What's the best ending? (The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)

guys, stop comparing the book and the game, these are still very different works, and the author of the books himself said that the game has nothing to do with his book. so stop saying that this is not according to the book, or you do not imagine so. if the authors of the game said that Ciri in the role of empress would be a very good ruler - then it will be so, but not in the book, but in the game!

Mantykora
As history shows, there will be wars anyway. What now, to leave the native land and surrender to the mercy of the invaders? Probably, all of our Russian land, too, had to be given to the Nazis. And what? After all, what difference does it make to whom to pay taxes ... Kovir seems to have always remained neutral, although he helped both sides in the war. Kovir values ​​his neutrality very much, so I don't think that for the sake of such hemorrhoids as the empire of the north and south - he will bother. So, I will bet on Dijkstra, rather than hand over most of the cities in the north, and make a vassal Temeria.

Esquel, Lambert, Leto and other witchers, what should they do? In Nilfgaard, witchers are often not even allowed into the city. The same magicians who do not want to sit on a short leash with the emperor. Do they all need to run away chtoli? It won't work that way.

Putnik_Dirar
That's it, but not Ciri, she got used to Geralt, he gave her more than Emhyr.

Mantykora
But how many northerners he killed in order to seize territory, this means it doesn’t count if you see little of his country, so he doesn’t need more. And in 3 parts in the white garden you can see how his soldiers treat the peasants who do not have much for their souls. I like it better, and the emperor dancing on the mounds of his enemies himself rested in the grave, the most wonderful end for him.

Mad_est
Purely in terms of the game, I could not leave Roche, I was just surprised that Diystra intervened before the witcher left. It is nonsense. Why risk unnecessarily? Either more people had to be brought in ... Somehow clever Diistra was merged in the end with such stupidity. And such a person at the head of the empire? Moreover, one must know the psychology of the Middle Ages - the noble will not obey the commoner, blood is of great importance. And Diystra is nobody by blood. His empire will be sausage from the inside, not to mention the external enemy. Many people better recognize the power of Kovir - there is a man of noble blood. The end of all this - either Diistra will still manage to create a dynasty, or Nilfgaard and Kovir will divide the North ... In any case, this is a war for a long time.

Witchers are not particularly welcome in the North either - in any case, they are dying out ... And the sorcerers - I myself heard in the game - Triss becomes the head of the new Chapter of Sorcerers in Kovir. Free sorcerers disappear - it's only a matter of time, they could exist only in the small kingdoms of the North until the third war with the nilphs, taking advantage of the squabbles of the kings. They started playing. Now, either obey Emhyr, or Diistra (in your version), or Tancred. You can of course run - Zerrikania, Ophir ...

Vassal Temeria will at least remain on the map, and so with Diystroi or Radovid, it will cease to exist. For example, the vassal Toussaint is not bad in his own world, formally submitting to the Nilfgaard Empire. Where it is preferable for people to live - on a destroyed territory engulfed in war, without a chance to restore the state, tk. the heiress is small, and the king is killed, or in a peaceful state, with the ability to restore strength and improve the economy? And the witcher's code is to save people first of all.

And as history shows, propaganda for a couple of generations changes the perception of the world among entire nations. As for the fascists, they would not have resisted for long anyway. Even having defeated the USSR, Britain and the United States would have taken them warm. Hitler was created in order to exhaust both sides - both the German and the Soviet - with the hands of Germany, and then bring the winner under the control. Stalin turned out to be smarter and smarter, that's all. The West received much less than it bargained for.

icebear2
Do Redanians treat refugees better? In the White Garden, if the peasants hadn't fooled the head of the garrison out of patriotic motives, maybe nothing would have happened ... Any state was created for oppression and suppression, the question is what it gives in return. And how many northerners did the northerners themselves kill in wars with each other?

icebear2
I agree, but I had to decide with whom to stay: with Geralt or Emhyr, Ciri herself. And she asks Geralt whether to go to her father. And even if Geralt says "You must decide for yourself," she insists on an answer. And once in Vizima, he first renounces the throne, and then succumbs to Emhyr's persuasions. It turns out that decisions are made for her, Ciri sags under the opinions of more psychologically strong people.

2

The way the Temerians themselves and other troops of the northern countries, under the guise of war, treated their population, is very clearly conveyed in the books - robbery, violence. These were those geeks. So the banal "freedom of the north" (which is nothing) is worth nothing compared to the stability and security that the strong hand of a strong ruler provides. Throughout the history of mankind, prominent rulers waged wars of conquest. The one who can unite something is always better than those who are divided into dozens of warring camps and squabble with each other. This was with Kaedwen, who treacherously attacked Aedirn, and with Redania, who in turn treacherously attacked Kaedwen himself, not to mention the smaller skirmishes.

Mantykora
Dijkstra stupidly merged, I agree. He would have come up with a more cunning scheme for eliminating Thaler, Roche and Bianca. This man of low birth, after the death of Vizimir 2, actually ruled Redania. And only after he found out the circumstances of the king's death, Philip unleashed killers on him, and he set off on the run. It is strange that you cited Kovir as an example. The Thyssen dynasty, as possible rulers, is not recognized anywhere except Kovir. However, the outcome of all this, we have not yet been given to find out.

The bed of sorceresses was playing, and not the sorcerers themselves. Mages quietly coexisted with kings in the role of advisers, military force, and even had a certain influence and status. At the same time, no one kept them on a leash. It is not known for certain about Dijkstra and Tancred, how free the magicians feel / will feel in their countries.

Let's start with the fact that: why did Temeria suddenly become higher than all other countries? Why does she deserve to be a self-ruled vassal while others should kneel before the invaders? It reminds me of how the Scoyataels were used in the war, who were later betrayed, but Francesca received Dol Blatanna. Well, here, Temeria just lowers her paws and says "give up". Having received for this, rather dubious profits.

Well, you know, now we can assume a lot about whether the fascists would have retained our territory or not. But as you said yourself: Stalin turned out to be smarter and smarter. And he did not give up, but simply gave battle to the enemy. By the way, returning to our sheep, if Geralt does not interfere in politics, Emhyr loses by default. That Radovid, that Dijkstra, he is defeated, with a much smaller army. So, the final victory of the nilfs is not at all so unambiguous. And without the intervention of Geralt, it merges with both rulers.

So far, the game was played once, the second bank after Blood and Wine, the third one fell out. At first I was indignant, but now I think it is better and more correct. Happy ends already enrage the word.

Mad_est
The Thyssen dynasty, as possible rulers, is not recognized anywhere except Kovir.
Why? The Thyssen dynasty has been recognized by the same Redania for 300 years. It was not created yesterday, there is "experience", money and a hired army too ...

However, we have not yet been given the outcome of all this.
Bye? Most likely we won't find out at all.

The bed of sorceresses was playing, and not the sorcerers themselves. Mages quietly coexisted with kings in the role of advisers, military force, and even had a certain influence and status.
The lodge of sorceresses appeared because the magicians played too ... Remember the massacre on Thanedd with the beginning of the second war with Nilfgaard.

why did Temeria suddenly become higher than all other countries?
Whoever goes first to an agreement gets the most. In politics it is normal to use each other. And Temeria receives not so little. What will happen next - of course the question ...

What Radovid, what Dijkstra, he is defeated, with a much smaller army. So, the final victory of the nilfs is not at all so unambiguous.
Radovid wins, but Diystra simply continues the war ... The final victory of the nilfs is not so clear-cut under Emhyr. In general, the empire has more resources in a protracted war. Suppose the North fought back for the third time in 9 years. It turns out that a new campaign will take place in 3 years. For the first time - the nilfs took Citra and reached the Yaruga; the second - almost to Vizima and to Kaedven; the third - to Novigrad. Farther every time. It will not be possible to restore everything in three years, the mobilization resource is also decreasing. And there was never a war on the territory of the empire ... Yes, and the game says that "economically we are already dependent on the Blacks", even Diystra will not rebuild the entire economy of the North in 3 years. Without a strong rear, there is no strong front ...

the fascists would have kept our territory or not. But as you said yourself: Stalin turned out to be smarter and smarter
Now I am reading a book by N. Starikov "Who made Hitler attack Stalin." I advise, very interesting and informative.

Guys, I ask those who have read the full cycle of the Witcher books to answer: Why do most people think that in the "bad" ending, Ciri is dying? It's just that I didn't notice these premises in the game, maybe it's somehow connected with book events, I don't know ...

Mantykora
Although yes, apparently I'm wrong here. Just now I remembered the "First Treatise of Exeter".

I wrote "bye", because I think that the developed Witcher 4 will still do it. Maybe even somewhere in the glossary they will write who won in the end, and what happened after.

Um .. Why is Radovid winning while Dijkstra continues the war? Radovid and Emhyr are dead, the nilfs are thrown back to the south. And it's not a fact that black will climb again exactly after 3 years. Here, the current Skellige should not be discarded. And also Kovir, who, although neutral, but I think it will not be profitable for him if Nilfgaard also conquers the north.

Thank you for the book, there will be time and mood - I will.

I think Dijkstra has more chances to lead to more or less prosperity of the north (he is ready to unite the lands). It is better not to unite the lands under the nilfgaard, I believe that both the north and the nilfgaard should exist. The first time I believed Roche, but after reading the book and knowing how Emhyr deceived Foltest and still attacked him, I realized that it would be the same with Temeria, so that Roche's dream is just madness to give Aedirn, Lyria and the whole north for the sake of 1 Temeria, which itself will not get better and will sooner or later disappear as Emhyr deigns. Uncle Vesemir would not approve of this.

Aleksandr2242
Different powers wanted to use her gift in different ways. One of these methods, in particular what Wilgefortz planned, meant her death. The Wild Hunt wanted to have a child from her, which would get rid of the white coldness, and most likely in this version, in the end she would become "unnecessary". Considering that Geralt destroyed both Welgefortz and the leaders of the Wild Hunt, there is no reason Ciri definitely "should die." According to the canon, it is not she who should save the world at all, but her child. More precisely, not to save, but to postpone the disaster. Because according to the idea, white coldness will inevitably come to that world, as well as to others.

icebear2 Also
, Uncle Vesemir would not approve of the betrayal of the person who helped in the battle with the Wild Hunt. And the witcher is not a king to decide the fate of empires.

Mad_est End
words:
Radovid: "... at the end of the war with Nilfgaard ..."
Diystra: "... the invader from the south was thrown back ..."
from which I conclude that Diystra is still fighting ... thrown back - this is not necessarily the end of the war, it is not clearly indicated.

Emhyr's heir is Voorhis. He doesn't look like a peaceful person. Maybe not in 3 years, but the nilfs will climb again, and again will be objectively stronger, despite all the reforms of Diistra (I do not believe in the restoration of the North in three years, and the population is thinning from wars, the mobilization resource is weakening, the main force of the 4th is obtained war - mercenaries), unless Kovir violates neutrality and helps with money. If there is no North, Kovir will not be able to live according to the principle - both ours and yours - absolutely agree with you.

And Skellige - if there is Hjalmar for the king - then a kapets Skellige ...

Mantykora
For Skellige the best option is Svanrig.

Aredin
After a protracted civil war? Yes, the best option.
Better Keris - at least at first she thinks, and then she does, and not like all the other islanders ...

Mantykora
Ending about Dijkstra:
Spoiler Each seemed invincible, but both were defeated. The invader from the south was thrown back, the ruler of the North fell victim to the assassins. Power over the victorious Redania was gained by a man who until now remained in the shadows. Sigismund Dijkstra.

Having taken the post of chancellor, Dijkstra, with his characteristic cynicism and unprincipledness, began to rule the entire victorious North. Dijkstra understood: if you want peace, you need to prepare for war, and - following the example of Nilfgaard - to strengthen their estates through the widespread construction of new settlements and the development of manufactures. All this is for the good of the subjects, albeit against their will.
In my opinion, it says enough here that the nilfgaard lost and was thrown back. However, as they say, I do not insist. Regarding Keris, I agree with you, although Svanrige is not bad either.