He already has the hold it! voice, imagine him sprited in the ace attorney series with a trait allowing him to notice when someone is lying in a statement in their testimony
@@journey95far49 we can thank Nilfgaard for that, given the emperor's plans, I think the outcome would've been the same no matter what the North would've achieved. Emyhr wanted a divided and chaotic North which he made possible with the Squirrels and other conspiracies ( like Letho ), I believe we can accept the fact that the outcome would've been the same 1000 times over. I know the people are not the happiest about it, I finished The Witcher 2 more than enough times on all routes, but to me it's always the most fitting that the continuation is a bit more about Roche's path.
I'm a bit disappointed that Stennis acted like a stupid jerk all of sudden, while at first he seemed reasonnable. I prefered the nuanced prince rather than the upper class twit. But anyway, I innocented him. The peasants were a bit too massacre happy for my taste.
@@muhammadnursyahmi9440 You see him in one of the versions of getting to the meeting with Henselt. He defend Saskia against an overjudging priest. Wich might not be sincere, but at least show a realistic understanding of the situation.
Here's the thing though - he is guilty. He did poison Saskia, not Olcan the priest - even though you can't prove it from a story perspective, it can be deduced from alternate choices... If you go Roche path, Stennis dies at the negotiations when the wraiths appear. Only in the Iorveth path does he survive the mist and returns to Vergen. Saskia is not poisoned in the Roche path, ergo it was Stennis, who did it after returning through the wraith mist to Vergen. Henselt kills the priest in both paths - but only on Iorveth path does Stennis survives the mist, and only in the Iorveth path Saskia is poisoned..
They did a very good job making this situation morally gray, no clear right or wrong answer. The only two answers are defend Stennis and give him a fair trial or let the mob lynch him. Stennis is a prideful, selfish and arrogant bastard, there's no doubt of that. He views peasants as beneath him and that he shouldn't be judged by them, even though he needs their support to be King of Aedirn. Everyone claimed he had a tendency to blow hot and cold, which made him volatile and unreliable at times. In his arrogant pride, he refused to give royal blood needed to save Saskia's life, even though doing so could prove that he wasn't involved; because he refuses, all it does is reinforce that he's possibly involved and won't help her. However, the evidence found is inconclusive; it's not solid enough to prove that Stennis was involved in Saskia's poisoning. Reverend Olcan tried to convince Prince Stennis to join the conspiracy against Saskia, but we don't find enough evidence that proves that Stennis agreed. However, it could be implied since Olcan tells Stennis "Just clear the servants from the kitchen." Stennis possibly knew that Saskia would be poisoned, but did nothing to stop it. If Stennis is given a trial, he can easily bribe the judges to find him innocent; they probably wouldn't have to be bribed since all the nobles back the prince, even if they believe he's guilty. Stennis is the only legitimate heir left to Aedirn's throne; if he dies, any chance of peace in Aedirn dies with him. As Geralt said 'A land without a ruler is a nightmare' and 'The death of a king is the triumph of famine, civil war, poverty and fear among the people'. What will happen if the lynching happens? They'll tell the peasants that they can deal with criminals however they want, regardless if their guilt is proven or not. The peasants have every right to be angry, but they don't have the proper evidence to condemn Prince Stennis to death. The lynching tells everyone that they can hurt and kill whoever they want simply because they don't like them. Letting the mob kill Stennis isn't justice, it's revenge, plain and simple; no one should ever act as judge, jury and executioner. Does Stennis deserve to die because he's an arrogant jerk? No. Is he involved in Saskia's poisoning? Possibly, but we don't find the evidence necessary to prove it. Do the peasants have enough reason to despise the Prince and think he's involved? Yes. Is lynching him truly justice? No. This was a very great quest that doesn't have any clear right or wrong answer. Edit: I didn't know that there was a hidden scene where Geralt could talk to Stennis after he's arrested. Geralt all but confirmed that he knew that Stennis was involved and knew why. Stennis wanted recognition, but arrogantly believed that his royal status alone made him worthy of it. He failed to understand that if he wanted the people to support him, he had to actually earn it. However, he believed that PROVING that he was worthy of respect was beneath him and that he should have it simply because he is royalty. His arrogance, pride, unwillingness to humble himself and sense of entitlement kept alienating allies whose support he needed to be crowned. Saskia was everything he wasn't: she was of common blood, yet she was well-loved and well-respected. The people loved her and not Stennis, which in his pride, made him jealous of her. In his eyes, he was of royal blood while she was of common blood, yet everyone loved her and not him. He couldn't stand the idea of a commoner being more beloved than him, so he partook in the poisoning to get her out of the way. As Geralt said, Stennis's flaws explained why the Kingslayers didn't come after him as they did Demavend: he either never would've been crowned or his pride would lead to his downfall.
That's shitty writing. I have played all Witcher games and came to a conclusion that choices from the previous games don't matter. The best you get is a one-line dialogue reminding you of what you have done. Saving Henselt and helping him win the battle for Aedirn doesn't make ANY difference since he gets betrayed by Radovid and killed in a battle off-screen anyway. Helping Iorveth is the most retarded choice a player can make since Saskia doesn't do shit in W3 and Iorveth himself DOESN'T EVEN APPEAR. Basically, W1 and W2 choices are meaningless and remind me of some kind of a fanfiction. CD Project should have made the neutral path as in the first game which would make much more sense since choosing Iorveth's side doesn't do shit and Geralt's canonical position on politics was always neutral.
@@H1kkiMouse actually siding with iorveth is more neutral cause your friend zoltan wants you to go with him. plus roche betrayed geralt and destroyed his and iorveth's plan to kill letho. roche put politics with loredo above triss and geralt while iorveth and his friend zoltan just want to go to vergen and triss teleports there. so siding with iorveth makes more sense.
A shame nothing of this matters in Witcher 3. I really hope they do a remake of the game, having the original game as a base, but with better gameplay (more tactical and challenging like Witcher 2), pre-release - like lighting and color choice, cut content added and, finally, making Witcher 2 choices really matter. That would be a dream come true for me. I think that would be better than starting with a Witcher 4 right ahead. Of course, I wouldn't say no to a Witcher 1 remake as well.
This, this and this! The witcher games are all brilliant in their own right and all ambitious which has lead to a lack of cohesion. Allways been most done of the idea of remaking the witcher 1 and 2 in the witcher 3 with their northern maps just added into the world and then creating new missions in the witcher 3 that ties it all together and allows you to still see the North after the witcher 3's events. Will we probably ever get anything like this, no but would it be awesome af to one day get a singular complete witcher world and story refined and remastered to take the best parts of all 3 games and tune them further. Hell fucking yeah.
1. Philippa said " Should anything happen to Stennis, remember we need his blood. in 0:55. I sent Stennis to jail. However, Philippa said about Henselt blood" We need his blood, not his death. Is Philippa wants to get rid of Stennis in order to take over Pontar Valley( Stennis father also killed by Lodge because they want to create the country control by Lodge) 2. Philippa said "Henselt is criminal. He used circumstances to kill Sabrina. He hated her. (Lie!😡 Sabrina use the fireball massacre two side in order to keep the Lodge and herself) Philippa knows If Henselt death, some of his soldiers will investigate until they figured out whose behind this. 3. Dethmold is war criminal must be punished. Dethmold attacked our Geralt because fight for the different side. Killed Dethmold then replaced by Sile. So the Lodge can influence king Henselt.
If they ever make a Witcher 4, I hope they model it after TW2. The atmosphere, the characters, the pacing, the more challenging combat, no repair cost, preparative alchemy, etc. It just feels deeper and richer than TW3.
I believe it's good that they made the games a little different all the time. I enjoyed both very much, while my favourite is the third game. I love the politics and the dark atmosphere in AoK and the story is in my opinion the best of all three games. But the third got some heartbreaking and very detailed secondary quests and contracts and the world is just the most beautiful i ever saw in a game. Also even if the story is not as good as in the second game, the fact that it involved Ciri and all of Geralts closest friends makes it for me way deeper and more emotional. The death of Vesemir or the moment Geralt finds Ciry on the Isle of Mists are scenes that are from an emotional perspective way above everything from the first two games.
Tbh I played Witcher 2 before and hated it.I just don't like games like these.I like games like Skyrim where you have the will to do everything you want.And Witcher 3 is one of them.I mostly just explored the hidden areas instead of quests.I remember going to Skellige for the first time when I was lvl 23.
Nonsense , you barely get to do any witchering in Witcher 2. Plus it’s not even free roaming. Once you leave a place you can’t go back. Free roaming and the massive array of “witchering” content makes the Witcher 3 a much better Witcher game
Only just did my play-through of W2 yesterday and I killed him. I didn’t want to go to Henselt for the blood but also he seemed guilty. I can’t think that Philippa would poison Saskia. She needed her alive to control her and I don’t think she would risk that method unless she was certain she could survive.
@@xenon8117 she poisoned her. read the book " Among Philippa Eilhart's abandoned possessions, Geralt learned a shocking truth. It turned out it was the sorceress that poisoned the Dragonslayer!" She also admits it if you side with Iorveth in Loc Muinne. Stennis will become a good king anyway.
Geralt of Rivia Ace Attorney.
He already has the hold it! voice, imagine him sprited in the ace attorney series with a trait allowing him to notice when someone is lying in a statement in their testimony
OBJECTION!
Henry Kobyla of Skalitz is quite the attorney too
Not that it really matters given that Nilfgaard conquers Aedirn anyway.
nothing you do in TW2 matters in TW3
@@journey95far49 Well, except sparing Letho, though his involvement in 3 is a side quest.
@@journey95far49 we can thank Nilfgaard for that, given the emperor's plans, I think the outcome would've been the same no matter what the North would've achieved. Emyhr wanted a divided and chaotic North which he made possible with the Squirrels and other conspiracies ( like Letho ), I believe we can accept the fact that the outcome would've been the same 1000 times over.
I know the people are not the happiest about it, I finished The Witcher 2 more than enough times on all routes, but to me it's always the most fitting that the continuation is a bit more about Roche's path.
If he is alive, Stennis ends up as their puppet ruler of Aedirn.
I'm a bit disappointed that Stennis acted like a stupid jerk all of sudden, while at first he seemed reasonnable. I prefered the nuanced prince rather than the upper class twit.
But anyway, I innocented him. The peasants were a bit too massacre happy for my taste.
Yeah, his arc took quite an unexpected and sudden turn, not in a good way
You have never talked to him when not in this mission. He's quite a condescending prick
@@muhammadnursyahmi9440 You see him in one of the versions of getting to the meeting with Henselt. He defend Saskia against an overjudging priest. Wich might not be sincere, but at least show a realistic understanding of the situation.
Here's the thing though - he is guilty. He did poison Saskia, not Olcan the priest - even though you can't prove it from a story perspective, it can be deduced from alternate choices...
If you go Roche path, Stennis dies at the negotiations when the wraiths appear. Only in the Iorveth path does he survive the mist and returns to Vergen. Saskia is not poisoned in the Roche path, ergo it was Stennis, who did it after returning through the wraith mist to Vergen.
Henselt kills the priest in both paths - but only on Iorveth path does Stennis survives the mist, and only in the Iorveth path Saskia is poisoned..
@@Michael-kd1hoYES!!! That's exactly what I was saying before!! Thank you for speaking about it.
They did a very good job making this situation morally gray, no clear right or wrong answer. The only two answers are defend Stennis and give him a fair trial or let the mob lynch him.
Stennis is a prideful, selfish and arrogant bastard, there's no doubt of that. He views peasants as beneath him and that he shouldn't be judged by them, even though he needs their support to be King of Aedirn. Everyone claimed he had a tendency to blow hot and cold, which made him volatile and unreliable at times. In his arrogant pride, he refused to give royal blood needed to save Saskia's life, even though doing so could prove that he wasn't involved; because he refuses, all it does is reinforce that he's possibly involved and won't help her.
However, the evidence found is inconclusive; it's not solid enough to prove that Stennis was involved in Saskia's poisoning. Reverend Olcan tried to convince Prince Stennis to join the conspiracy against Saskia, but we don't find enough evidence that proves that Stennis agreed. However, it could be implied since Olcan tells Stennis "Just clear the servants from the kitchen." Stennis possibly knew that Saskia would be poisoned, but did nothing to stop it.
If Stennis is given a trial, he can easily bribe the judges to find him innocent; they probably wouldn't have to be bribed since all the nobles back the prince, even if they believe he's guilty. Stennis is the only legitimate heir left to Aedirn's throne; if he dies, any chance of peace in Aedirn dies with him. As Geralt said 'A land without a ruler is a nightmare' and 'The death of a king is the triumph of famine, civil war, poverty and fear among the people'.
What will happen if the lynching happens? They'll tell the peasants that they can deal with criminals however they want, regardless if their guilt is proven or not. The peasants have every right to be angry, but they don't have the proper evidence to condemn Prince Stennis to death. The lynching tells everyone that they can hurt and kill whoever they want simply because they don't like them. Letting the mob kill Stennis isn't justice, it's revenge, plain and simple; no one should ever act as judge, jury and executioner.
Does Stennis deserve to die because he's an arrogant jerk? No. Is he involved in Saskia's poisoning? Possibly, but we don't find the evidence necessary to prove it. Do the peasants have enough reason to despise the Prince and think he's involved? Yes. Is lynching him truly justice? No. This was a very great quest that doesn't have any clear right or wrong answer.
Edit: I didn't know that there was a hidden scene where Geralt could talk to Stennis after he's arrested. Geralt all but confirmed that he knew that Stennis was involved and knew why.
Stennis wanted recognition, but arrogantly believed that his royal status alone made him worthy of it. He failed to understand that if he wanted the people to support him, he had to actually earn it. However, he believed that PROVING that he was worthy of respect was beneath him and that he should have it simply because he is royalty. His arrogance, pride, unwillingness to humble himself and sense of entitlement kept alienating allies whose support he needed to be crowned.
Saskia was everything he wasn't: she was of common blood, yet she was well-loved and well-respected. The people loved her and not Stennis, which in his pride, made him jealous of her. In his eyes, he was of royal blood while she was of common blood, yet everyone loved her and not him. He couldn't stand the idea of a commoner being more beloved than him, so he partook in the poisoning to get her out of the way.
As Geralt said, Stennis's flaws explained why the Kingslayers didn't come after him as they did Demavend: he either never would've been crowned or his pride would lead to his downfall.
I know this is very late, but revenge is more often than not justice. Such as it is in this case.
@@Tigo625
Stennis makes a good king though. Saves his realm.
@@stephen8805 Well I wouldn't give him too much credit. The title of King saves Aedirn from falling into anarchy, not what he does.
@@gyula47236he still had to earn the title tho.
good comment
(17:10) - Geralt's speech was incredible!!!
sorry wrong comment
What he said about killing nobles just because they were born that way is so true if you've completed the Fyke Isle mission in witcher 3.
Iorveth is such a badass. It's really too bad he didn't make it into the third game... :/
true dat
He is dead (Roche path) or probably dead (Iorveth path)
@@filopon7116 nope... One of the developers said that iorveth is fine, but not performs in third game, tho it is unforgivable for devs
That's shitty writing. I have played all Witcher games and came to a conclusion that choices from the previous games don't matter. The best you get is a one-line dialogue reminding you of what you have done. Saving Henselt and helping him win the battle for Aedirn doesn't make ANY difference since he gets betrayed by Radovid and killed in a battle off-screen anyway. Helping Iorveth is the most retarded choice a player can make since Saskia doesn't do shit in W3 and Iorveth himself DOESN'T EVEN APPEAR. Basically, W1 and W2 choices are meaningless and remind me of some kind of a fanfiction. CD Project should have made the neutral path as in the first game which would make much more sense since choosing Iorveth's side doesn't do shit and Geralt's canonical position on politics was always neutral.
@@H1kkiMouse actually siding with iorveth is more neutral cause your friend zoltan wants you to go with him. plus roche betrayed geralt and destroyed his and iorveth's plan to kill letho. roche put politics with loredo above triss and geralt while iorveth and his friend zoltan just want to go to vergen and triss teleports there. so siding with iorveth makes more sense.
Wait a minute...
I loved Iorveth so much! So wish he'd shown up in TW3
A shame nothing of this matters in Witcher 3. I really hope they do a remake of the game, having the original game as a base, but with better gameplay (more tactical and challenging like Witcher 2), pre-release - like lighting and color choice, cut content added and, finally, making Witcher 2 choices really matter. That would be a dream come true for me. I think that would be better than starting with a Witcher 4 right ahead.
Of course, I wouldn't say no to a Witcher 1 remake as well.
This, this and this! The witcher games are all brilliant in their own right and all ambitious which has lead to a lack of cohesion. Allways been most done of the idea of remaking the witcher 1 and 2 in the witcher 3 with their northern maps just added into the world and then creating new missions in the witcher 3 that ties it all together and allows you to still see the North after the witcher 3's events. Will we probably ever get anything like this, no but would it be awesome af to one day get a singular complete witcher world and story refined and remastered to take the best parts of all 3 games and tune them further. Hell fucking yeah.
1. Philippa said " Should anything happen to Stennis, remember we need his blood. in 0:55.
I sent Stennis to jail. However, Philippa said about Henselt blood" We need his blood, not his death.
Is Philippa wants to get rid of Stennis in order to take over Pontar Valley( Stennis father also killed by Lodge because they want to create the country control by Lodge)
2. Philippa said "Henselt is criminal. He used circumstances to kill Sabrina. He hated her.
(Lie!😡 Sabrina use the fireball massacre two side in order to keep the Lodge and herself)
Philippa knows If Henselt death, some of his soldiers will investigate until they figured out whose behind this.
3. Dethmold is war criminal must be punished.
Dethmold attacked our Geralt because fight for the different side. Killed Dethmold then replaced by Sile. So the Lodge can influence king Henselt.
Dethmold is gay therefore Philippa is homophobe
also it was phillipa who poisoned saskia not stennis.
@@lelouche25 agreed
@@Cx10110100 Isn't Phillipa bisexual herself though?
Stennis is so damn annoying!
Unlike king Stannis
He ploughin' wears golden armor. Golden. 'Course he's an arsehole.
Agreed, I would have been tempted to leave him to the mob.
If they ever make a Witcher 4, I hope they model it after TW2. The atmosphere, the characters, the pacing, the more challenging combat, no repair cost, preparative alchemy, etc. It just feels deeper and richer than TW3.
i wish they model after w1 best athmosphere and soundtrack of the 3
I believe it's good that they made the games a little different all the time. I enjoyed both very much, while my favourite is the third game. I love the politics and the dark atmosphere in AoK and the story is in my opinion the best of all three games. But the third got some heartbreaking and very detailed secondary quests and contracts and the world is just the most beautiful i ever saw in a game. Also even if the story is not as good as in the second game, the fact that it involved Ciri and all of Geralts closest friends makes it for me way deeper and more emotional. The death of Vesemir or the moment Geralt finds Ciry on the Isle of Mists are scenes that are from an emotional perspective way above everything from the first two games.
Tbh I played Witcher 2 before and hated it.I just don't like games like these.I like games like Skyrim where you have the will to do everything you want.And Witcher 3 is one of them.I mostly just explored the hidden areas instead of quests.I remember going to Skellige for the first time when I was lvl 23.
And playable Borch Trzy Kawki
Nonsense , you barely get to do any witchering in Witcher 2. Plus it’s not even free roaming. Once you leave a place you can’t go back. Free roaming and the massive array of “witchering” content makes the Witcher 3 a much better Witcher game
Iorveth is a badass,
I love him.
letting him live is the right decision
“Where’s this willy of yours?” Hiding in his shack 😉😉
First time I did this I let him die so I don't have to bother going to Henselt for royal blood. 2nd time was when I went for this choice
i saved him. it was phillipa and olcan not stennis.
Only just did my play-through of W2 yesterday and I killed him. I didn’t want to go to Henselt for the blood but also he seemed guilty.
I can’t think that Philippa would poison Saskia. She needed her alive to control her and I don’t think she would risk that method unless she was certain she could survive.
@@xenon8117 she poisoned her. read the book " Among Philippa Eilhart's abandoned possessions, Geralt learned a shocking truth. It turned out it was the sorceress that poisoned the Dragonslayer!" She also admits it if you side with Iorveth in Loc Muinne. Stennis will become a good king anyway.
also stennis tells olcan that saskia is his best woman warlord and he cannot get rid of her. so it's definetly not him.
I wish there was a quest where you could beat Dandelion up with his Lute!!
rofl
I did the mission this way, but it still said I failed the mission “the walls have ears”...
How do I do it correctly?
what was the walls have ears mission? I can't remember it by name
@@xLetalis u find the chalice with which saskia was poisoned
This was the most proper approach, to restrain from populists thinking and to uphold the rule of law is important.
Ogden! Here boy, Ogden!
Ooooooooodriiiiin, where are you?
I swear I could hear their voices while reading this
i wonder what stennis would do if he united the north.
Stennis unite the north? Oh please that fuckwit couldn’t unite a hungry prize-winning cow with it’s food.
@@xenon8117 meh you sound ignorant. i recommend you to spare him before say such a thing.
He would most likely march into Riverlands or fortify the wall as the Death march on it... Oh wait... Wrong Stannis.
I think I had the plebs tear Stennis apart. The right decision.
Yes, the country falling into civil war and anarchy was the “right decision”.
The witcher 2 seems to have alot more impactful choices, hope they re master it soon
I also did save stennis, thought the trial would view all the evidence.
My advice for you is to not stop the mob.
im looking the comments to make my decision, i think i should let him live, but im so lazy atm to go through the mist, omg.
I hated this part. One of the quests always failed.
Did you get the messsage from Noone182?
Wait so if u spare stennis u have to go kill henselt right???
No, Henselt give his royal blood to you voluntarily.
You can kill Henselt in Roche path( Stennis automatically death in Roche path)
Stennis is kinda hot
Stennis is a good king. His opinion on those lower than him is irrelevant.
There is way too much dialogue in this game.
Dylan Kane lol Seriously? It’s an RPG with major narrative choices to be made. What do you expect from a game with great writing?
go play one of your basic fps games you short attenton spanned dimwit
There is not enough dialogue in Witcher 3 imo.
This is funny.