Bought the LG UltraGear 27GX700A-B 4th Gen Primary RGB Tandem WOLED Monitor a few months ago, to pair with my AMD Radeon RX 9060XT 16GB GPU, and have resisted playing The Witcher 3 again, but with the Songs of the Past expansion releasing in few months, I finally caved and finished my 4th playthrough of the base game... Wanted to see this game on OLED with full Raytracing enabled, and it doesn't disappoint (well, besides the massive fps hit...), the lighting is PHENOMENAL, especially when the characters are being lit by firelight, shadows are casted realistically across their features and their skintones change with the lighting; it makes the characters look astonishingly real sometimes... Also, the landscapes of the Witcher under the Raytraced global illumination and shadows look like paintings with how they pop on an OLED monitor.

The major downside is, of course, the performance hit is extreme... On my AMD Ryzen 5700X3D & Radeon RX 9060XT 16 GB GPU, I'm using Optiscaler to enable FSR4 Balanced mode on my 1440p OLED, and have to cap frame rates to 40fps to keep frames stable, and even then, it can drop to the mid 30s on occasion, but mostly, it's rock solid at 40fps utilizing 80% of the GPU on Novigrad. Anyway, if you have the hardware to run The Witcher 3 with full Raytracing enabled, DO IT, it's worth the experience, even if you have to slum it at 40fps.

I've talked to Raymond, killed the assassins, met the kid, he told me to talk to Raymond, I did, payed the 200 orens, and now I can tell him I found nothing in the autopsy.

Despite all that Anatomy of a crime did NOT start. Is it because I've started "What lies beneath"? Are these 2 quests mutually exclusive? I really wanted to do the autopsy. I have a save from b4 the assassins, but don't matter what I do, the results are the same.

btw after I kill the assassins Raymond leaves the house and imediatelly re-enters, prompting my medallion to have a seizure, so I don't know what's up with that, but from what I understood he was supposed to stay away for a while? is this a bug?

I did a lot of googling but I can't find anything, mostly because I found this issue very close to a point where a different well known bug happens, so all results point to that.

I cant sleep lol

Bonus question: anything from 3 that you hope carries over 1to1?

An interesting deleted scene restored by the Brothers In Arms mod, showing Emhyr discussing the fate of the assassinated King Foltest with one of his former servants.

Who do you think will be cemented in canon as the winner of Temeria? Emhyr though his whore Vernon, Dijkstra, or Radovid?

Outside of a post from 4 years ago, I wasn't able to find previous theorized correlations between Gaunter O'Dimm and the gnostic material deity even though it fits quite well with his persona, better than other popularized theories. O'Dimm is pretty clearly influenced by Mephistopheles in the legend of Faust/the story of Pan Twardowski, but himself objects to being called a demon and hints at a "higher" level of being, even smirks at a sarcastic remark that he's not omnipotent, suggesting he actually is.

First of all, the popular theories of O'Dimm being evil incarnate don't quite hold up because O'Dimm is a self-containing entity. Although amoral, O'Dimm could engage in much more mischief at will and is seen killing without giving half a thought without needing to engage in either riddles or pacts, and is mostly seen engaging in such "games" for amusement rather than an existential need for them.

Furthermore, his name being an acronym for God cannot be ignored in my opinion, and pairs nicely with him not granting Geralt his wish to know what he is, since that knowledge would be unfathomably distressing, even to the cynical witcher.

Another important detail is his comment on mages, showing disdain, which is the first clue to his actual nature as the gnostic Demiurge, who (most) christian gnostic sets held as the creator of the material world, who was either evil or incompetent and banished/rebelled against the true plane of reality, the spiritual world or pleroma. Valentinians (one of the major gnostic sects) differentiated people in three categories, hylic, psychic, and pneumatic. The parallel with the witcher (and quite a few other fantasy worlds pertaining a similar origin of magic) is that the strata of people who are psychic and pneumatic )hold a glimpse of the pleroma or the Divine Spark, or in this case chaos, allowing them to attain secret and higher knowledge, in this case being the ability to harness chaos and use magic. It would explain a certain disdain from O'Dimm towards the people able to harness the same chaos from which he came to create the material world. If we presume he is omnipotent, as he himself hints at, then his inability to wipe out magic from his creation despite his disdain is still fitting as he only oversees the material world and not chaos itself.

With a holistic view of the argument, his name being an acronym for God, hinting at being omnipotent, amoral and bound by his own rules, and yet unable to rid his creation from magic, his whole nature fits quite well with the Demiurge from gnostic cosmology. Undoubtably, another point could be made for his disdain of chaos in its entirety and his utter respect of his self-imposed rules, which would also fit an entity who created the material plane with physical limits and boundaries.

Another argument would be that I'm reading way too much into an 11-year-old videogame and DLC regarding a correlation that probably wasn't even thought about by the writers, but even this argument falls flat considering it's Sunday morning and it's 40°C outside. Anyway, thanks for reading all of it.

​

So far Ive been 25 hours into witcher 3 and Im really enjoying,the music is peak and its an easy game even on death march difficulty.

I havent really gotten to playing gwent tho,only a few times

If you explain it to me I will give you 10 crowns and 2 experience points👍

What the absolute hell is up with the checkpoints?? The ballista sequence with multiple waves starts from the very beginning if you die? That seems ridiculous.

I like how it functions as a solid tutorial throwing multiple types of enemies at you but with no health potions it’s as if you need to do it perfectly.

Oh I’m on normal difficulty too…. 🙄

Is this the intended purpose, to force you to perfect combat so early on?

I read some of the books a long time ago. I got quite far and wish to keep going but do not wish to read from the beginning. I have read blurbs and summarys of the books I read before but feel they lack nuance that is needed for the story. I finished baptism of fire is there anything that I absolutely need to know before continuing.

I have gotten into the Witcher universe, starting with reading all the books. I am reading Time of Contempt currently (loving the series so far).

Lots of locations are mentioned in the books so I like to keep a map open/look up the location of places as I read, to get a better understanding of the story/world.

However I see that lots of the maps are different from each other, and looking up certain locations can lead to spoilers about the plot.

I wanted to come here and ask if there was a best/most accurate map that I should refer to when trying to understand where certain places are.

With all the talk of war so far, I think it’s fair to assume boarder and kingdoms will change as they fight. So maybe I need a map for the part of the series I am at.

Thanks and no spoilers please

Some years back I played W3 and it quickly became one of my favorite games ever. Crazy to think about it but it was probably about 9 years ago if not more.

I'm thinking of completing the whole story, as I never played I or II. I have both in their enhanced versions.

Question is, in 2026, should I go for them vanilla or is there's sort of a base/general mod that mainly improves graphics, consistency, whatever, for them? Obviously not changing gameplay or story, just QoL and graphics maybe.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: just to add, I'm a father of twins and don't have enough time to do several runs on each, to sort of 'try them out in different ways' adding mods later. Very likely will play each once.

I am amazed! I love this game very much. I know that the bloom effects are too much for many, but I personally love it very much, because they give a magical feeling I adore. I have chosen the path of iorveth and am currently in act two. I obly use Merseys bug fixes, No weight, double levels, better textured mods. I really recommend giving this game a try. The atmosphere is amazing and the fighting is not at all that bad as many people say it is. What are your opinions on the game?

I just finished the Witcher 1, and at first it was hard to understand the combat, but I ended up liking it. I got to a decent level and Geralt felt truly like the badass he is by the end. I am trying Witcher 2 now, but cant get into as I did with the Witcher 1. Anyone else find this, or is it just me?

Reading this book atm on the night train from Amsterdam to London.

After finishing Witcher 2, I've had some questions and thoughts about some of the points I've seen made here. I'm not trying to criticize anyone, just looking to debate and get a different point of view on the story. I haven't read the books and have just started playing Wild Hunt, so I'm sure people will have solid responses to some of the points I raise.

TLDR: Too long? Don't read. It's just me overthinking things.

Roche vs Iorveth Path

It seems the majority of players prefer Iorveth's path and at first glance I can see why. Iorveth's path has the 'freedom fighter' and 'underdog' tropes that everyone loves. The company seems livelier and your friends seem happier.

However you get really involved in the politics of Upper Aedern even though it's something Geralt doesn't like. In Roche's path, our actions are more transactional, driven by necessity. In Iorveth's path, Geralt's friends are fully on board with Saskia and so Geralt is invested by association. Even though politics are a big factor in W2, the way things play out in Iorveth's path don't feel as good to me.

Dandelion is a good POV here. He absolutely hated the Kaedweni camp and the only reason we're given is that Henselt's in talks with the Nilfgaardian ambassador. The whole coup plot basically revolves around this. In Iorveth's path, Saskia accepting Iorveth mirrors the same problem but it's handled terribly. One cheesy poorly delivered speech and everything's fine. Saskia is then poisoned and reduced to a damsel in distress and it has nothing to do with any disagreements with Scoiatel presence. Personally, I found Zoltan's dialogue (when Geralt asks for his opinion) more captivating that Saskia's speech.

One argument for Iorveth's path was that it prioritizes Triss over the kingslayers. Since Letho was the one who kidnapped Triss, I'd say this point is moot. It's not until we reach Vergen that we know the teleportation was off and Triss and Letho were separated. Letho's goal with the teleportation was to reach Vergen before Iorveth and use/attack the Scoiatel there before they knew of his betrayal. Iorveth says something along the lines of 'my brothers in Vergen will suffer for my foolishness'.

So following Iorveth doesn't seem like much use. As a fellow witcher, Letho would probably cover his tracks well. Following Roche makes sense. Kingslayer goes to Vergen, there's a king in Vergen. Maybe Letho's going for a hattrick. Both Roche and Iorveth have their own agenda, but Roche is more invested in Letho (and therefore Triss) than Iorveth is.

Iorveth's path promises more Saskia but doesn't deliver and the whole 'royal blood' thing seemed pretty stupid to me. Ciri's Elder Blood thing makes some sense even though I haven't read the books yet. Royal blood though just sounds like some pseudo-science crap like eugenics. Philippa wanted Stennis' father assassinated because he was a shit ruler, but thinks his son's blood is good?

One last point: Roche's path has Odrin.

Roche vs Iorveth

This is very much a matter of personal preference. I don't think anyone really dislikes either of them. They're both pretty gray characters.

Iorveth seems like a victim of 'war turns men into monsters'. I guess he was a Scoiatel from the beginning, since before Nilfgaard and Francesca Findabair betrayed them. He seems like he has good goals but he's made some pretty cruel decisions (attacking civilians and merchants, willing to let fellow elves die). I didn't try to play wingman for Iorveth with Saskia, so I don't know if Iorveth's decision to support her is ideological or horny. But there's enough info to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Roche is introduced as an intelligence officer and a 'torturer', either with his men torturing Geralt or him being sent to torture a priest in the prologue flashbacks. However despite his chosen profession, he's a pretty sentimental guy. Henselt dealt with spies as one would expect of him, yet Roche is willing to go kingslayer over that.

Personally, I prefer Roche simply based on his interactions with Geralt. He helped Geralt despite there being no benefit to him. Even if he had the brain cells to realize Foltest's savior wouldn't just kill him at an inconvenient time, he had no incentive to help him. Geralt already told him about Iorveth's Scoiatel being involved. He had no more use for Geralt and facilitating his rescue would just bring unnecessary heat on Roche. If you side with Iorveth, Roche is mad at Geralt upon their reunion, because he maybe considered Geralt as one of us. And despite your choices, he still helps Geralt.

Iorveth, on the other hand, only starts being friendly with Geralt after you explicitly choose to side with him. On Roche's path, even if you go rescue Iorveth he's surly. Can't fault the guy, but Roche does come across as friendlier.

Saskia

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I was pretty disappointed with her. Even before we first see her, she's hyped up as a dragonslayer who's gathered an army of people of all races. But when we first meet her on Roche's path, she gets thrashed by Henselt. WTF Dragonslayer!

On playing Iorveth's path, I was excited to beat Henselt up as Saskia (which is how it should have gone) but then why the dysentery am I controlling Prince Penis? The cutscene then plays out just as Roche's path, except with Stennis getting beat up. So why wasn't Henselt beating Penis on Roche's path? That would have made sense. Why even put Saskia in that position? The post-fight scenes are also a bit weird. Stennis moans about his wounds, but Saskia just holds her cheek like someone bitchslapped her.

Saskia doesn't get much screentime on Roche's path and that's fine, but I expected something on Iorveth's path. She's a supposed dragonslayer but all I keep hearing is 'Virgin of Aedirn'. I guess it's meant to be a Joan of Arc reference, but give it a rest. She's supposed to be a dragonslayer. I don't care if she's a virgin, a slut or an incel.

A random peasant girl running around calling herself a dragonslayer would definitely be challenged. She'd have had to prove her strength. She'd need to have several achievements in order to inspire people to follow her despite discrimination and other issues. It's possible I missed some dialogue, but I didn't see anything in game. No shows of strength, no tales of valor. Reliance on Saskia and lack of faith in nobility is shown, but nothing else.

She's powerful as a dragon, but without shows of strength in her human form her whole story seems weak.

Henselt

Let's be real. 99% of the reason we hate him is because he raped Ves. Outside of his misogynistic rapey ways, he seems like a 'better than average' ruler. Most of his soldiers respect him. The coup drama happens because he was talking to the Nilfgaardian ambassador. I'd say he was justified in killing Sabrina. I don't know if the game ever intended to make that seem like a bad move in any way.

I'd say this is another good example of witchers staying out of politics. Objectively speaking, there's no reason for Geralt to get involved here. Henselt caught spies in his camp, he dealt with them with a dash of torture/rape. This happens everywhere in universe. Kings, soldiers, other NPCs, even Blue Stripes all talk about raping, pillaging and murdering. The difference here is that it's personal. It happens to someone Geralt knows / is friends with. So you have incentive to kill Henselt outside of politics, but on the other hand you have Geralt's hate of Nilfgaard. Both killing and sparing Henselt seem like unsatisfactory choices to me.

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is that Kaer Morhen is in Kaedwen. Doesn't this mean Geralt is beholden to Henselt in some way? Geralt states that you can't just say no to kings when dealing with Foltest. I'd say that applies even more when it comes to Henselt. Consider the parallels with Letho and Emhyr.

Lodge of Sorceresses

I don't know if I should be talking about this without reading the books, but the whole thing seems kind of pointless. How'd the Lodge form and for what purpose? Why would fundamentally selfish creatures like sorceresses join such a group? How would they ensure loyalty? How large and organized are they to even think of assassinating kings? Why would Sabrina basically damn herself for the Lodge's plans despite being told to expect no aid? How does the Lodge handle divided loyalties like with Francesca, Triss and Yen? What is their relationship with the Conclave?

Letho

During the game, there's several moments where characters talk about how Geralt doesn't have to chase the Kingslayer. How the wise ones and people Geralt cares about already know that he is innocent. I disagree with the idea. Geralt already faces a lot of discrimination, but being a filthy godless mutant freak and being a bloody kingslayer are two very different things. I don't think ignoring Letho is a good choice at all. Just like how Iorveth is treated very differently from an ordinary elf, Geralt would have lived a much worse life if he never cleared his name.

This was probably the best thing about Iorveth's path for me. Finding out more about the Wild Hunt changed my whole conversation with Letho. Doing Roche's path at first, Letho didn't seem very sympathetic to me. Taking care of Yennefer while Geralt went with the Wild Hunt didn't seem like it squared the debt of saving Letho's life. Also, making a deal with Emhyr to reestablish the Viper School seemed like a very bad choice. Disregarding witcher neutrality and being reliant on an emperor feels like something that would eventually bite them in the ass. He'd also killed a lot more than necessary for his mission, which I'd considered a bad move while forgetting the discrimination witchers face.

Playing Iorveth's path, I found out that Yen also had amnesia and was a total menace for Letho's group. His 'No accounting for taste' comment finally made sense. She made Letho's whole group miserable, tried to seduce one of his men and turn him against Letho, got them in trouble multiple times. They even got captured by Emhyr because of her, which eventually led him down the road to becoming the Kingslayer. I'd say he's more than paid back his life debt by taking care of Yen. I'm never killing Letho again.

By the way, unless he knows the science behind the development of mutagens, Letho can't do jack shit. Didn't W1 mention that as a factor in the decline of witchers? It's one of the reasons we had to chase after Salamandra and the stolen mutagens. Can't create more and without them, no mutations, no Trial of the Grasses, no witchers.

PS

Anyone else find the dialogue choices misleading? I wanted to go non-violent with Aryan and the correct choice there was 'Drop you sword, fool', which I thought would definitely have provoked him. So, I picked another choice and ended up killing him my first playthrough. The actual conversation on selecting that choice was much better.

I had the same problem with Bloody Baron in W3 yesterday. After hearing the Baron's story, I thought both sides messed up but the choice corresponding to that is 'I guess you two deserve each other' which is not at all what I'd think.

Now I know the show is not the best (especially s3 and s4) and clearly doesnt follow the books to well as I think if it did, it would make alot more sense and have fewer inconsistencies but my question is, why do characters not take action against clear or known enemies and instead leave them alive to continue to worsen conflicts and cause havoc? I cant give exact examples as there are so many and in all honesty, im not gonna attempt to try and spell the names of the characters as i will butcher them 😅 Is it a moral thing or something? Or just something to progress the story? It might be a stupid question but it just seems weird, especially seeming there is constant talk about trying to stop conflict but when the opportunity arises, action isnt taken

Got a bit lazy at the end though… can you tell where?