but Roche's path to be the best one story wise.

[Kris69]

milena87 wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...

I hope I'm not being stereotipical here and let me assure you I dont mean to generalize, but I see a tendency of the female audience to sway for Iorveths path more often than not. AS for male gamers I see the pragmatism, a little washed out of idealism maybe, taking the Roches path.

How do you see it people? And why it is exactly?

I can see idealistic people preferring Iorveth's path, yes (being them female or male).
You meet poeple fighting for their ideals, for a world without Scoia'tael and segregation, while on Roche's path you mostly meet people fighting for their country, their king or their personal gain. Of course there are exceptions on both sides.

Personally, being the idealist that I am (I'm also a girl), I found Iorveth's path to be the right one, but Roche's path to be the best one story wise.

I'm a guy and I prefer Iorveth's path...simply because I think that's what Geralt from the books would do.
Not because of Iorveth's ideals but because Geralt would rather aid his good old mates ( like Yarpen) than help some lousy king. He hates politics and monarchs.

Modifié par Kris69, 03 mai 2012 - 11:15 .

[Nordicus]

"I don't think we're in the Northern Kingdoms anymore..."



Witcher Ultimate MOD looks so damn good

http://skyrim.nexusm...ile.php?id=9198