The Yennefer/Triss choice in TW3

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't agree with your view that it is obsession, she comes across as having unrequited love for Geralt. Don't agree that people are necessarily honest when they are in love, especially during the initial relationship stages. Should she or others have told Geralt of his (presumed dead former lover)? Maybe but i can understand the reasons why she wouldn't initially given her own feelings. If i was Geralt not sure i'd be pissed but i can understand why some players would like the reactivity to raise the issue directly with her. Reactivity is an issue with TW3.

Don't agree at all that they struck the right balance in terms of Yen/Triss content/reactivity, especially in the middle section of the game. That doesn't mean i think Yen should be stripped of her role in the main arc. Triss has been a major character in the games and i don't think saying she was a side character in the books has any relevance.

Oh trust me, it is obsession. She seems to have grown up a bit in the games and it seems she can keep herself in check now, but you should see her in the books, she's completely obsessed with Geralt the same way Bella Swan is obsessed with Edward Cullen in The Twilight Saga (no, I don't like Twilight, but it's the first thing that came to mind).

Triss's role in the books and previous games is irrelevant. Triss is a side character in this game. She's mostly irrelevant to the plot of TW3. Demanding more Triss content just because she's your waifu and you wanna see more romance content doesn't make sense. This is an RPG about a monster hunter, not a dating sim.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be against more Triss content. But I don't demand it either. I don't think Triss got shafted in TW3. She just isn't that relevant to the plot of TW3 so naturally she takes a backseat in this game. I find that completely reasonable and acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Triss's role in the books and previous games is irrelevant. Triss is a side character in this game. She's mostly irrelevant to the plot of TW3. Demanding more Triss content just because she's your waifu and you wanna see more romance content doesn't make sense. This is an RPG about a monster hunter, not a dating sim.

Okay, that last sentence is really irritating. It's a STORY. A story can be about ANYTHING and usually is about more than stabbing people. This is not Super Mario Brothers which is all about jumping and mushrooms.

This is about a character's emotional journey.

NOT just stabbing people and romance is a part of Geralt's character--just as much as his swords.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be against more Triss content. But I don't demand it either. I don't think Triss got shafted in TW3. She just isn't that relevant to the plot of TW3 so naturally she takes a backseat in this game. I find that completely reasonable and acceptable.

That's an unfortunate attitude to have as if Triss is a side character then so is Yennefer. Triss plays a major role in Act III of the Six Act game. Yennefer only plays a major role in two Acts with both Yennefer and Triss being largely irrelevant but still background important characters in the Final Act. Triss is still there at Kaer Morhen dropping magical bombs, helping assemble the Lodge of Sorceresses to help fight the Wild Hunt, and getting mentioned in Phillipa's weird ramble.

Yennefer gets roughly twice the amount of content Triss does but neither is huge.
 
In the interest of trying to blunt the intra-community discord over a player's romance choice, I wanted to hypothesize a bit on the decisions of CDPR in the way they handled some of the romance choices, scenes, and overall content.

First off, this game has been marketed as a seemingly standalone game, at least in the sense that CDPR claimed that you did not need to play any of the previous games in order to understand the plot or its characters. While this would detract from the overall understanding (and depth) of the bigger picture they have painted of the continent and its protagonist, it was in fact marketed as a standalone game. Perhaps this was merely a marketing gimmick to boost sales knowing they already possess a considerable amount of loyalists who would buy the game regardless, either way...it was painted as such.

Second, the game is also designed as semi- or full open world. This relegates it to more of an 'anthology' of sorts. Think about it: you have the overarching main quest commingled with secondary quests, monster contracts, and treasure hunts. You can in fact halt any progress of the main quest and jump into any side content at almost any time. This makes it seem as if you have a series of stories loosely connected to the 'title story' of our short story collection through plot hooks (e.g. the Bloody Baron knows the location of Ciri but won't tell you until you help him or free Dandelion to find out what he knows about Ciri), but let's be honest...they were really side stories--and quite good ones to provide additional content, political context, and fan service to the many characters present throughout the game series and, in the case of book readers (which I am not currently one of them) with some appropriate cameos from the books.

This marginalizes the overall plot into one element in a sequence of different stories told to the player about Geralt's adventures in the context of the events surrounding him in contrast to a strictly story-based environment such as the one we saw in Witcher 2. Inanimate_Object made some compelling arguments about this in his statements about the story in another thread. We also need to keep in mind that it is a game, which means that the gameplay needs to be fun and engaging at the expense of depth--especially in an open world setting--due to the amount of resources and timetable available to the developers. An open world game, as you all know, makes a game interesting because it provides a sense of belonging to an environment and the events within it. This contrasts with a story driven game that marginalizes the environmental factor and sense of belonging to strengthen the plot and the characters within it.

Now I know if you have read to this point, you are asking what the hell does this have to do with Triss v. Yennefer? Bear with me. Triss' role in the Witcher 1 (with the absence of Yennefer and her attempt to replace her) and in 2, with a different personality but a somewhat more centralized role, does seem marginalized in Witcher 3 due to both the fact that this game was designed with a potentially new player in mind and its choice to draw the focus of the main quest from some of the source material rather than choosing the focus of the story to be based on the conclusion of Witcher 2. And this is plain as day due to the common complaints of a lack of continuity with player decisions in the previous game and how they are manifested in this one. Also Triss' role in this game seems almost irrelevant to the overall story outside of the sub-plot that she already possesses in Now or Never. This felt like it just added additional context to Radovid's character and ambitions more than really developing their relationship in any shape or form.

This leads me to believe that CDPR put her in the game strictly for fan service as her overall role, and relationship for that matter with Ciri pales in comparison to Yennefer and Geralt. Sure, she is seen as having an older sister-like relationship, but when compared to Ciri's "parents", the emotional depth just isn't really there. This has also resulted in players that like Triss and that have played the previous two games to be noticeably upset at her lack of screen time, but it isn't just a Yennefer v. Triss so much as it is the fact that Triss' role in the overall plot is marginal due to CDPR's desire to revert to the source material to resolve Geralt's story rather than continuing the saga of what was created in AOK.

Because of the decisions made, e.g. open world (which provided more of an experience as a 'witcher' and the moral ambiguity of the events on the continent at the expense of the main plot and conclusion of the trilogy) and the decision to choose the resolution of the Wild Hunt and the White Frost (given some attention in the first game but, for the most part, completely absent from the second) resulted in both a more superficial closure to the trilogy and the marginalizing of some of its characters due to focusing on others (like the curious absence of Dandelion and Zoltan in the 'wrap up' epilogue sequence or any mention of the fate of the Lodge, Letho, and many other characters that had a stronger role in the previous games.)

I know I always write too much in my posts (when I write them), sorry for that, it's habit, but my conclusion here is that the 'short story like' nature which CDPR was pigeonholed into as a result of choosing an open world format and the choice of altering the focus of the overall story while keeping some political events to make it plausible resulted in marginalizing certain characters, such as Triss--and others, because they simply don't really fit into the overall story of rescusing Ciri, the Wild Hunt, and the White Frost outside of the role they were given. It also resulted in a depersonalized depiction of the enemy, almost completely, and a somewhat unsatisfying conclusion to what should have been a real trilogy​ rather than the seemingly standalone story that they chose for this game.

It seems like a very convoluted way of basically saying that by choosing an open world platform (which has its perks and drawbacks) and also choosing the backdrop for the story in the form of Ciri, the Aen Elle, and the White Frost, it lessened the impact of many of the characters in the series (including, in my opinion, Geralt himself somewhat) in favor of wrapping up his trilogy with a potential threat of world extinction rather than domination and strife through human and non-human means illustrated in the previous game.

Regardless, as a game it was pretty incredible..as a story, I don't think it was anywhere near as strong as it could have been.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I don't think Triss is all that overlooked to be honest.

She's always there.

There's about twice as much Yennefer content but not that much more.
 
Honestly, I don't think Triss is all that overlooked to be honest.

She's always there.

There's about twice as much Yennefer content but not that much more.

You don't think it was pacing? I do agree that there was a bit more screen time for Yennefer, but I also noticed that the Triss content was mainly in succession in Novigrad while Yennefer's content was more split up. She had a little bit in Skellige, the Last Wish in the beginning of Act 2, the UMA sequence, and then a cutscene before you got on the boat.

I do think that there should have probably been a Triss scene (outside of the infamous one) at Kaer Morhen upon her arrival and a farewell dialogue before you get on the boat, but I don't think Yennefer received that much more than Triss, so I agree with you there. It did seem less due to pacing, and I do agree there should have been some additional scenes in the ones I mentioned.

I mean, I think there should have been more scenes overall with many of the more central characters outside of the ones they were given, but in the interests of continuity from the previous games, at least in the vanilla game that we have, there should have been more than "Well?" and a dock scene before getting on the boat.
 
I guess I figured that Triss' conversation with Geralt about their House in Korvir was a decent enough "finisher" for me.

It wasn't as if the Lighthouse was the VERYYYYY end.

Triss also kicks ass fighting for Ciri at Caer Morhen.

So she's not abandoned you even if it's weird seeing her and Yennefer chatting up in front of you with nary a mention of you.
 
PS: I like it when people speak their mind. At least those people are honest.

Why then, do you think she is 'misunderstood'? I think it's pretty clear what she is, with little room for interpretation. I'm not calling her an evil witch that should be the primary antagonist. She's just not that likeable. Many characters in the game point this out.
 
Why then, do you think she is 'misunderstood'? I think it's pretty clear what she is, with little room for interpretation. I'm not calling her an evil witch that should be the primary antagonist. She's just not that likeable. Many characters in the game point this out.

I would actually argue that she is extremely misunderstood. I think most people are just observing her external behavior, which can seem a certain way and basing their entire opinion of her based on these factors. I'm sure you have probably met people in your life that elicit a certain first impression or external behavior that you immediately judge and then assume that they are a certain way, but when you actually get to know them they are much different person entirely. I think this case is nearly proof-positive in the case of Yen.

I am sure that her age and circumstances have shaped who she is, but she is definitely a character that requires a bit of discernment to truly understand or attempt to understand in contrast to other characters that are read rather easily.

That doesn't mean you have to like her or even care about wanting to get to know the person she is, but you have to respect the fact that she is in fact a complicated character, a multifaceted one at that, and can't just really be judged by certain external behaviors given her experiences, so...no, I would not say it is very clear what she is.
 
Last edited:
I would actually argue that she is extremely misunderstood. I think most people are just observing her external behavior, which can seem a certain way and basing their entire opinion of her based on these factors. I'm sure you have probably met people in your life that elicit a certain first impression or external behavior that you immediately judge and then assume that they are a certain way, but when you actually get to know them they are much different person entirely. I think this case is nearly proof-positive in the case of Yen.

I am sure that her age and circumstances have shaped who she is, but she is definitely a character that requires a bit of discernment to truly understand or attempt to understand in contrast to other characters that are read rather easily.

Yeah this, pretty much. She's extremely intense and it's easy to dislike her because of her short and impatient responses. It's pretty difficult presenting her character in a game and I totally get the hate she receives. The books do a much better job in showing the subtleties about her and expand her good nature underneath her stern exterior. It's a bit of an acquired taste and certainly not for everyone, but it's a character that requires time to understand.
 
Yeah this, pretty much. She's extremely intense and it's easy to dislike her because of her short and impatient responses. It's pretty difficult presenting her character in a game and I totally get the hate she receives. The books do a much better job in showing the subtleties about her and expand her good nature underneath her stern exterior. It's a bit of an acquired taste and certainly not for everyone, but it's a character that requires time to understand.

The thing is that it's entirely possible to know who Yennefer is and still dislike it. No one is 100% likeable.

It's just GERALT likes her.
 
I would actually argue that she is extremely misunderstood. I think most people are just observing her external behavior, which can seem a certain way and basing their entire opinion of her based on these factors. I'm sure you have probably met people in your life that elicit a certain first impression or external behavior that you immediately judge and then assume that they are a certain way, but when you actually get to know them they are much different person entirely. I think this case is nearly proof-positive in the case of Yen.

What is she then, if she's so misunderstood? The characters that are 'judging' her have known her for almost as long as Geralt has and they've been warning him of her for almost as long. Is there something about her you know that they don't? Are you sure you're not just fabricating an excuse for her behaviour when this isn't the intended portrayal of her at all?

She's meant to be prickly and difficult to deal with. Her intentions seems pretty evident, as far as the game has revealed thus far there are no hidden motives that justifies her doing what she has. I'm not saying she doesn't have any good intentions, but all her goals can be achieved by simply being more personable and amicable.

The books do a much better job in showing the subtleties about her and expand her good nature underneath her stern exterior.

Could you provide an example of this, please? I don't mind spoilers in this instance. I would love to have any reason to like her.
 
Last edited:
Could you provide an example of this, please? I don't mind spoilers in this instance. I would love to have any reason to like her.

Can anyone explain to me why Triss fans need any reason to like Yennefer when they hate or don't like her already... no matter what we would post about Yennefer.

Anyway if you really like to find out about Yen more without reading the books - here is a great thread: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/40716-Yennefer-of-Vengerberg-(all-spoilers)
 
Can anyone explain to me why Triss fans

I'm not a part of any 'fanclub', thank you very much. I call it as I see it. You guys are the ones claiming her to be more than she is, so the onus is on you to provide proof. I really don't want to have research an entire thread to find the answers.
 
You guys are the ones claiming her to be more than she is, so the onus is on you to provide proof. I really don't want to have research an entire thread to find the answers.

You don't have to really resarch the whole thread - the first page is ok. :)
 
Oh trust me, it is obsession. She seems to have grown up a bit in the games and it seems she can keep herself in check now, but you should see her in the books, she's completely obsessed with Geralt the same way Bella Swan is obsessed with Edward Cullen in The Twilight Saga (no, I don't like Twilight, but it's the first thing that came to mind).

Triss's role in the books and previous games is irrelevant. Triss is a side character in this game. She's mostly irrelevant to the plot of TW3. Demanding more Triss content just because she's your waifu and you wanna see more romance content doesn't make sense. This is an RPG about a monster hunter, not a dating sim.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be against more Triss content. But I don't demand it either. I don't think Triss got shafted in TW3. She just isn't that relevant to the plot of TW3 so naturally she takes a backseat in this game. I find that completely reasonable and acceptable.

If you are going to call her obsessed, then surely you have to call Geralt obsessed rather than in love.

It's not about it being a dating sim. It is however a choice driven RPG and the way some people don't want choice or consequence for personal things but do not for monster hunting amazes me. Reactivity is something that should be of importance in an RPG imo.

It doesn't strike me she's irrelevant to the plot. She's got close ties to all the involved central parties. I don't agree that her treatment is reasonable or acceptable. I'm not sure i'd use the word shafted. I feel that her content is somewhat lacking of what it should be. Don't see any issue in asking for additional content?
If you don't ask you don't get usually.
 
If you are going to call her obsessed, then surely you have to call Geralt obsessed rather than in love.

Never said that he wasn't obsessed. At the same time though Geralt does have the strength and self-respect to just walk away from Yen whenever she's acting up. Granted, he always returns to her at some point, but that could just as well be the djin's spell at work.

It's not about it being a dating sim. It is however a choice driven RPG and the way some people don't want choice or consequence for personal things but do not for monster hunting amazes me. Reactivity is something that should be of importance in an RPG imo.

I don't disagree with you. I just don't think Triss's arc was handled badly in TW3. I was happy with the amount of content we got and how her portrayal in TW3 was done and how she reacts to your choices as Geralt.

It doesn't strike me she's irrelevant to the plot. She's got close ties to all the involved central parties. I don't agree that her treatment is reasonable or acceptable. I'm not sure i'd use the word shafted. I feel that her content is somewhat lacking of what it should be. Don't see any issue in asking for additional content?
If you don't ask you don't get usually.

Close ties? Like what? The Lodge? They threw her out. The kings? Only Radovid is left and he's hunting mages. A bunch of other mages? Sure, but they're not really important nor in the position to help Geralt.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for more content, but I do thing it's wrong to complain about Triss's arc in TW3 and act like she got shafted (even though you wouldn't call it that way). It makes the people who do that look like entitled people who care more about their waifu Triss than the actual story/plot of TW3.
 
Close ties? Like what? The Lodge? They threw her out. The kings? Only Radovid is left and he's hunting mages. A bunch of other mages? Sure, but they're not really important nor in the position to help Geralt.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for more content, but I do thing it's wrong to complain about Triss's arc in TW3 and act like she got shafted (even though you wouldn't call it that way). It makes the people who do that look like entitled people who care more about their waifu Triss than the actual story/plot of TW3.

By ties i mean Geralt and Ciri. If Yen is considered a central character because of her ties to the two central characters i don't see how you can dismiss the fact Triss has ties to. She's got ties to witchers of Kaer Morhen, Yen and yes even lodge too as you say just as Yen does.

I can care about both love the games story and plot and pick out the issues i have within it including the perceived sub par treatment of one of my favourite characters.
 
What is she then, if she's so misunderstood? The characters that are 'judging' her have known her for almost as long as Geralt has and they've been warning him of her for almost as long. Is there something about her you know that they don't? Are you sure you're not just fabricating an excuse for her behaviour when this isn't the intended portrayal of her at all?

She's meant to be prickly and difficult to deal with. Her intentions seems pretty evident, as far as the game has revealed thus far there are no hidden motives that justifies her doing what she has. I'm not saying she doesn't have any good intentions, but all her goals can be achieved by simply being more personable and amicable.



Could you provide an example of this, please? I don't mind spoilers in this instance. I would love to have any reason to like her.

The problem with trying to convince someone of something is that if they already have their mind made up, it's usually pretty difficult of convincing them otherwise. That being said, you don't have to like her. This is perfectly acceptable. As Willowhugger said in another post, it is Geralt that likes her.

This is one of the issues between character development in games versus character development in books. In the former, you actually have a hand in shaping someone's character and decisions and can thereby role play them more as yourself rather than being railroaded into acting exactly like them. In a book, a character's personality, tendencies, and characteristics are told to you. You don't have a hand in crafting them. It may make the reader angry, disappointed, upset, etc. but ultimately it is being told to you. I'm sure you know all of this already, but I feel it warrants being mentioned.

So what is she? Well, let's first examine a few 'surface level' characteristics: Yen is blunt in certain respects though secretive in her plans. She can tell you exactly what she wants you to do without ever telling you her hidden motivations behind the decision to do that. She can seem to be singularly minded, that is she will do what she feels is right without caring about the consequences. She can be jealous (like almost all people). She can come off as insensitive and demanding (how she acts while at Kaer Morhen drawing the ire of your fellow Witchers). There are more instances, but since I am not a book reader (yet), these are the examples I have go to by.

Now let's look a bit deeper at each of these 'surface level' characteristics. She's cold to you in the beginning of the game because she knows that you have cheated on her and she's hurt. She knows you had amnesia and explains how she was able to overcome her own, but she's still hurt. Given that it was a rather traumatic experience, i.e dying, the memory of that moment combined with the events that followed (her trying to save you), it's a rather traumatic thing either way (even if you get back with her).

Put yourself in her shoes, the man she loves dies, and she tries to save him, they both get whisked away and each choose their own personal sacrifices for the other...fast forward and you are hooking up with her sorceress friend and she knows about it. Empathize a bit and you will see that her reaction is quite normal. Now she's fast forward to Skellige, she's still upset and it isn't until you go on the quest with her that she begins to let her guard down. But you've also probably noticed something else: she seems hellbent on finding Ciri, even going so far as to use the mask knowing the potential consequences, and you can even see they have an argument over it. Prior to her use of the mask, in obtaining it you notice that she's lowering her guard a little, a guard that she has chosen to adopt because what is the alternative? She was an abused child with deformities and ridicule and wanted nothing more than to have a child, which she now has in the form of Ciri, the child she never could have had on her own.

In a world of intrigue and lesser evil, catastrophe and betrayal, you can't fault anyone really for retreating into themselves and prioritizing their own needs before that of others. You even see this in the real world as people get older, they prioritize their own personal relationships and spend less time with larger goals and more on their own, so you could also speculate that it is a product of her age. But back on topic...so in the beginning she is upset because of the past, in Skellige she lowers her guard in certain moments but you will also notice that if you get closer to finding a clue for Ciri, she tenses up, her personality 'quen' is restored, and her singularity of mind returns. It isn't until you follow those leads and she has some semblance of certainty in a very uncertain situation that she begins to let her guard down and allow her real feelings to be felt.

The necromancy scene, oft-quoted by forum people as a perfect example of her cold and calculating ways is, in truth, an act of desperation. All of their leads point to this guy who is dead. They needed him, and he is a corpse. This, again, shows her devotion to Ciri and her desire for her safety at all costs. This could be perceived as being cold, calculating, insensitive, and even evil to some, but to others it could be the actions of a devoted mother, but this is the beauty of the Witcher world. There is no simple action, no clear-cut decision that says: this is the perfect choice without any recourse. It was a desperate mother doing a desperate act to ensure the safety of her child. This moment is perfectly illustrated by her comments to the villagers while interrupting their funeral rites when she talks about wanting to save someone who is still alive. Culturally insensitive? Yes, but seen as an act of desperation and the more ethical course (i.e focusing on the saving on someone who is alive over those that had already passed) seems not only logical but plausible.

Now let's move forward a bit to the Kaer Morhen scene. She is being intolerable. The other witchers are pissed and are being ordered around. Even Vesemir is upset. But what did we learn before going there with UMA? That there was a possibility that UMA was, in fact, Ciri. Imagine if your kid was wrapped in a complex, potentially irreversible curse, imagine the emotions you would be feeling combined with already having a singularity of mind in the devotion to your child, a child you could have never had by any other means and that was a distinct priority in your life. Again, the desperation was plain as day to me. She was a desperate woman willing to do anything that was necessary to save her child, and remember...no one knew that it wasn't Ciri until the Trial, so it all added to the tenseness of the moment. In addition to this fact, she is also reminded, due to the bed scene, of Geralt's recent decisions from the Witcher 1/2, i.e hooking up with Triss. So you are reminded that the person you love cheated on you after what I described early on, the death of Geralt, etc. etc. combined with the certainty of Ciri and the fact that UMA could be Ciri.

She also knew the reaction she would get from other Witchers in regards to the trial. The Trial of the Grasses is a horrific experience to put anyone through given the mortality rate, and just the general history and feelings that each of the Witchers have about it. Look at Lambert's reaction...hell, even look at Vesemir's reaction. The sadness of recollecting all of the moments of seeing young boys go through the torture of the trial..but what are we told? That there isn't really any other way. You think this creature could be your daughter, and you know the potential treatment to lift that curse could kill her, what emotions would be felt by someone in this moment? She was being so difficult because that was her only coping mechanism for the uncertainty of the moment and her understanding (which she already knew even before telling anyone) that UMA could potentially die from this and that it could also be Ciri, her daughter.

Now, I take it you didn't choose her as a romance option, so you wouldn't have seen that everything that followed post-Kaer Morhen, Yennefer was a different person, because Avallach knows the location of Ciri, and he also knows that she's safe. So suddenly all the frantic searching, dead ends, clues, the rollercoaster of having to find your child finally results in some certainty: certainty in both the fact that you know she's safe, at least for the time being, and that you actually know for the first time where the hell she is. Yennefer, as a result of this, lowers her guard, the facade weakens, and you actually see a much softer side of her that most people wouldn't know unless they chose her. This is brought to a crescendo when you bring Ciri back from the Isle and the reunion that follows. That mostly wraps that up with the final farewell from the docks.

Let's discuss a bit Geralt and Yennefer. I don't know their backstory outside that of the games, but it was clear to me that they have a complicated relationship, but that Geralt actually likes her for who she is. He likes that she can be fiery, unrestrained, and she knows all about the facade, and he also, probably, knows that she is one of the few people that knows he can see through it and see her for who she is. This is something she was probably deprived of her entire life.

How often do you meet someone who truly sees you for who you are, beneath the facade and the shield you put up due to the circumstances you've been through? The abusive past as a child? The ridicule from her parents? (I am cheating a little bit here having read some Wikis) The longing for a child? The crazy global events that could have resulted in both of their deaths multiple times. Geralt knows of her devotion to Ciri, and also knows that it was Ciri, or at least it seems so, that allowed them to overcome their trivial squabbles and bickering, that it allowed them to share a singular purpose together as Geralt himself cares little for politics but is often thrust into it while Yennefer is surrounded by it in her role and has become cynical because of it. They are able to put all of this aside and see beyond trivialities to the core of their relationship and feelings for one another. Sometimes it takes a jarring moment or something larger to allow characters to see beyond their petty squabbles and differences, their personality quirks and past difficulties, for the both of them this was Ciri. It brought them together in a way they never knew it would and it effectively allowed them to truly embrace one another as two people in love rather than as pawns of fate, doomed to irreconcilable differences, spats, and infidelity.

Anyway, I could go on and on but I think it's unnecessary. I am just trying to elucidate her character a bit and show that behind every "bitchy" moment, and behind every "seemingly immoral" act, is a mother's love--plain and simple. You can see she so desperately wants to go back to having some semblance of peace (as much as can be had in the Witcher Universe) with Geralt and Ciri as a family unit. Again, you don't have to like her, at all. But you should try to understand her and her motivations, and even if you do and you still dislike her..well, to bring back Willowhugger's comment from before: It is Geralt that likes her after all, loves her even for who she is and everything she represents. And I would also say that those feelings are reciprocated. After all. Lysander was right: "The course of true love never did run smooth".

Peace.
 
@dzbrown

Spectacular post, there.

I will say one thing, though, that I think you're trying to put a little too nice a face on Yennefer's actions and the thing is that Geralt can and does call her out on a lot of them. I think that's PART OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP that Yennefer is a flawed and ruthless person while Geralt is a cynical idealist. They compliment each other but butt heads.

The necromancy scene isn't an act of desperation but an act of ruthlessness. Yennefer COULD look for another way than stealing the mask or using black magic but doesn't because she is focused solely on getting her daughter back. Geralt loves Ciri just as much but can choose to think that they should find another way--it's just Yennefer doesn't have that kind of patience because she's a Mama Bear. It's good writing that this has a dark as well as lightside.

I also think that plenty of fans like Yennefer just fine as who she is but have preferences for someone a little softer and less confrontational. It's the classic Morrigan/Leliana choice or Betty and Veronica for an even older example.

Someone nice and down to Earth but kind of boring vs. Someone kind of mean but exciting.

You can like both.

You can also decide that Yennefer isn't the kind of girl Geralt needs because the books were before his death/resurrection and even in them, before Ciri, they had an off and on thing for TWENTY YEARS without it being firmly committed.

Geralt found her a handful and cheated on her as often as she cheated on him.

The game allows you to say, "It's just never going to work out without our kid since she's an adult now--its time to go our separate ways" which is about as realistic a fictional romance as you can get.

The bad elements are not a mistake and neither are the good elements. They're both there and they make her more real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom