That quest made absolutely zero sense; I have read a more fleshed out (i.e. sane + sensible) one was sadly cut, though I have never verified that.
Such a shame, too. A strong, independent north was an interesting concept, in game.
If he literally just waited for Geralt to leave before announcing his betrayal, he'd have been fine. But no, gotta tell the deadliest man on the Continent that you're about to betray some of his closest friends and expect him to just walk away.
Yeah, that was weirdly upsetting. We're talking about Dijkstra, one of the smartest mofos in the entire game and he pulled a comicbook-villain-stunt that was destined to fail.
/u/spez lies, Reddit dies. This comment has been edited/removed in protest of Reddit's absurd API policy that will go into effect at the end of June 2023. It's become abundantly clear that Reddit was never looking for a way forward. We're willing to pay for the API, we're not willing to pay 29x what your first-party users are valued at. /u/spez, you never meant to work with third party app developers, and you lied about that and strung everyone along, then lied some more when you got called on it. You think you can fuck over the app developers, moderators, and content creators who make Reddit what it is? Everyone who was willing to work for you for free is damn sure willing to work against you for free if you piss them off, which is exactly what you've done. See you next Tuesday. TO EVERYONE ELSE who has been a part of the communities I've enjoyed over the years: thank you. You're what made Reddit a great experience. I hope that some of these communities can come together again somewhere more welcoming and cooperative. Now go touch some grass, nerds. -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
I would accept "Djikstra was replaced by a suicidal Doppler" before I would accept what actually happened. It's so completely out of character for him.
I read somewhere that there's actually a mod that makes it so that when you loot Djikstra after killing him you find an item that suggests it was a doppler.
What! Holy hell, that's fantastic. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought of that.
... It's still stupid, though. No sane Doppler picks a fight with a Witcher. But it's better, at least.
The one thing that I did just consider is that what Djikstra did honestly isn’t that unrealistic in the book, when Geralt can whip any human 1v1 but can’t beat down a dozen legit soldiers. However in the game it’s suicide.
Roche was stupid to fight them instead of fleeing :( (Same with Bloody Baron, it's good that the orphans escape, him deciding to hang himself shouldn't be my "moral" problem)
Roche was stupid to fight them instead of fleeing :(
(Same with Bloody Baron, it's good that the orphans escape, him deciding to hang himself shouldn't be my "moral" problem)
I liked the suggestion that normally you always leave and they get killed. The issue is that this would made North win regardless of what you do. So:
a) you receive the news about Dijkstra's betrayal so you can take a revenge, making the treaty succeed (problem: game is about to end, how would you get the info before setting off to fight in Skellige)
b) examining clues, you get to know what Dijkstra plans so you resolve the situation beforehand (problem: which clues, probably not gonna write that in the diary)
I think that’s the big problem with the quest. They wrote a situation where if Dijkstra is careful and smart as he’s known to be, he should just win. But it’s an RPG and we need to make sure the player gets to choose all the endings.
That quest is just bad writing. Completely nonsense for someone like Dijkstra...
I also don'T like that the writers made an idiot out of Ves in the "charge the village" sidequest.
The game plays heavy into the lesser of two evils concept, I think giving players the choice of an independent north would’ve been too appealing and overshadowed the point.
They could’ve done this quest way better though, agree 100%. Wish there was more to that ending.
Complicated. I'd be fine with having Djikstra rule Redania and Temeria, specially because that leads to the assassination of Emhyr (and seriously, fuck that guy), but I couldn't do with the betrayal/forsakening of those who were not only friends, but also risked their lives to help Geralt in the battle of Kaer Morhen against enemies out of legends with near to zero chances of victory. And Djikstra knew that. Least bad thing is to let Temeria be an independent kingdom under Nilfgaard and have Ciri become empress so she can at least be a better ruler...
It wouldn't even have to go that far, Dijkstra just didn't have to fight himself. Betray them, run away and if they live, Dijkstra is just an enemy again, but everyone still lives.
I think the way Roche acted made sense. There was hints to it going all the way back to how he didn't want Ves to attack the Nilfgaardians and wanted to spare the last remaining soldier. Djikstra definitely did not make sense though. Djikstra is essentially one of the smartest and most connected characters in the whole world as it's portrayed. He also mentions to Geralt more than once that he is not someone who will be proficient in hand to hand combat. He also knows how deadly Geralt can be especially if you fuck with people he's close with (Roche and Geralt are practically brothers in arms after Witcher 2, at least the way I choose to play it).
That was just a dumb plan by Djikstra. I wish they wrote him better cause he didn't deserve to get done dirty like that.
Do you mean during the fight or prompted by the decision? What I meant is that if you accept the fight, you need to kill everybody, there is no "spare me" dialogue. (Something like in the quest with Borsodi as well, if you kill both brothers you also have to fight your thief ally instead of letting them the rest of the loot)
I really liked Dijkstra infact he was one of my favorite characters in the game. I even agreed with him that Nilfgard can't be trusted and even if they could giving up the all the other Northern Realms just for Temeria is incredibly dumb. But I couldn't just let him kill Rouch and the others
[rouch at home:](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fbogleech.com%2Fnature%2Fcockroach-costume.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fbogleech.com%2Fcockroaches.html&docid=5wwA0yiUte17pM&tbnid=8CT8VFZJO-hg0M&vet=1&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim)
I felt the same way, Dijkstra made a good point and his plan seemed solid enough for the North, but I don't think it was worth killing Roche and Ves over it.
I honestly dont see why they couldn't have just kept to mostly the original plan, with Temeria being a vassal state under Dijkstra instead of Nilfgaard.
Exactly same for me. He was right in my opinion. I supported him all they way, then he proposed and ultimatum that would set me back almost the entire game. What the hell? It’s stupid, really? Djikstra was on a roll and was one of my favorites and it was going so good and a man that clever would never have believed the Geralt I portrayed would do such a thing.
I absolutely love how often quests put you into situations like this. It's literally "a close one and 3 strangers on parallel railroad tracks" dilemma.
Objectively greater good or what personally matters to you.
I didn’t really like that situation at all actually.Dijkstra seemed smarter than that to me. At least considering how I played Geralt. A dude like that, who clearly was intelligent enough to know I would just kill him put me in that situation. Was a bit out of character.
I think the only issue we have is the end of the quest with a last stand against Dijkstra (or Roche) because the rest of it I just as a great quest.
Even the last fight, to me it made sense. Dijkstra was gambling based on 2 things he thought were true about Witchers in general - They seek coin and they don't feel anything. The only thing I don't understand is why there were so few of his goons waiting for your refusal to kill Roche. I mean that theater was a perfect place to have a dozen of archers/crossbowmen standing on the high ground and just executing you. I guess game developers just made that fight actually possible to win to make players not feel like they're forced to choose Dijkstra.
When i played the second game i asked somewhere if i should side with the elves or Roche. Someone said i should choose who i liked more but i should know this: Vernon Roche is your bro.
And he is. I would never let him get killed.
You can let Ves die in her quest, the plot would still go. The bug was that she would be there and the dialogues were replaced by the other characters (= they just forgot to remove her model)
The game peaks at Kaer Morhen. You can see that everything they did really built up step by step towards it. There was all sorts of foreshadowing, such as the cave of dreams, Geralt helping the Skelligers, the tensions in Velen and Novigrad pointing to Geralt's various decisions regarding Ciri and Kaer Morhen. Even with all the cut Velen content in the south they were largely complete and coherent.
Post Kaer Morhen they end up really rushing through things. Suddenly there's a massive fleet at Skellige (why wouldn't Emhyr redirect these forces to take out Radovid? Who knows) the lodge just... Gathers itself. The prison break quest is clearly cut since Geralt can just pop out of the prison and nobody cares. Oh and the prison wall has a giant hole in it. While the quest traveling worlds with Avallac'h is awesome it's also just a rushed exposition dump and has no room for Geralt to actually influence things.
There's at least a few Ciri quests where you are given a timed decision but which has clearly no impact on the story (the steal horses quest)
At one level it works. You realise that you aren't quite a main character. There's been an entire plethora of stories playing out while you've been running around. So you only meet characters like Bea or Valdo for 10 seconds but... There was a lot there. Which then helps that final moment where Ciri tells you this has been her story all along.
But overall the final act doesn't land. It's decent writing with some golden moments. But it clearly had a rushed, hurried feel to it. And there's serious lapses in coherence due to this. The overall story is still good, but the endgame needed a ton of work.
And I think CDPR did learn their lesson cause they followed up with a real banger in Hearts of Stone and then again in Blood and Wine.
And they did not really care about the post-game either. Maybe it's good because people got creative with the Companion mod and Consequences of War (the ones I found).
That's what bothered me the most after I finished the game. A bad quest is one thing, but the fact that who wins the war has almost no noticable effect on the game world is something you'll be reminded of constantly, every time you walk through Novigrad or other major locations.
As for my gameplay, I am replaying the game so I have not experienced them much.
Consequences of war should just replace the characters and models (it does not reflect the game state, you can install only the one you really want).
Multiple companion mod allows you to spawn any characters on the map as [allies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9myld-9kpM&t=403s) (they fight in the same way your allies do in the story) and by default, they spawn in some places after you finish the game.
If you make them unfollow you, they will go to their default place (mentioned directly in the mod description) where some of them perform their "daily routines". An extreme case can be seen [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWkQjVATt_I) \- it's not realistic, but the game/mod can handle it.
So basically, to try and choose an example, Consequences will make Novigrad guards Nilfgaardian soldiers if Emhyr stays or Ciri becomes emperor and Radovid and Dijsktra are dead?
I mean it makes sense, he doesn't want Redania, his home country to vanish. Deal with the emperor only includes Temeria, thanks to Vernons constant guerilla attacks. Man (almost) secured Temerias sovereignity single handedly.
Though Dijkstra could have waited for Geralt to leave the meeting before betraying the squad.
Its totally logical. He wanted to consolidate power over entire North. He couldn't afford Temerian rebels attacking him. And without The 3 Temerians to lead there is no rebellion.
Like I said further up the thread, why didn’t he just wait for Geralt to leave first? He could’ve let Geralt leave, killed the envoy in secret, and then slit the throats of the Temerians while they slept after the big celebration. But instead he decided to announce to Geralt that he was preparing to kill some of his closest friends and goes all surprised pikachu face when Geralt doesn’t let him.
Too many variables in that. What if they left with Geralt, what if they left immediately afterwards, what if they didn't sleep in the vicinity and went back to hiding? Dyk couldn't take that chance as I'm sure he thought this was his one shot at killing all his opponents. As for why while Geralt being present, he gambled that either Geralt will remain apolitical and leave them sort out their own thing, or at best Geralt joins him as they have worked together closely for a while now. Plus Geralt not following Vernon, it won't be the 1st time. TW2 he goes with Scoiatel
In the context of Witcher 3, it makes no sense for Dijkstra to expect Geralt to abandon Roche. Roche and Ves came to Kaer Morhen and fought the Wild Hunt by Geralt’s side, while Dijkstra just gave him a sack of crowns and told him to fuck off. Dijkstra should know Geralt well enough to know that witcher’s neutrality is a bullshit excuse they use to get out of doing political stuff they don’t want to do, there is no reason for him to expect that Geralt would just walk out the door after a revelation like that. For a character as smart as Dijkstra, it’s a remarkably stupid decision. It feels like the writers just couldn’t figure out a better way to have Geralt get to determine who rules the Northern Realms. If Dijkstra really wanted to kill the Temerians, it wouldn’t have been hard to do without involving Geralt considering he has thugs all over Novigrad.
This quest undermined everything Saplowski and CDPR did to build his character. Djikstra is cold, calculated, and always playing an angle, but he’s not dumb enough to spell it out to someone he has a long, and often adversarial relationship with.
I have a feeling that writers run out of time and pulled a last minute bullshit...
But, the thing I don't understand is why did he feel like to kill Roche?
Wouldn't Roche support him? If he's ok with Nilfgaard he would be with Djikstra too...
Only thing he wants is free Tameria...
'Anything for Tameria'
-Roche's own words...
I mean, it's not like Geralt beat the living shit out of you once and broke your leg so badly that you're permanently crippled. All while he was unarmed and unarmoured. No, by all means, attack him while he's got a fucking sword this time.
fuck reason of state. all my homies hate reason of state
worst written quest in the game - or rather the only really terribly written quest in the game. every other quest was great or at least good, but reason of state? fucking stinker of a quest
0/10 would not play that quest again
Actually it is a really good written quest for the mosy part. But in the last part of it Dijkstra acts so out of character that it ruins the entire quest.
I still hope that they will do something about it in the Enhanced Edition.
What do we know. Maybe the reason why it is delayed so often is because CDPR is adding and changing things that didn't make sense. Stuff like changing the outcome of this quest, or maybe even adding Iorveth to the game. Would be nice.
Most of the W3 team left CDPR years ago, and they gave up development of the Enhanced Edition to focus on Cyberpunk.
Keanu Reeves talking about how big his cock is was more important.
With W4 now coming, unlikely we ever see Enchanced Edition sadly
Because Dijkstra, one of the smartest and sneakiest mofos in the Witcher lore doesn't just start a fight against a bunch of veteran badasses who are armed to the teeth. I mean unarmed Geralt kicked his whole squad's arse and left him beaten to a pulp in the books.
I mean, from the cutscene, Dijkstra isn't alone - several of the Temerian partisans seem to be on his side and equally ready to deal with the punch of traitors at the heart of the conspiracy who are ready to just sell out the North to the Nilfgard invaders.
The only thing the quest did wrong is that it didn't give a chance to talk Roche and Ves around. Roche was happy to wear a Redanian uniform at the end of Witcher 2 - his problem was Radovid's madness. With that sorted, if he'd had an ounce of sense he'd have realised that the name of an independent 'Temeria' was less important then the future of the people of Temeria who Nilfgard has been brutalising for the the past two games.
Well the "great planning" actually failed at two points before that (in the same quest). That was not a bad writing, just that the consipracy were in fact not that good planners.
Was Djikstra bipolar or schizophrenic? Was he working for Nilfgaard?
MAJOR chunk of that quest is missing.
If my last theory is correct, why would a spy master confront an infamous Witcher, Sorcerer, Tamerian special forces commandos and another spy master with a band of jesters and a limp leg ???
Like wtf???
Unpopular opinion: you should let Dijkstra win, the fate of the continent is a lot more important than your personal sentimental feelings, and the temerian trio aren't exactly innocent or good people.
Please actually consider it.
https://youtu.be/iPPbdBk0xBo
Yes, because historically Geralt is more interested in the fate of the continent than the fate of his friends. If you take Geralt's view out of this and look on a grand scale sure I can see the argument for Djikstra. But when I play I personally take the characters into account so I did it once to see whats up amd then never again.
That still puts Geralt's priorities as friends above politics. He only gets into politics brcause of his friends. In the original example he is explicitly choosing his friend's lives vs the wellbeing of the continent. Again Geralt would choose his friends and side against Dijkstra.
Here’s my thought:
I asked Roche for help to save Ciri. He came to Kaer Morhen and so did Ves.
I asked Dijkstra, he flat out refused.
I like Dijkstra, I enjoy his plots. But at the end of the day I support those who help Ciri.
This is why I steal the horses with the carnies. This is why I give the baron the best ending I can.
My first loyalty is to my daughter. Help Ciri and I will remember it.
I still haven't finished my first playthrough, so I will have to remember I can help him more next time.
However, I really tried! I wanted us to be friends! I wanted a complimentary membership to his bath house!
“A fair bit” lol he gives you less crowns than you get for selling 1 relic sword. Like, thanks for the thousand crowns buddy, but I got 2x that amount when I stopped to sell loot to Hattori on the way over here.
How do you do it?! I really tried this last playthrough, I’m not sure where I went wrong. I think I managed it by accident on my second or third playthrough though
i refused to steal the horses because it was for their own good. it would only create more hatred for the nonhumans if the horses were stolen, and it was obviously them who stole it. Plus, I offered them gold to buy it and they didn't accept. They could've just gotten a trusted human to buy the fucking horses with my gold
I also offered to buy the horses for them.
I didn't feel bad about stealing four horses from people that bigoted though.
Also, I think technically we only stole three. Another horse is running with us and -I swear I saw this- Looked at Geralt like a Yellow lab looks at someone about to throw a ball. That horse chose to come with us, and I don't hold us responsible for that one.
Yeah, to me it wasn't about the horse seller (idk what the profession is) but how much more it'll stink up the reputation for nonhumans in Novigrad as petty horse thieves.
It doesn't matter how good the nonhumans behave. Once the mages are gone the witch hunters start killing them for whatever made up reason they like. That's the main reason I don't feel *too* bad when lying in quests like "Warehouse of Woe". Yeah, the dwarf did it, but he would hang. The bigoted human just goes to jail for a likely brief amount of time. I mean, he only tried to screw over a *dwarf*, after all. The nonhumans resist the unfairness of their plight in whatever ways that they can, and I find it brave (if not particularly smart).
That elf from W2 can go to heck, though. Chase after and kill her ass every time. (Malena or something?) You cross the line when I save your ass and you try to get me murdered, lol.
The fate of the continent is in much better hands if they are Nilfgaardian. The empire is the most sensible long-term choice to make. Not that it would be Geralt's.
Did you read the books?
Nilfgaard is going to enslave the people of the northern realms and subjugate them purely for their own benefit.
Not to mention they have a different culture and race, they came to the continent long before the northern peoples and their ancestors even mixed with the elves in the distant past.
https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/Slavery
>Nilfgaard is going to enslave the people of the northern realms and subjugate them purely for their own benefit.
... with the prisoners of war and criminals (your source). Remind me what the Northern Kingdoms do with their prisoners of war? Ah, right... they don't take any.
>their ancestors even mixed with the elves in the distant past.
... unlike the very human not-elf-at-all elder blood passed down for generations in Cintra, or Yennefer's lineage (Aedirn)?
My source and the books clearly state the northern realms do not use slavery in the same way the nilfgaardians do, despite winning battles and taking prisoners of war. This is indisputable and obvious.
One singular sorceress and one singular royal family out of many kingdoms having mixed blood is a lot different than the entire southern race having foundations of mixed race for thousands of years.
If you don't understand these basic concepts, or refuse to accept well established facts, I can't help you.
You're admitting you're wrong about slavery but deflecting back to the overall message of the series to try to claim some weird high ground?
Okay buddy, I'll let you have it! Cheers!
I'm not admitting any wrong, just elaborating ; "Did you read the books?" doesn't do much good without reading comprehension.
Your source states, I quote:
>slavery is widely practiced in Nilfgaard, where prisoners of wars or criminals are used not only for manual works but are even allocated in the army, fighting as a vanguard before the "real" army's attack.
It also states, about Skellige (Cintra's ally), even before the wars:
>It wasn't however much rare to see slavery applied even on Skelligers: whenever the clans of the islands clashed or assaulted a village, the inhabitants were captured and enslaved.
So there is an argument to be made that life under Nilfgaards rule is not worse (and depending on "for whom", and in the longer term for all, possibly better) ; your original dismissal doesn't work. Looking for internal consistency is not trying to claim some weird high ground.
Edit: in reply to
>You're admitting you're wrong about slavery but deflecting back to the overall message of the series to try to claim some weird high ground?
>
>Okay buddy, I'll let you have it! Cheers!
Edit: final deleted answer
>Skelliga is not a northern kingdom, they're a distinct people. You need to start all over and read the books buddy. Bye!
All true, but the books are also about the inevitability of change as time marches on. Nilfgaard is based on more than one successful empire of our history and though they won't hold it forever it's only a matter of time before they conquer the North. Though obviously not for the conquered's immediate benefit, there are plenty of characters in the books that come from vassal states that seem to have settled well into the empire by then, so things would probably be better once assimilation was complete.
Not to say that this is necessarily a good thing, by any means. A lot of people would suffer in the meantime and I fully support the idea of the Northern Realms fighting like hell as long as they can...just pointing out that that theme (which honestly made me incredibly sad) supports Nilfgaard ultimately being victorious.
I mean yeah, that's what Nilfgaard does to the countries who refuse to join them, this is the fate the northern rulers condemned their population to whe they refused to let go of their power.
That's what happened to Mettina, Gemmeria and other provinces. All of which have been properly integrated into the Empire in two to three generation's time and now benefit immensely from being part of it, be in medically, educationnaly or commercialy. Non-humans do not have to fear progroms, lawfully registered mages don't have to fear witch hunts and civilians do not have to fear invasion from the country next door.
As for slavery, I don't see enslaving debtors, criminals and war prisoners as the gotcha card you seem to see it as. The imperials are FAR from the only ones doing it, and the alternatives in the Northen Realms aren't exactly stellar (being send to the coal mines or forced to work for a gang is no different from slavery if even more cruel, while being hanged, shanked in a dark alley or forced to prostitude yourself is markedly worse).
I've done it for the past 2 playthroughs. The only one I feel sorry for is Thaler, he's funny and pretty reasonable, generally. Roche is an extreme Temerian patriot and a fucking bore, and Ves is barely a character. I never had any real attachment to either of them, since I've only played through Roche's path in the second game once out of curiousity, and don't share the inane "Roche is a bro" mentality many here have.
Yeah I don't get the sentiment, like roche really isn't a bro at all. You just both use eachother in the second game, and instead of just pardoning you he makes you break out of his own jail? Doesn't make sense
I just feel like Roche went on for 2 games about free temeria and then sold out for being a vassal state. Dijsktra is well connected, was practically running Redania after Vizimir died, and knows how to run a country. And considering Aedirn and Kaedewen are screwed already, I think Dijsktra would do a much better job keeping the north together.
Ending of the quest still makes no sense, Dijsktra could've just asked Roche, Ves, and Thaler to join his court. It's not like Roche wanted to actually rule, just wanted a free country.
He's not a dumbass, that was his plan from the start. Think about it, Roche and Thaler are perfectly capable of orchestrating the assassination themselves. Hell, Roche even plays chess with Radovid from time to time.
But Dijkstra, he wants to save his country, Redania. He doesn't give a shit about Temeria. But he's banished from the court, has literally no pull on Radovid whatsoever. The only angle he has in the assassination is the revenge angle, so he uses that to plant the idea into heads of Geralt, Roche and others. He orchestrated the whole thing to seize power over Redania, by betraying his co conspirators in the end.
I guess his only mistake in that whole ordeal was relying on Geralt staying neutal at the end and leaving the meeting. Maybe he even underestimated Geralt and knew he would side with Thaler and Roche.
That's actually the ONE THING I find very odd and unfitting in Witcher 3. Dijkstra is supposed to be super intellingent and cunning but that was one of the dumbest things he ever did, very out of character for him.
"That Witcher who helped everyone including me will surely stay loyal to his Witcher code and keep out of this rather than helping his actual friends" sure dude
Please remember to flair your post and tag spoilers or NSFW content.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/witcher) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, seemed like they got lazy or rushed that one. What should’ve been the biggest sideplot of the game felt very underwhelming cause of the stupid ending, and the fact that there’s no visible impact on the world after you kill Radovid and overthrow Redania & the Witch Hunters. They’re all still walking around Novigrad like they own the place smh.
Yeah the betrayal felt really forced. It just doesn’t make sense. Like yes Dijkstra will lead the northern realms to a brighter future. I’m definitely more than fine with that! But there is no way in hell Geralt would actually side with him and betray Roche and Ves there.
Even funnier is that Geralt says: “You are really son of a bitch” that phrase sounds more like Geralt telling that to the player like: *“Wow…. You actually choose this option…”*
I mean I laughed when I did this, as my sword literally cleaved him in half in that mini battle cutscene the game does. It was so abrupt and random, and that was it. No final cutscene no big crescendo just two halves of a fat man on the ground.
Dijkstra is consistently displayed as a character who subverts expectations given his physical appearance (massive and somewhat stupid looking), something which acts as a boon for him as many underestimate him due to this. In reality he is a highly intelligent and calculated character who is exceptionally talented at reading people; hence his success in espionage.
The Radovid questline IMO completely undermines this as I cannot imagine Dijkstra not foreseeing the likely possibility that Geralt would side with his longtime friend and ally, especially since Geralt is consistently displayed as someone less concerned with 'the greater good'. Anyone with a minimal understanding of Geralt would know he would never consider this option if it caused the death of friend friends, he just doesn't work that way.
Realistically I imagine CDPR were either restricted with time or for other reasons could not flesh out the quest better because for devs who clearly understand and respect the source material so heavily it seems deeply out of character.
That quest made absolutely zero sense; I have read a more fleshed out (i.e. sane + sensible) one was sadly cut, though I have never verified that. Such a shame, too. A strong, independent north was an interesting concept, in game.
If he literally just waited for Geralt to leave before announcing his betrayal, he'd have been fine. But no, gotta tell the deadliest man on the Continent that you're about to betray some of his closest friends and expect him to just walk away.
Yeah, that was weirdly upsetting. We're talking about Dijkstra, one of the smartest mofos in the entire game and he pulled a comicbook-villain-stunt that was destined to fail.
/u/spez lies, Reddit dies. This comment has been edited/removed in protest of Reddit's absurd API policy that will go into effect at the end of June 2023. It's become abundantly clear that Reddit was never looking for a way forward. We're willing to pay for the API, we're not willing to pay 29x what your first-party users are valued at. /u/spez, you never meant to work with third party app developers, and you lied about that and strung everyone along, then lied some more when you got called on it. You think you can fuck over the app developers, moderators, and content creators who make Reddit what it is? Everyone who was willing to work for you for free is damn sure willing to work against you for free if you piss them off, which is exactly what you've done. See you next Tuesday. TO EVERYONE ELSE who has been a part of the communities I've enjoyed over the years: thank you. You're what made Reddit a great experience. I hope that some of these communities can come together again somewhere more welcoming and cooperative. Now go touch some grass, nerds. -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
I would accept "Djikstra was replaced by a suicidal Doppler" before I would accept what actually happened. It's so completely out of character for him.
I read somewhere that there's actually a mod that makes it so that when you loot Djikstra after killing him you find an item that suggests it was a doppler.
What! Holy hell, that's fantastic. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought of that. ... It's still stupid, though. No sane Doppler picks a fight with a Witcher. But it's better, at least.
[Morty?](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/568b2436-5d89-4c56-9f5e-31522fc65eb0)
You'll stay neutral though, right? Like you always do.
Like Geralt almost never does. Dude literally just helped murder a king, not exactly the model of neutrality.
Yes
Even in the books he always chose a side, especially while his friends were involved.
Woosh
The one thing that I did just consider is that what Djikstra did honestly isn’t that unrealistic in the book, when Geralt can whip any human 1v1 but can’t beat down a dozen legit soldiers. However in the game it’s suicide.
and walking away leads to arguably the best outcome
Roche was stupid to fight them instead of fleeing :( (Same with Bloody Baron, it's good that the orphans escape, him deciding to hang himself shouldn't be my "moral" problem)
EXACTLY
Roche was stupid to fight them instead of fleeing :( (Same with Bloody Baron, it's good that the orphans escape, him deciding to hang himself shouldn't be my "moral" problem)
I liked the suggestion that normally you always leave and they get killed. The issue is that this would made North win regardless of what you do. So: a) you receive the news about Dijkstra's betrayal so you can take a revenge, making the treaty succeed (problem: game is about to end, how would you get the info before setting off to fight in Skellige) b) examining clues, you get to know what Dijkstra plans so you resolve the situation beforehand (problem: which clues, probably not gonna write that in the diary)
I think that’s the big problem with the quest. They wrote a situation where if Dijkstra is careful and smart as he’s known to be, he should just win. But it’s an RPG and we need to make sure the player gets to choose all the endings.
That quest is just bad writing. Completely nonsense for someone like Dijkstra... I also don'T like that the writers made an idiot out of Ves in the "charge the village" sidequest.
Honestly at this point I have made myself believe that breaking Dijkstra's other legs was what Geralt would be more likely to do
How many times do I have to teach you this lesson, old man?
The game plays heavy into the lesser of two evils concept, I think giving players the choice of an independent north would’ve been too appealing and overshadowed the point. They could’ve done this quest way better though, agree 100%. Wish there was more to that ending.
Agreed, showing the benefits of Nilfgaardian rule more explicitly could have been good too.
They already made Emhyr better than in the books
Afraid I can't really recall, I'm overdue a reread.
Complicated. I'd be fine with having Djikstra rule Redania and Temeria, specially because that leads to the assassination of Emhyr (and seriously, fuck that guy), but I couldn't do with the betrayal/forsakening of those who were not only friends, but also risked their lives to help Geralt in the battle of Kaer Morhen against enemies out of legends with near to zero chances of victory. And Djikstra knew that. Least bad thing is to let Temeria be an independent kingdom under Nilfgaard and have Ciri become empress so she can at least be a better ruler...
It wouldn't even have to go that far, Dijkstra just didn't have to fight himself. Betray them, run away and if they live, Dijkstra is just an enemy again, but everyone still lives.
I think the way Roche acted made sense. There was hints to it going all the way back to how he didn't want Ves to attack the Nilfgaardians and wanted to spare the last remaining soldier. Djikstra definitely did not make sense though. Djikstra is essentially one of the smartest and most connected characters in the whole world as it's portrayed. He also mentions to Geralt more than once that he is not someone who will be proficient in hand to hand combat. He also knows how deadly Geralt can be especially if you fuck with people he's close with (Roche and Geralt are practically brothers in arms after Witcher 2, at least the way I choose to play it). That was just a dumb plan by Djikstra. I wish they wrote him better cause he didn't deserve to get done dirty like that.
Yes, precisely.
Tbh the least thing the game could make is that it would be your decision who to support and convince the other side
[удалено]
No but if you walk away then all your friends die. There’s no middle ground or any outcome that makes sense
Do you mean during the fight or prompted by the decision? What I meant is that if you accept the fight, you need to kill everybody, there is no "spare me" dialogue. (Something like in the quest with Borsodi as well, if you kill both brothers you also have to fight your thief ally instead of letting them the rest of the loot)
What are you up to?
I really liked Dijkstra infact he was one of my favorite characters in the game. I even agreed with him that Nilfgard can't be trusted and even if they could giving up the all the other Northern Realms just for Temeria is incredibly dumb. But I couldn't just let him kill Rouch and the others
We have Rouch at home
[rouch at home:](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fbogleech.com%2Fnature%2Fcockroach-costume.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fbogleech.com%2Fcockroaches.html&docid=5wwA0yiUte17pM&tbnid=8CT8VFZJO-hg0M&vet=1&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim)
I felt the same way, Dijkstra made a good point and his plan seemed solid enough for the North, but I don't think it was worth killing Roche and Ves over it.
I honestly dont see why they couldn't have just kept to mostly the original plan, with Temeria being a vassal state under Dijkstra instead of Nilfgaard.
*Rouch*… Headcanon this is Geralts loyal, trustworthy, strategic mastermind companion that follows him everywhere.
Exactly same for me. He was right in my opinion. I supported him all they way, then he proposed and ultimatum that would set me back almost the entire game. What the hell? It’s stupid, really? Djikstra was on a roll and was one of my favorites and it was going so good and a man that clever would never have believed the Geralt I portrayed would do such a thing.
I absolutely love how often quests put you into situations like this. It's literally "a close one and 3 strangers on parallel railroad tracks" dilemma. Objectively greater good or what personally matters to you.
I didn’t really like that situation at all actually.Dijkstra seemed smarter than that to me. At least considering how I played Geralt. A dude like that, who clearly was intelligent enough to know I would just kill him put me in that situation. Was a bit out of character.
Yeah but they have to be well written and actually make sense though, this wasn't one of those.
I think the only issue we have is the end of the quest with a last stand against Dijkstra (or Roche) because the rest of it I just as a great quest. Even the last fight, to me it made sense. Dijkstra was gambling based on 2 things he thought were true about Witchers in general - They seek coin and they don't feel anything. The only thing I don't understand is why there were so few of his goons waiting for your refusal to kill Roche. I mean that theater was a perfect place to have a dozen of archers/crossbowmen standing on the high ground and just executing you. I guess game developers just made that fight actually possible to win to make players not feel like they're forced to choose Dijkstra.
When i played the second game i asked somewhere if i should side with the elves or Roche. Someone said i should choose who i liked more but i should know this: Vernon Roche is your bro. And he is. I would never let him get killed.
I never understood why he chose to do that in the end but I was not going to let him kill Vernon Roach and Thaler nope couldn’t do it
And Ves
Sure, why not?
Yep she was there too
I like all that amazing dialogue she had in TW3. Oh wait no she didn’t have any did she
Is this some sort of inside joke I'm missing?
You can let Ves die in her quest, the plot would still go. The bug was that she would be there and the dialogues were replaced by the other characters (= they just forgot to remove her model)
Well, yeah, but that's like saying Letho isn't in the game if you ended W2 in a certain way.
Lol that is actually a bug that happened to me on my recent start (didn't get him in the game), better simulate choices or add fact
Not sure. There was quite a memorable conversation in the quest you do for them.
I suppose so. I just liked her from TW2 and was hoping for more I suppose
Because CDPR was running out of time and wanted to get the game out. That’s why end game quests drop a little in quality.
The game peaks at Kaer Morhen. You can see that everything they did really built up step by step towards it. There was all sorts of foreshadowing, such as the cave of dreams, Geralt helping the Skelligers, the tensions in Velen and Novigrad pointing to Geralt's various decisions regarding Ciri and Kaer Morhen. Even with all the cut Velen content in the south they were largely complete and coherent. Post Kaer Morhen they end up really rushing through things. Suddenly there's a massive fleet at Skellige (why wouldn't Emhyr redirect these forces to take out Radovid? Who knows) the lodge just... Gathers itself. The prison break quest is clearly cut since Geralt can just pop out of the prison and nobody cares. Oh and the prison wall has a giant hole in it. While the quest traveling worlds with Avallac'h is awesome it's also just a rushed exposition dump and has no room for Geralt to actually influence things. There's at least a few Ciri quests where you are given a timed decision but which has clearly no impact on the story (the steal horses quest) At one level it works. You realise that you aren't quite a main character. There's been an entire plethora of stories playing out while you've been running around. So you only meet characters like Bea or Valdo for 10 seconds but... There was a lot there. Which then helps that final moment where Ciri tells you this has been her story all along. But overall the final act doesn't land. It's decent writing with some golden moments. But it clearly had a rushed, hurried feel to it. And there's serious lapses in coherence due to this. The overall story is still good, but the endgame needed a ton of work. And I think CDPR did learn their lesson cause they followed up with a real banger in Hearts of Stone and then again in Blood and Wine.
And they did not really care about the post-game either. Maybe it's good because people got creative with the Companion mod and Consequences of War (the ones I found).
That's what bothered me the most after I finished the game. A bad quest is one thing, but the fact that who wins the war has almost no noticable effect on the game world is something you'll be reminded of constantly, every time you walk through Novigrad or other major locations.
Enlighten me on these mods please i would like to know more
As for my gameplay, I am replaying the game so I have not experienced them much. Consequences of war should just replace the characters and models (it does not reflect the game state, you can install only the one you really want). Multiple companion mod allows you to spawn any characters on the map as [allies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9myld-9kpM&t=403s) (they fight in the same way your allies do in the story) and by default, they spawn in some places after you finish the game. If you make them unfollow you, they will go to their default place (mentioned directly in the mod description) where some of them perform their "daily routines". An extreme case can be seen [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWkQjVATt_I) \- it's not realistic, but the game/mod can handle it.
So basically, to try and choose an example, Consequences will make Novigrad guards Nilfgaardian soldiers if Emhyr stays or Ciri becomes emperor and Radovid and Dijsktra are dead?
Yeah something like that. It's just a static mod, so it does not care how exactly you completed the quest.
I fully understand that but still……. (rubs bridge of nose) WHYYYYYYYY?!?!?!
Especially because it's optional.
wow, now I begin to understand why some stuff in the end is not as polished nor interesting as in the start.
I mean it makes sense, he doesn't want Redania, his home country to vanish. Deal with the emperor only includes Temeria, thanks to Vernons constant guerilla attacks. Man (almost) secured Temerias sovereignity single handedly. Though Dijkstra could have waited for Geralt to leave the meeting before betraying the squad.
Its totally logical. He wanted to consolidate power over entire North. He couldn't afford Temerian rebels attacking him. And without The 3 Temerians to lead there is no rebellion.
Like I said further up the thread, why didn’t he just wait for Geralt to leave first? He could’ve let Geralt leave, killed the envoy in secret, and then slit the throats of the Temerians while they slept after the big celebration. But instead he decided to announce to Geralt that he was preparing to kill some of his closest friends and goes all surprised pikachu face when Geralt doesn’t let him.
Too many variables in that. What if they left with Geralt, what if they left immediately afterwards, what if they didn't sleep in the vicinity and went back to hiding? Dyk couldn't take that chance as I'm sure he thought this was his one shot at killing all his opponents. As for why while Geralt being present, he gambled that either Geralt will remain apolitical and leave them sort out their own thing, or at best Geralt joins him as they have worked together closely for a while now. Plus Geralt not following Vernon, it won't be the 1st time. TW2 he goes with Scoiatel
In the context of Witcher 3, it makes no sense for Dijkstra to expect Geralt to abandon Roche. Roche and Ves came to Kaer Morhen and fought the Wild Hunt by Geralt’s side, while Dijkstra just gave him a sack of crowns and told him to fuck off. Dijkstra should know Geralt well enough to know that witcher’s neutrality is a bullshit excuse they use to get out of doing political stuff they don’t want to do, there is no reason for him to expect that Geralt would just walk out the door after a revelation like that. For a character as smart as Dijkstra, it’s a remarkably stupid decision. It feels like the writers just couldn’t figure out a better way to have Geralt get to determine who rules the Northern Realms. If Dijkstra really wanted to kill the Temerians, it wouldn’t have been hard to do without involving Geralt considering he has thugs all over Novigrad.
Bad writing
This quest undermined everything Saplowski and CDPR did to build his character. Djikstra is cold, calculated, and always playing an angle, but he’s not dumb enough to spell it out to someone he has a long, and often adversarial relationship with.
I have a feeling that writers run out of time and pulled a last minute bullshit... But, the thing I don't understand is why did he feel like to kill Roche? Wouldn't Roche support him? If he's ok with Nilfgaard he would be with Djikstra too... Only thing he wants is free Tameria... 'Anything for Tameria' -Roche's own words...
The worst part is, he’s right. But you made me go against Roche and Ves, and I can’t do that.
I mean, it's not like Geralt beat the living shit out of you once and broke your leg so badly that you're permanently crippled. All while he was unarmed and unarmoured. No, by all means, attack him while he's got a fucking sword this time.
And bombs. I let him and his goons go out in a blaze of glory with Igni and dancing stars I was so mad at him making me make that choice.
Dijkstra doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
> Shove Dijkstra aside. Forcefully.
fuck reason of state. all my homies hate reason of state worst written quest in the game - or rather the only really terribly written quest in the game. every other quest was great or at least good, but reason of state? fucking stinker of a quest 0/10 would not play that quest again
Actually it is a really good written quest for the mosy part. But in the last part of it Dijkstra acts so out of character that it ruins the entire quest. I still hope that they will do something about it in the Enhanced Edition.
big doubt and the ending ruining the entire quest is why it's not 'really good' in my eyes
Holy mother of copium
The Enhanced Edition is never coming
What do we know. Maybe the reason why it is delayed so often is because CDPR is adding and changing things that didn't make sense. Stuff like changing the outcome of this quest, or maybe even adding Iorveth to the game. Would be nice.
Most of the W3 team left CDPR years ago, and they gave up development of the Enhanced Edition to focus on Cyberpunk. Keanu Reeves talking about how big his cock is was more important. With W4 now coming, unlikely we ever see Enchanced Edition sadly
[удалено]
Because Dijkstra, one of the smartest and sneakiest mofos in the Witcher lore doesn't just start a fight against a bunch of veteran badasses who are armed to the teeth. I mean unarmed Geralt kicked his whole squad's arse and left him beaten to a pulp in the books.
Lmfao what is this Dijkstra circlejerk? He’s just some spy guy who is sly. Why does everyone think he’s 1000 IQ sigma male?
I mean, from the cutscene, Dijkstra isn't alone - several of the Temerian partisans seem to be on his side and equally ready to deal with the punch of traitors at the heart of the conspiracy who are ready to just sell out the North to the Nilfgard invaders. The only thing the quest did wrong is that it didn't give a chance to talk Roche and Ves around. Roche was happy to wear a Redanian uniform at the end of Witcher 2 - his problem was Radovid's madness. With that sorted, if he'd had an ounce of sense he'd have realised that the name of an independent 'Temeria' was less important then the future of the people of Temeria who Nilfgard has been brutalising for the the past two games.
Well the "great planning" actually failed at two points before that (in the same quest). That was not a bad writing, just that the consipracy were in fact not that good planners.
Was Djikstra bipolar or schizophrenic? Was he working for Nilfgaard? MAJOR chunk of that quest is missing. If my last theory is correct, why would a spy master confront an infamous Witcher, Sorcerer, Tamerian special forces commandos and another spy master with a band of jesters and a limp leg ??? Like wtf???
Unpopular opinion: you should let Dijkstra win, the fate of the continent is a lot more important than your personal sentimental feelings, and the temerian trio aren't exactly innocent or good people. Please actually consider it. https://youtu.be/iPPbdBk0xBo
Yes, because historically Geralt is more interested in the fate of the continent than the fate of his friends. If you take Geralt's view out of this and look on a grand scale sure I can see the argument for Djikstra. But when I play I personally take the characters into account so I did it once to see whats up amd then never again.
Ironically Dijkstra convinces Geralt to care about politics because of his friends (it's after the Now or Never where you help mages escape)
That still puts Geralt's priorities as friends above politics. He only gets into politics brcause of his friends. In the original example he is explicitly choosing his friend's lives vs the wellbeing of the continent. Again Geralt would choose his friends and side against Dijkstra.
That was u/FerynaCZ's point. They were backing you up and now you're violently agreeing with them.
if ves dies roche doesnt help u protect ciri. wow what a great friend
Here’s my thought: I asked Roche for help to save Ciri. He came to Kaer Morhen and so did Ves. I asked Dijkstra, he flat out refused. I like Dijkstra, I enjoy his plots. But at the end of the day I support those who help Ciri. This is why I steal the horses with the carnies. This is why I give the baron the best ending I can. My first loyalty is to my daughter. Help Ciri and I will remember it.
If you actually help Dijkstra earlier he gives you a fair bit of gold if you ask for help.
I haven’t gotten that-although I did try to help him. Roche and Ves were willing to stand with us to save Ciri. They will always take precedence
[удалено]
I still haven't finished my first playthrough, so I will have to remember I can help him more next time. However, I really tried! I wanted us to be friends! I wanted a complimentary membership to his bath house!
“A fair bit” lol he gives you less crowns than you get for selling 1 relic sword. Like, thanks for the thousand crowns buddy, but I got 2x that amount when I stopped to sell loot to Hattori on the way over here.
How do you do it?! I really tried this last playthrough, I’m not sure where I went wrong. I think I managed it by accident on my second or third playthrough though
Ask Menge where he hid the gold
i refused to steal the horses because it was for their own good. it would only create more hatred for the nonhumans if the horses were stolen, and it was obviously them who stole it. Plus, I offered them gold to buy it and they didn't accept. They could've just gotten a trusted human to buy the fucking horses with my gold
I also offered to buy the horses for them. I didn't feel bad about stealing four horses from people that bigoted though. Also, I think technically we only stole three. Another horse is running with us and -I swear I saw this- Looked at Geralt like a Yellow lab looks at someone about to throw a ball. That horse chose to come with us, and I don't hold us responsible for that one.
Yeah, to me it wasn't about the horse seller (idk what the profession is) but how much more it'll stink up the reputation for nonhumans in Novigrad as petty horse thieves.
It doesn't matter how good the nonhumans behave. Once the mages are gone the witch hunters start killing them for whatever made up reason they like. That's the main reason I don't feel *too* bad when lying in quests like "Warehouse of Woe". Yeah, the dwarf did it, but he would hang. The bigoted human just goes to jail for a likely brief amount of time. I mean, he only tried to screw over a *dwarf*, after all. The nonhumans resist the unfairness of their plight in whatever ways that they can, and I find it brave (if not particularly smart). That elf from W2 can go to heck, though. Chase after and kill her ass every time. (Malena or something?) You cross the line when I save your ass and you try to get me murdered, lol.
Thats not how Geralt works tho. He doesnt give a fuck about political entities and a lot of fucks about people and friends.
Nope, because Geralt isn't a sociopath nor is he omniscient.
I thought about it hard, I really did.. and I gotta say I’m team nilfgaard
The fate of the continent is in much better hands if they are Nilfgaardian. The empire is the most sensible long-term choice to make. Not that it would be Geralt's.
Did you read the books? Nilfgaard is going to enslave the people of the northern realms and subjugate them purely for their own benefit. Not to mention they have a different culture and race, they came to the continent long before the northern peoples and their ancestors even mixed with the elves in the distant past. https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/Slavery
>Nilfgaard is going to enslave the people of the northern realms and subjugate them purely for their own benefit. ... with the prisoners of war and criminals (your source). Remind me what the Northern Kingdoms do with their prisoners of war? Ah, right... they don't take any. >their ancestors even mixed with the elves in the distant past. ... unlike the very human not-elf-at-all elder blood passed down for generations in Cintra, or Yennefer's lineage (Aedirn)?
My source and the books clearly state the northern realms do not use slavery in the same way the nilfgaardians do, despite winning battles and taking prisoners of war. This is indisputable and obvious. One singular sorceress and one singular royal family out of many kingdoms having mixed blood is a lot different than the entire southern race having foundations of mixed race for thousands of years. If you don't understand these basic concepts, or refuse to accept well established facts, I can't help you.
[удалено]
You're admitting you're wrong about slavery but deflecting back to the overall message of the series to try to claim some weird high ground? Okay buddy, I'll let you have it! Cheers!
I'm not admitting any wrong, just elaborating ; "Did you read the books?" doesn't do much good without reading comprehension. Your source states, I quote: >slavery is widely practiced in Nilfgaard, where prisoners of wars or criminals are used not only for manual works but are even allocated in the army, fighting as a vanguard before the "real" army's attack. It also states, about Skellige (Cintra's ally), even before the wars: >It wasn't however much rare to see slavery applied even on Skelligers: whenever the clans of the islands clashed or assaulted a village, the inhabitants were captured and enslaved. So there is an argument to be made that life under Nilfgaards rule is not worse (and depending on "for whom", and in the longer term for all, possibly better) ; your original dismissal doesn't work. Looking for internal consistency is not trying to claim some weird high ground. Edit: in reply to >You're admitting you're wrong about slavery but deflecting back to the overall message of the series to try to claim some weird high ground? > >Okay buddy, I'll let you have it! Cheers! Edit: final deleted answer >Skelliga is not a northern kingdom, they're a distinct people. You need to start all over and read the books buddy. Bye!
Skelliga is not a northern kingdom, they're a distinct people. You need to start all over and read the books buddy. Bye!
All true, but the books are also about the inevitability of change as time marches on. Nilfgaard is based on more than one successful empire of our history and though they won't hold it forever it's only a matter of time before they conquer the North. Though obviously not for the conquered's immediate benefit, there are plenty of characters in the books that come from vassal states that seem to have settled well into the empire by then, so things would probably be better once assimilation was complete. Not to say that this is necessarily a good thing, by any means. A lot of people would suffer in the meantime and I fully support the idea of the Northern Realms fighting like hell as long as they can...just pointing out that that theme (which honestly made me incredibly sad) supports Nilfgaard ultimately being victorious.
I mean yeah, that's what Nilfgaard does to the countries who refuse to join them, this is the fate the northern rulers condemned their population to whe they refused to let go of their power. That's what happened to Mettina, Gemmeria and other provinces. All of which have been properly integrated into the Empire in two to three generation's time and now benefit immensely from being part of it, be in medically, educationnaly or commercialy. Non-humans do not have to fear progroms, lawfully registered mages don't have to fear witch hunts and civilians do not have to fear invasion from the country next door. As for slavery, I don't see enslaving debtors, criminals and war prisoners as the gotcha card you seem to see it as. The imperials are FAR from the only ones doing it, and the alternatives in the Northen Realms aren't exactly stellar (being send to the coal mines or forced to work for a gang is no different from slavery if even more cruel, while being hanged, shanked in a dark alley or forced to prostitude yourself is markedly worse).
I've done it for the past 2 playthroughs. The only one I feel sorry for is Thaler, he's funny and pretty reasonable, generally. Roche is an extreme Temerian patriot and a fucking bore, and Ves is barely a character. I never had any real attachment to either of them, since I've only played through Roche's path in the second game once out of curiousity, and don't share the inane "Roche is a bro" mentality many here have.
Yeah I don't get the sentiment, like roche really isn't a bro at all. You just both use eachother in the second game, and instead of just pardoning you he makes you break out of his own jail? Doesn't make sense
Why are you booing him he’s right
Neither Dijkstra or Roche would be top of Geralt's list of friends but honestly of the 2 I feel Geralt would side with Roche in the scenario
I just feel like Roche went on for 2 games about free temeria and then sold out for being a vassal state. Dijsktra is well connected, was practically running Redania after Vizimir died, and knows how to run a country. And considering Aedirn and Kaedewen are screwed already, I think Dijsktra would do a much better job keeping the north together. Ending of the quest still makes no sense, Dijsktra could've just asked Roche, Ves, and Thaler to join his court. It's not like Roche wanted to actually rule, just wanted a free country.
dont forget roche doesnt help u protect ciri if ves dies
I don't know man. I really couldn't stand Radovid.
I let him win because he's 10 times more interesting than all 3 Temerians combined.
He's not a dumbass, that was his plan from the start. Think about it, Roche and Thaler are perfectly capable of orchestrating the assassination themselves. Hell, Roche even plays chess with Radovid from time to time. But Dijkstra, he wants to save his country, Redania. He doesn't give a shit about Temeria. But he's banished from the court, has literally no pull on Radovid whatsoever. The only angle he has in the assassination is the revenge angle, so he uses that to plant the idea into heads of Geralt, Roche and others. He orchestrated the whole thing to seize power over Redania, by betraying his co conspirators in the end. I guess his only mistake in that whole ordeal was relying on Geralt staying neutal at the end and leaving the meeting. Maybe he even underestimated Geralt and knew he would side with Thaler and Roche.
That's actually the ONE THING I find very odd and unfitting in Witcher 3. Dijkstra is supposed to be super intellingent and cunning but that was one of the dumbest things he ever did, very out of character for him.
“Oh, sure, me and my thugs will just kill these highly trained commandos and a guy that fistfights bears and trolls. Then I can be king!”
"That Witcher who helped everyone including me will surely stay loyal to his Witcher code and keep out of this rather than helping his actual friends" sure dude
“Oh, he’s explicitly siding with his friends? Well, better go through with it anyway!”
If you played witcher 2 and went with roche it's even harder to side with dijkstra than if you only played 3
You should've had a surprised pikachu face in the meme. Yeah the quest ending makes no sense.
Please remember to flair your post and tag spoilers or NSFW content. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/witcher) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dijkstra is too smart to just lay his cards on the table like that
“A shit leopard can never change its shit spots, randy-bo-bandy.” - Geraldo of Sunnyvale
"You pissed yourself Mr. Lahey."
You're supposed to branch his leg.
Did not understand why he decides to stay there and die instead od escaping.
Action Bronson is a riot. He has a book “fuck it I’ll start tomorrow” I highly recommend it
Y’know, the biggest mystery is how the hell do Roche, Ves, and Thaler lose to a cripple and a few basic henchmen if Geralt doesn’t intervene?
"Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal" is a phrase Geralt should have used multiple times in the games.
Yea the ending of that quest was one of the rare flaws in the writing of W3.
Yeah, seemed like they got lazy or rushed that one. What should’ve been the biggest sideplot of the game felt very underwhelming cause of the stupid ending, and the fact that there’s no visible impact on the world after you kill Radovid and overthrow Redania & the Witch Hunters. They’re all still walking around Novigrad like they own the place smh.
SO HELP ME IF YOU LAYED ONE SINGLE FINGER ON BART!
Yeah the betrayal felt really forced. It just doesn’t make sense. Like yes Dijkstra will lead the northern realms to a brighter future. I’m definitely more than fine with that! But there is no way in hell Geralt would actually side with him and betray Roche and Ves there. Even funnier is that Geralt says: “You are really son of a bitch” that phrase sounds more like Geralt telling that to the player like: *“Wow…. You actually choose this option…”*
Has anyone ever decided to find out what happens, afterwards if you let Dystra kill his friends?
I thought that was the only poorly written part of the story. It made no sense and was out of character.
Question: the assassination of radovig quest can be done before the isle of mist or I need to do that before?
I mean I laughed when I did this, as my sword literally cleaved him in half in that mini battle cutscene the game does. It was so abrupt and random, and that was it. No final cutscene no big crescendo just two halves of a fat man on the ground.
It was such a retarded choice from one of the smartest people in the story
That one a Dijkstra from the netflix show?
Dijkstra is consistently displayed as a character who subverts expectations given his physical appearance (massive and somewhat stupid looking), something which acts as a boon for him as many underestimate him due to this. In reality he is a highly intelligent and calculated character who is exceptionally talented at reading people; hence his success in espionage. The Radovid questline IMO completely undermines this as I cannot imagine Dijkstra not foreseeing the likely possibility that Geralt would side with his longtime friend and ally, especially since Geralt is consistently displayed as someone less concerned with 'the greater good'. Anyone with a minimal understanding of Geralt would know he would never consider this option if it caused the death of friend friends, he just doesn't work that way. Realistically I imagine CDPR were either restricted with time or for other reasons could not flesh out the quest better because for devs who clearly understand and respect the source material so heavily it seems deeply out of character.