Pondering Sapkowski's stance on the game series

[Guest 3823474]

Pondering Sapkowski's stance on the game series

Here are some thoughts of mine, based on my observations of and musings about human drama in general and reading some articles about the matter:

I'm basing this mainly on this interesting bit of background story about the Witcher games and the creator of the franchise - you could say some interesting storytelling written by life:
https://www.destructoid.com/the-wit...g-the-game-rights-for-a-lump-sum-427171.phtml
In another article he is quoted as complaining that the game writers allegedly are only writing for money and are thus sloppy, but to me it sounds a lot like, since he is expressing anger for not getting more money out of the games' success, he is a bit of a hypocrit there and doesn't quite take personal responsibility, otherwise he could take his past decision in a more relaxed way, fully owning it, messaging a "Well played!" to the universe.
It also begs the question: If he is not content with the writing quality of the games NOW, and if he had no faith in the medium at all back then, why did he sell his franchise rights in the first place and for a small sum? As if it didn't mean that much to him. What did he imagine would happen in his view of things back then and lack of faith in the gaming medium but the creation of an association with his Witcher franchise as being low-quality junk? It would have been a lot worse than what he is now taking issue with.

What are your thoughts on this? (Maybe you have more background information about this.)

 

[Zyvik]

I think one of the reasons Sapkowski wanted the money from the get go (aside from not having much faith in the game's succes) is because he had history of being...unfairly paid. I don't remember the details, but there definitely was some bad blood between him and the Russian publishers.

 

[Martinvls]

I don't think that game success is so much based on success of Sapkovski's book series.. it's just a setting like Forgotten Realms or Warhammer.. story, appearance of characters and dialogs are all re-created by CDPR.. why they used Witcher universe, well that's obvious, because they are from Poland.. Sapkovski had his share of fame and money when he was published..
BUT! If you read original interview in Eurogamer, it clearly shows that Sapkovski is not against Witcher-games or Witcher-fans which come to meet him because of the game and not his books, which them didn't even read.. he is simply tired of different people which try to find complexity and dirty business while there is none and it's just book series which was popular in Eastern Europe and then game series made in this books setting, which became popular all over the world.. also there is much more talk about money in the comments under interview then in interview itself.
It's just a lot of different people like blogers, journalists which try to grab attention this way, which is a shame... there are tons of youtube videos with heading like "previously unknown secrets of Witcher" which just show footage of common secondary quests or something like that.

 

[falshadow]

Oh, good!

 

[Guest 3847602]

I think the proper context for “I didn’t get big money from CDPR” would be:
Sapko: I don’t care about The Witcher games, I don’t want to talk about them, they are not part of my official storyline.
Random person: But, what’s your opinion on *insert game-related plot point*?
Sapko: My opinion is - I don’t give a shit about video games, ask me something else.
Random comment: He sounds rude, arrogant and ungrateful, he should give more appreciation to the games, after all, he’s making a fortune out of CDPR success.
Sapko: I do not, I’ve made a bad business decision long ago and sold rights to them quite cheaply. I realize now it was stupid, but I wasn’t omniscient.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

To OP;

The author doesn't like that his books are eclipsed by the games based on his books.
The author screwed up royally with his last book in the series, The Lady of the Lake.

Then CDPR came in and put the immediate events of the last book in the mirror by giving Geralt amnesia, and setting things 5 years forward.
CDPR created a separation from the events between the last book and game #3, by having games #1 and #2 basically be self contained stories based on the character and world of The Witcher.
The Lady of the Lake has no real significance beyond "Geralt found Ciri and then died. Sorta."

By the time TW3 came around, CDPR was able to build on the good stuff from the books and it's own additions to the lore.
It could continue and then conclude the story of The Witcher, it's characters Geralt/Triss/Yen/Ciri/Dandlion/Zoltan.
It bugs the author that he screwed up his own best work at the end, and that somebody else came in and cleaned it up.

That's it in a nutshell. It's not the money.
If the game had been bad like the movies licensees had been, he would be strutting about like a peacock whenever someone mentioned The Witcher.
But his wings got clipped. So he's flapping about, throwing dirt into the air and making a scene.

 

[Zyvik]

The Lady of the Lake has no real significance beyond "Geralt found Ciri and then died. Sorta."

:areukiddingme:Yeah right...It has no significance except for the fact that in concludes pretty much every important storyline and character arc in the series.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

Your sarcasm belies the point you didn't read my post...

:areukiddingme:Yeah right...It has no significance except for the fact that in concludes pretty much every important storyline and character arc in the series.

Looking at the book series in isolation from the games, then yes. I don't though. I don't think it's a credit to The Witcher series as a whole to so, quite the contrary.

The game series is a continuation of the books, particularly TW3.
Except for Miva, Cahir, Angouleme, and some of the bad guys, all of the main characters continue past this point, making The Lady of the Lake a middling point in the greater arc.
Which is a good thing since it's the lowest point in the series.

If you like that particular book, that's fine, but obviously it is not the end of the story for most characters in the series as it exists now, particularly not the important ones.

 

[Zyvik]

The game series is a continuation of the books, particularly TW3.

Except that they're not. Not really. The games (especially the third one) clash with the book lore and continuity in many ways. They're basically AU.

 

[LukeSparow]

Eh, there's some continuity errors but nothing really noteworthy if you ask me. Well, except for The Witcher 1. That game was a mess in the writing department! Witcher supermutants, really?
​​​​​

 

[Zyvik]

Eh, there's some continuity errors but nothing really noteworthy if you ask me. Well, except for The Witcher 1. That game was a mess in the writing department! Witcher supermutants, really?
​​​​​

Well, how about Geralt and Yennefer being alive? Or Ciri becoming a famous witcher/empress? Or the White Frost being some mystical,evil force wich can be stopped instead of a natural ecological process? These things simply don't fit with what we know of the future events from Lady of the Lake.

 

[LukeSparow]

There are many different takes on future cataclysm storines. Sometimes it is aboyt inevitability, but other times future events can be altered. It sesms The Witcher games have taken that approach.
Not a continuity error.

It is explained how Yenefer and Geralt are alive in the Witcher 2. In my opinion they do a good job of making that explanation seem feasible.

Regarding Ciri, I don't see those endings conflicting with her character, other characters or the book series' lore.

Mind you, I've never read the 8th book so I don't know if there are many errors there.

 

[Zyvik]

There are many different takes on future cataclysm storines. Sometimes it is aboyt inevitability, but other times future events can be altered. It sesms The Witcher games have taken that approach.
Not a continuity error.

It is explained how Yenefer and Geralt are alive in the Witcher 2. In my opinion they do a good job of making that explanation seem feasible.

Regarding Ciri, I don't see those endings conflicting with her character, other characters or the book series' lore.

Mind you, I've never read the 8th book so I don't know if there are many errors there.

They contradict what we know from Nimue and Condwiramurs in "Lady of the Lake".

From what they say it's clear that Ciri never came back to her native world. I'm sure someone would've noticed if legendary Cirilla became an Empress of Nilfgaard.

Same for Geralt and Yennefer. Their 'ressurection' is a common knowledge in the games, but in the books everyone was convinced that they were still dead centuries after the pogrom in Rivia.

And regarding the White Frost. Nimue explicitly says that the White Frost will occur and that it's pretty much inevitable...even though according to the games it was somehow stopped by Ciri a century prior to her words :what:

 

[LukeSparow]

Fair, again though, this was a future Ciri jumped into. Apparently in this universe the future can be altered.
In that case I don't see them so much as continuity issues.

In all honesty, they may well have been oversights on CD Projects end, who knows?

 

[sv3672]

In all honesty, they may well have been oversights on CD Projects end, who knows?

Or not oversights, they just do not follow events that are in the future relative to the point where the games' own story has begun, there is only a common past until the pogrom, and then the games diverge from the books. That would make sense, and it gives more freedom in how the story can be written and possibly altered by the player's choices.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

Perceived continuity errors or not aside, they're minor. Geralt/Yen's death, The White Frost, much was left open to interpretation or imagination, and so it was.
Entirely acceptable in a branching choice video game.
These missteps which may-or-may-not occur within the games, are wholly minor compared to the "that's anime" level of unbelievably of The Lady of the Lake.
The Witcher series, which was great, was failed miserably by that book. It didn't get the ending it deserved, until the games came along and fixed it.

Many people such as myself, are willing to shrug off minor mistakes in a series, as long as everything comes together in the end. If the end is botched, then it leaves one unsatisfied.
The Author botched his own ending, and a media company, a game company no less, came in and fixed it in a way he couldn't.

It pisses him off, so he bashes the game's writing. It's a shame for him. The game that he bashes, dramatically helped his sales of books.
He feels a bit robbed of the entitlement to own success. After all, if the series had ended well by him, there would be no need for another to come in and continue. But there desperately was, and so it did.

In the end, he made more money screwing up the series at the end and having a game company finish it properly, than he would have with no games. It gave the series as a whole massive publicity and hooked book sales through the games.

If the success of The Witcher was his alone he would be strutting about like a peacock whenever someone mentioned The Witcher.
But his wings got clipped. So he's flapping about, throwing dirt into the air and making a scene."

 

[Zyvik]

The Author botched his own ending, and a media company, a game company no less, came in and fixed it in a way he couldn't.

It pisses him off, so he bashes the game's writing. It's a shame for him. The game that he bashes, dramatically helped his sales of books.

How would he know that if he never even played the games and knows next to nothing about them?

And at any rate are there seriously that many people who consider the ending of the books something that needs to be fixed? I doubt it.

 

[Guest 3847602]

The Author botched his own ending, and a media company, a game company no less, came in and fixed it in a way he couldn't.

Ending of Lady of the Lake didn't steer up any controversy I'm aware of. Neither did the author mention that he would have done something differently about it for the last 18 years. I don't know why would he be jealous about someone else "fixing" what he doesn't see as flawed?

It pisses him off, so he bashes the game's writing. It's a shame for him.

Where? All I know is that CDPR asked him is it OK if they used "return from the dead/amnesia" plot device in TW1 to which he replied something along the lines: Go ahead, do whatever you want, I don't care.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

How would he know that if he never even played the games and knows next to nothing about them?

And at any rate are there seriously that many people who consider the ending of the books something that needs to be fixed? I doubt it.

How is the Author criticizing the gamer writers (OP topic), if he knows nothing about game, or at least the games writing?

Are there that many people who consider the ending of the books something that NEEDS to be fixed? Wrong question.

Was there an obvious opportunity and benefit from doing so? Yes.
Was it dramatically improved? Hell Yes.

Did it benefit The Witcher series story as a whole from it having been done? Definitely.
Did that dramatically increase the sales of the books? Undoubtedly.
Does that rob the author of a bit of his own self importance? Agreeably.
Does that piss off the Author? Apparently.

Your original reply was about the Lady of the Lake having some importance. Within the book series only, that would obviously be true. Even though the last book was poorly done.
But I was never talking about the importance Lady of the Lake within the context of the books alone, you re-framed my statement, and then reply'd sarcastically.

I would disagree keeping with the books only, are the best light to look at the series in, and choose not to do so.
As I would imagine most people would who did both the books and the games.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

Ending of Lady of the Lake didn't steer up any controversy I'm aware of. Neither did the author mention that he would have done something differently about it for the last 18 years. I don't know why would he be jealous about someone else "fixing" what he doesn't see as flawed?

The entire book of The Lady of the Lake was bad, not solely the ending. Geralt finding a listening post, hearing through a horn in the wall, tuned somehow into a secret discussion with Tawny Owl about Ciri, if you need an example.

Where? All I know is that CDPR asked him is it OK if they used "return from the dead/amnesia" plot device in TW1 to which he replied something along the lines: Go ahead, do whatever you want, I don't care.

Read OP, I wouldn't just jump in at it here.