Your relaonship with Shani or Triss was a big point of the first game with making a new identity for Geralt who suffered from amnesia. Sure this went out the window once he killed the spectre of the king but it was handled very poorly and the EE fix was hardly enough.

The problem with the character assassinations is except for Radovid,all the others only show their head in what is agreed as the worst quest line in the game. Doesn't make it better of course but it's still optional content. Yes some characters and plot threads are gone and that sucks. Do I need to remind you of Yavin(sp) Shani, Thaler, Adda(who's entire mention is pointless and at worst just replaces something for Anaise) not showing up at all and at best getting mentions that do not matter? Zoltan not giving a shit if you sided with the order despite being extremely pissed if you did in TW, the witcher who tried to kill Foltest being dropped after the prologue ect Whatever it is the same magnitude does not matter in my eyes as CDP showed in the past they do not do good continuity and they showed it again.

As for contradictions, you will need to remind me of in-game contradictions, not book retcons because there's a shit ton of retcons that litter all three games and before you bring up what Emyhr did to Letho, that's in-character as Yen and Geralt almost had to kill themselves because they knew too much and served their purpose in the books and only survived because of Ciri.

Remember, Letho only succeed because of Geralts amnesia. Letho makes it clear that had Geralt recognized him the tower scene would have went down differently. After Foltest, no king ever died from him or his partners, either Geralts help or mages and Letho also required alot of help to kill the first king.

There should've been some alt dialogue with her if you had banged her in 2.

Well then it is your prerogative if it scale doesn't matter, but to me it does.

While the consequences in TW1 didn't have the desired outcome I wished it would've in TW2, it is at least forgivable to some degree, since not only is its events restricted to Temeria alone, it also concludes most plot points in the game (hell, even the Scoia'tael epilogue states that everything reverted back to how it was and Yaevinn is still fighting like always). Adda's mention is hardly pointless, since she is the offspring of incest (plus was a monster, which would have ill political effects) and garnering Anais would be the perfect way to annex Temeria. So yeah, Adda is pointless as a character, because she is pointless lol. Her role was done with TW1. I don't see why Zoltan would harbour contempt towards Geralt for over a month, since he is ultimately his friend. His reactions makes sense right then and there, but him still being angry after all that time doesn't come out as convincing. Still, would have been a nice reference for him to point it out that he remembers what Geralt did. The anonymous Witcher isn't that relevant, considering his entry was a set up for TW2. Knowing his name and origin wouldn't carry much weight, other than just giving the assassin some characterization. Letho or the others could have mentioned that they are angry with Geralt for taking down the assassin, but considering Letho only points out how Geralt stopped the assassination of Foltest the first time, looks like he didn't care much for the assassin. Could have been handled better, but it is such a minor element to me.

But this is a whole different thing with TW3, which doesn't conclude many of the scenarios it opens up with the epilogue, and is handled considerably more poorly with TW3.

As for contradictions, you have minor aspects like Thaler stating how it has been years since he saw Geralt (yet it hasn't even been a year after TW1) to major ones like Radovid's exploits being contradicted (the whole Djikstra rant), Radovid's relationship with Philippa as well (either that or Radovid is lying, but that is a dumb excuse). There are also others, but these are just from the top of my head.

The problem however is that there is nothing to counter Djikstra's statements, so the game proceeds to make it a fact, dismissing everything Radovid accomplished thus far, and throwing away what he tried to do.

So hence the contradiction.

Yeah, it is unfortunate that he was treated to such an extent.

But that is different, since that is a book difference, not a game one which we were discussing.

Ok.

Don't know why you suddenly wanted to throw in book contradictions, since we were discussing game ones, like you asked me to. Haven't read the books so stuff like this doesn't matter to me, only what the games does with the characters and story, which TW3 fails as in delivering a solid continuity. 

Sure, though I could see it being similar if we had Demavend introduced as a character in TW1 (much like his character in the book for example) and then suddenly turned into the fool he is in TW2.

It is one thing when a game first introduction is not same as in the books, it is another when a game introduces an aspect, and then contradicts it later on, which is the point here with Radovid and Djikstra's statements.