x

You have decided to merge your account with the GOG.com.

You can now start participating in the community discussions.

x

You chose to opt out from the merge process.
Please note that you will not be able to access your account until you opt in.

We strongly encourage you to merge your RED account with the GOG.com one.
If you want to do it later please try logging in again.

  • Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I still don't get why Ciri and Yennefer weren't in the first 2 games

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I still don't get why Ciri and Yennefer weren't in the first 2 games

    First off, I LOVE the games, including witcher 1 and 2 and I read all the books and am reading them again. But I keep asking myself, why weren't Ciri and Yennefer in the first 2 games? If you read the books, it becomes apparent how crucial yennefer and especially Ciri are to the plot. The witcher books, IMO, eventually become entirely about Ciri, even Geralt's character becomes entirely about finding her. I still don't understand why at least Ciri wasn't in the first 2 games.

    It isn't a huge deal, since the first 2 games are pretty awesome (i love w2 actually) and its clear the first 2 games are basically cdpr's own plotline in telling w/e story or short stories they wanted to. I mean they basically killed off all the leaders of the north in one game, which im sure the witcher author would have a fit over. The third game is basically cdpr continuing where the novels left off in a non-cannon way to finish off the plot. I feel ciri and yen were introduced pretty damn well in a game this big, but I still think they should have been in the first 2 games; it would have helped flesh out their characters more being in all 3 games.

    Has CDPR ever commented on why ciri/yennefer weren't in the first two games?

  • #2
    It is just how the story was written, it is a part of the plot that Geralt has to find them. If they were in the first two games, it would have been a completely different trilogy, maybe a worse one, maybe better, we do not know. But it may be worth noting that Wild Hunt is a much larger game than its prequels, it is more like 60% of all the games' content alone, rather than just a third of it. So, even though Ciri and Yennefer appear "only" in the last game, it is by far the longest one and they were given a major role, so their presence in the trilogy as a whole is still quite significant.

    By the way, I do recall CDPR commenting that they did not want to introduce Yennefer too early because they were not confident they could portray the character as well as they wanted to, but I do not have a link to the source of this information.
    Last edited by sv3672; 18-06-17, 20:23.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ciri's absence in the first two games is the best thing that could have happened to The Witcher series.

      Comment


      • #4
        maybe CDPR can make The Witcher 3 Enhanced Edition like the first and second witcher games, just the dialogue enough for me, maybe extend the interaction between Ciri and Yen or make better ending, it's really bother me that the Ciri as a Witcher ending wich there's no Yen, like come on, Yen and Geralt like parents to Ciri, but like the game isn't trying enough to make Yen and Ciri relationship, just please CDPR, make the Enhanced Edition

        Comment


        • #5
          It has been confirmed by CDPR that they have no plans to make an enhanced edition of The Witcher 3. Besides, if they wanted to add more interaction between Ciri and Yennefer, it could have been done over the 1.5 years for which the game was supported with patches and new content. But in my opinion the witcher epilogue is mainly about Ciri becoming independent (which is in fact an important theme throughout the game), so it makes sense that it emphasizes that, rather than her family ties, and the same applies to the Blood and Wine epilogues.

          Comment


          • #6
            While I absolutely adore the Witcher 3, I was super upset about the lack of Yennefer and Ciri scenes. Their relationship in the books was one of the things I enjoyed the most. Even in the newest Anniversary video there is basically no (worth to mention) interaction between Yennefer and Ciri. While I think the story itself was well done, it sometimes makes me wonder how they could miss that part of the story or why they decided not to put it into the game and ignore it almost altogether..

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KnightessRouge View Post
              While I absolutely adore the Witcher 3, I was super upset about the lack of Yennefer and Ciri scenes. Their relationship in the books was one of the things I enjoyed the most. Even in the newest Anniversary video there is basically no (worth to mention) interaction between Yennefer and Ciri. While I think the story itself was well done, it sometimes makes me wonder how they could miss that part of the story or why they decided not to put it into the game and ignore it almost altogether..
              Your post reminds me of this thread by Kallelinski.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by immessingaround View Post
                First off, I LOVE the games, including witcher 1 and 2 and I read all the books and am reading them again. But I keep asking myself, why weren't Ciri and Yennefer in the first 2 games? If you read the books, it becomes apparent how crucial yennefer and especially Ciri are to the plot. The witcher books, IMO, eventually become entirely about Ciri, even Geralt's character becomes entirely about finding her. I still don't understand why at least Ciri wasn't in the first 2 games.

                It isn't a huge deal, since the first 2 games are pretty awesome (i love w2 actually) and its clear the first 2 games are basically cdpr's own plotline in telling w/e story or short stories they wanted to. I mean they basically killed off all the leaders of the north in one game, which im sure the witcher author would have a fit over. The third game is basically cdpr continuing where the novels left off in a non-cannon way to finish off the plot. I feel ciri and yen were introduced pretty damn well in a game this big, but I still think they should have been in the first 2 games; it would have helped flesh out their characters more being in all 3 games.

                Has CDPR ever commented on why ciri/yennefer weren't in the first two games?
                They talked about it in the recent documentary about history of the first Witcher game development. They felt that Yennefer and Ciri needed an individual treatment due to their complex relationships with Geralt and they felt like if they had them just appear in the front of the amnesiac witcher, stating who they are for him, it would just feel incredibly cheap, thus they waited until Witcher 3 to introduce them properly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  technically, Triss portrayal in Witcher 1 is a lot closer to Yennefer personality than to Trisses.. they changed Triss a lot for Witcher 2...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There is a YouTube video that was put up recently that's details the making of the original witcher game (it's all in polish but with English subtitles and it's an hour and 57 mins long). It has interviews with the devs and near the end they explain for the omittion of Yen an Ciri from the first two games. It had to do with they story the were trying to make and how they did not want to mess with the books canon to much. That's why they decided to give Gerald amnesia as a starting point and they left yen and Ciri out cause otherwise it would require to much explanation and back story to get players who have not read the books to understand the events pre game and the books endings. (That's it in a nut shell....kinda) They explain it better. It's a good watch. I recommend giving it a watch.


                    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g18GgD-SNzM
                    Last edited by Potestaquisitor; 13-09-17, 22:55.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Potestaquisitor View Post
                      All in all they made the right choice. TW1 would be a mess if they crammed Yennefer and Ciri into it.

                      And apparently some devs hate Triss' cleavage as much as I do Though I wonder what was the reasoning behind Sheala's cleavage?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In short, at least on Witcher 1, Triss was Yennefer and Alvin, Ciri. I'd like how they take a definitive final from the books and then twisted some things in a way that make (some) sense to create a new history (that can be continue and/or separate from the books) while making omages to the main source. On retrospective, they make a wonderful job to my eyes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          To OP:

                          I think the main issue for CDPR at the time was they weren't sure they were going to make a "worthy" game at the time.
                          Like, to most of the primarily English dominantly speaking world, The Witcher is just another fantasy series.
                          In Poland, it was a much, much bigger deal. And screwing it up would be a much, much bigger deal.
                          Also, developers are artists, which means that even beyond being Poles, their respect for the source material would cause their hesitation to mess with too many of the characters.
                          I suppose they needed to build up the confidence to take on the stories of Ciri and Yennifer.

                          Also, they intended the game to be a international release with a console port.
                          The former sortof worked, the latter didn't.
                          TW1 came out, and basicly the funds from it were used to create content they couldn't in the first pass.
                          The console port got f*cked.

                          But originally, they had hoped to share The Witcher 1 with a mass audience of players who would never have heard of The Witcher before, so to start directly with a continuation of the end of the books wouldn't really serve their audience who spoke the languages the book had not been translated into at the time, particularly English.

                          Actually, I think the way it turned out couldn't have been better. For me, personally, when I wasn't playing TW1 and TW2, I was listening to the books on audio as I drive. I finished by the time I beat TW2 for the second time. So when I got to TW3, ready to pick up where the books left off, and to fix some gaping holes left by the last book, emotionally, I was fully engaged and involved, in a way I never have been playing a video games. I think thats why for me and other people, the game had such an impact. It's not just TW3 itself, its the amazing culmination of the games and the books.
                          It truly is a once in a life time experience unlike any other.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I did watch that polish documentary yesterday and it all makes sense now. I really have no problem with how they designed the 3 games; I indeed don't think it could have ended up better. I love ciri and yennefer's portray/design/translation into the witcher 3 so there really is no complaints from me.

                            I don't think any other dev could have pulled it off this well, not even obsidian or oldschool bioware.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X