The second game is far truer to the novels than the first, though. I haven't read the novels, mind you, I just have a bad wiki addiction and noticed the similarities between the books and the second game. It looks as though they're lining up the series to be a continuation of the story rather than the side-story the first game basically was.

The impression you got was exactly opposite of mine. I saw it as more of a "maybe it'll live, maybe it'll die" situation, where you're choosing between letting the pieces fall where they may and taking the situation into your own hands. Geralt never struck me as the type to hasten an enemy to his or her death, especially an enemy he knows so little about. Just saying.

This is basically why I'm responding to you. The whole game you're given one character dealing with a multitude of different circumstances, and his personality is defined pretty clearly by the end. It's hardly being held against you that you don't have it reinforced by the novels, and I don't feel like I was disadvantaged in any way because he's so well characterized by the game alone.

I was responding to dnna, who apparently thinks that if I had read all the novels I wouldn't have figured that the dragon was going to die anyways and that killing it was the humane thing to do instead of letting die a slow, agonizing death. I wasn't referring to that and I admit it was not smart putting that dragon example so close to that statement, so just ignore the dragon situatioin when reading the rest of this.

When I was talking about my dart board analogy, I was referring to a bunch of incidents throughout the game where I picked one option, thinking that Geralt was going to do one thing, and then he ends up doing something very different than I figured based on how the choice was worded. I don't remember exact examples as I was not making a list as I was going through the game.

It's one thing to not know what the consequences of your actions will be. But it is another when you don't know the intention of the choices that you are "supposed" to be making on your own in this world.

I did not say that, I said it's stressed in the books that Witchers don't kill dragons. Don't twist my words just because you want to argue with me. I also said you're given a choice in the end because you ultimately become Geralt, you choose what to do. He says he doesn't normally kill dragons, if you want him to kill one - go ahead. No-one is going to hold it against you. I was just saying what 'canon' Geralt would do and backed up my claims with information you get in both game and the books.

I fetched the video for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0iKk7RgQeE

@ 10:20, roughly.

I re-read your post about Geralt in book canon and you were right. You were just stating what he is like in the books. I apologize. I'm reading these posts in a hurry in the morning before I have to go about my day.

However, if you are saying that he says it "loud and clear" at the spot you indicated in this video, then I must disagree. At that point in the game you are in the middle of a fight at a time when Geralt is so lacking in abilites that fighting more than one opponent can mean a frustrating death, and then on top of that you are trying to not get hit by the dragons fire which can drain all your health in a second. Plus the voice audio compared to all the other sounds going on at the same time is not that loud.

Sorry I didn't spot this, but I was too busy trying to stay alive to notice some low-volume dialog.

It still doesn't change my point that from the way the dragon scene was done at the end it gave the impression it was going to die anyways. So leaving it alone seemed like a sadistic choice.

You should try playing Bioware's ME2 or DA2. lol

I have played ME2, and I know exactly what you are talking about :D

I'm still convinced he says "Witchers don't kill dragons" in a cut-scene :( Maybe I just made it up. The line I linked in the video is indeed easy to miss. I'll poke around youtube more to see if I can find anything.

My thoughts were similar to 227's, I figured the dragon might survive - we never get to learn how powerful those creatures really are. I didn't want to be the one to put an end to it (although I did just that on my second play-through, to see what happens :P)

I was surprised we were even given a choice to kill it. There are so many (important) characters who can survive or live in this game depending on your choices, I have NO idea how (if?) a sequel/expansion is going to follow up :/

.

I do understand what you are saying, but think about it this way:
I don't know if you played the first Witcher, but one of best features of Witcher was that a lot of the choices you made didn't have immediate repercussions on the story, nor it was clear how they were going to affect the story, or even if they were going to affect the story at all. If we translate this to the dragon in W2, you do have options with immediate consequences depending which patch you took in game, and you also have options which may or may not affect the story, which in this case, being that the event occurred at the end of the game, we would be talking about the next installment of the franchise.

And even walking away, one could argue that, in fact, one made a clear decision: leaving the dragon to its fate, whatever that fate may be.

W2 not as much as W1, but the game really isn't about black and white, is much more about grey. Personally, I love that aspect of the game.

Yes, I do have W1 and beat it. Yes, I realize that both games are about shades of grey and I think that's cool. No, none of that makes the situation with not knowing that a dragon in the witcher universe can survive something like that ok.

This is now dragging on to the point of rediculousness. This is not the topic of the thread. I was just making a small comment with my opinion in it and it has now taken over the thread. Let's try and get this thing back on track.

Yes, in the prologue Geralt states that Witchers don't hunt dragons when they are trying to avoid the dragon fire. This contradicts an earlier story element when the Crinfred Reavers tell him about how they had a fight about who got to hunt down a Golden Dragon.

Should you choose to not kill the dragon, Geralt later explains that choice in similar fashion, Witchers don't kill dragons.

In both W1 and W2 there are situations where you can refuse to kill humans like a mercenary, or refuse to take payment for having had to kill humans, to which Geralt will reply Witchers hunt monsters, not humans, hence not acting like a hired assassin/bounty hunter or accepting payment when he has to kill humans (in ch2 refusing pay from Dethmold for killing the insurrectionists)

Right, I know she was who they wanted to rape, I haven't read the story though. All I have to go on is that interaction in the game. One of the Reavers states that they were arguing over who got to kill the dragon and get the reward, and the Reavers ended up hog-tiring Geralt and Yen up so they could go kill the dragon. It sounded like Geralt and Yen went there specifically to kill the dragon and had to compete with the Reavers to get the reward.

I could see how you could get the wrong impression from the game, though in the story, most of the characters don't know geralt's motivation either. Also, these guys are pretty well established in game as not trustworthy.
FWIW, a minor nitpick in the game its behavior that doesn't always jibe with dialog. Look at how often gestalt says he doesn't slay humans. He must seriously be in denial...

I just checked the book to be sure and Geralt wasn't the one who wanted to kill the dragon. Yennefer did, she asked him to do it, told him her reasons, but he refused. The ones who were arguing were Geralt's "party" (Yarpen Zigrin also being there - I don't recognise other names, a lot of them have been translated/changed in my edition, I'm afraid) and some knights who appeared, who also wanted the dragon.

I think the intent is that he doesn't slay humans for money, only monsters. I want to give the books a read, do they cover his story from Witcher training to being impaled with the pitchfork?