NukeTheMoon;n9334561 said:
What if CDPR did The Witcher games from the end of the books, but started a new AU? With the books available more widely this time there's no reason not to have Geralt start off with his memory intact.
They would be retconning all of their previous work in the already released games, it would look bad, and they would probably get some well deserved flak. Besides, would it really be good if Geralt did not lose his memories, in terms of how the story can be written? Anyway, those who want that can simply skip the first two games.
All this being said, if CDPR doesn't want to make another Witcher game then they won't, and probably shouldn't.
That might be the best option in the end, hopefully CP2077 becomes a major success, so they will be more concerned with its sequels than yet another (unneeded) Witcher game.
Zyvik;n9335191 said:
Well, considering that they're the most important characters after Geralt it's kinda crazy that we only had one game with them, while minor character like Triss got three.
I do not see what the problem is there, the games have no obligation to focus on the same characters as the books. Characters not important in the books can become important in the games because of how the story is written, and vice versa, there is nothing wrong with that, it is even good that we do not only get more of the same. And the "three games vs. one" comparison is not fair anyway, it ignores the amount of presence a character has in each game. In reality, there is almost as much Yennefer content in TW3 alone as Triss in all three combined, wanting more of her at all costs is just greedy. Would you say that the games gave Eredin preferential treatment compared to Yennefer, because he appears in two games instead of one? The same applies to Ciri.
Not to mention, The Witcher 3 was written with the intention of wrapping up the main characters' stories, they have a conclusion already. Even if a sequel was made with Ciri, it would make the most sense to give the others only minor "cameo" roles at most, existing content in Wild Hunt tells us that she becomes independent and goes on to her own adventures, while Geralt retires, they would meet only occasionally after the ending.
And in any case they're waaaaaaay more popular than Vesemir (and pretty much any character who's not Geralt or Triss), so like it or not it's much more likely that the sequel with feauture them.
I do not care about popularity, and if that is what is dictating CDPR's decisions first and foremost (rather than actually wanting to make a good game), I am probably not a part of their target audience. Authors need to be creative and sometimes take risks, while the majority of consumers predictably wants more of the same. But the preferences of the crowd are fickle anyway, Vesemir or whoever else could become popular as soon as he is the protagonist. It is not like a Ciri sequel would be universally well received either, from what I have seen, there are mixed opinions on this subject, some people would like it, others outright hate the idea.
A prequel with Vesemir would just feel redundant to me. What's the point of playing a minor character who's fate is already sealed?
No one lives forever, why would it detract from a Vesemir story if you knew he was going to die 100 years later? Plenty of things can happen until that. And dismissing him because of being a "minor character" is circular logic, it implies that no Witcher game could ever be made with a new protagonist, only endless sequels with the same old cast we have seen plenty of already. Obviously, once Vesemir (or Eskel, or anyone else) was made the player's character, their role would no longer be minor, and at least we would get a chance to learn more about them.
Agreed. Her parts in the games (and books) are among my least favorites as well. But it doesn't mean you can't do a good story for her. It all depends on the quality of the writing, so i'm not giving up on her just yet.
CDPR already had their chances to write a good story about Ciri, the Wild Hunt, Avallac'h et al, what is there to say their next attempt would be better? It looks like they are best when they are writing their own stories unrelated to the books or their characters, or when they are just slavishly copying the books without trying to add or change anything in a meaningful way (which is boring and pointless, but the result is of high quality nevertheless). It is when they are trying to finish someone else's work that they keep stumbling, and a Ciri sequel focused on completing already bad plot lines would be exactly that.
It's just that for me Ciri is the only character whom I'll accept as Geralt's replacement. The series is called "The Witcher" and that means a very specific witcher. Not Vesemir, not Eskel, not Lambert, not anyone else. It's either Geralt or Ciri.
Vesemir, Eskel and Lambert are actual witchers with the mutations. Ciri is not, nor is she a particularly interesting character to play as. But if the concept of "The Witcher" is really that inflexible that it would never allow for a main character other than Geralt or Ciri, then perhaps it would be better to move on from making Witcher games. I know they are highly profitable, but when that is the only thing motivating their production, a company calling themselves "rebels" and taking pride in being different from the typical AAA developer may want to look at other franchises. Cyberpunk already looks promising, and unlike in the case of The Witcher, the source material has the advantage of also being an RPG. There are also rumors of a planned new IP in a fantasy setting that is not in the Witcher universe, but that is still a relatively distant future, even CP2077 may take years to finish first. By the way, according to some people on another forum, CDPR considered the possibility of a Ciri game, but the idea was dropped. The information may or may not be reliable, though.
Oh, I defenitely don't want a Ciri game if they'll ignore the endings. No, no, no.
I cannot see what they can do with Ciri's endings, the witcheress one would have to be canonized, or at most the other two would have to be made to lead to her becoming a witcher anyway with some contrived excuses (she does not really die in the bad ending, nor does she become an empress after all, or loses the throne for whatever reason). The others depend on how much effort it takes to make them fit into the story vs. how much CDPR are willing to spend on implementing a save import (which was like 1-2% of the content in the existing games).
