Pondering Sapkowski's stance on the game series

+
NukeTheMoon;n9279811 said:
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.

Well, that's your opinion. From what i've seen the fandom is pretty divisive about this book. Some love it, some hate it. And I do agree that it has bad moments, but it has some great ones as well.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9279781 said:
How is the Author criticizing the gamer writers (OP topic), if he knows nothing about game, or at least the games writing?

Sapkowski just doesn't have a particularly high opinion of games and gamers in general. He considers the writing of the games inferior to his books, because...well, they're games.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
NukeTheMoon;n9279811 said:
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.

That was indeed a bit too convenient, but on the other hand it could be explained with destiny (like the ending of Something More).
Nevertheless, whether someone likes or hates ending of Lady of the Lake or the whole book, my point remains:
- the book or the ending itself were not critically panned at the time of its release
- neither did the author publicly admit his dissatisfaction with it
There is no reason to say he's butthurt about someone else fixing what he could not.
NukeTheMoon;n9279811 said:
Read OP, I wouldn't just jump in at it here.

I've read the OP, apparently there is another article (not the one he linked) where he criticized game's writers. If you know about it, post it. I've never seen him bashing the writing of The Witcher games. Only that he is not familiar with their plot and that he doesn't want to get familiar with it.
Although, it could be a misunderstanding - he did criticize game writers- the ones writing video game-inspired books (as a supporting material for games). Most of literal people on Earth would agree that game books are an utter trash. He said this because English publishers used TW2 artwork for some of his books and he didn't want his work to be wrongly associated with that garbage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zyvik;n9279821 said:
Well, that's your opinion. From what i've seen the fandom is pretty divisive about this book. Some love it, some hate it. And I do agree that it has bad moments, but it has some great ones as well.

I didn't think it was that divisive, to say that the consensus has been built, but not really worth arguing here.

As for The Author criticizing the games writing, for being game writing, that I don't know much about.
I certainly know he is not happy to have his own work been eclipsed by something he didn't even think was worth percentage royalties on.

He feels screwed both ways.
So he can neither profit from third party licensed works being successful, nor can he claim responsibility for much of the success of the series.

He worked hard on The Witcher, so it pisses him off. That's his motive.
He created this world and it's characters, and someone else came in, swept them up, and are getting all the attention, money and praise. He can't stand it.

Being that he was a former salesman, I'm sure that had he gone for the percentage royalties instead of lump sum, he would be singing a very different tune, just like he is with his Netflicks endorsement.
 
ooodrin;n9279921 said:
That was indeed a bit too convenient, but on the other hand it could be explained with destiny (like the ending of Something More).
Nevertheless, whether someone likes or hates ending of Lady of the Lake or the whole book, my point remains:
- the book or the ending itself were not critically panned at the time of its release
- neither did the author publicly admit his dissatisfaction with it
There is no reason to say he's butthurt about someone else fixing what he could not.


I've read the OP, apparently there is another article (not the one he linked) where he criticized game's writers. If you know about it, post it. I've never seen him bashing the writing of The Witcher games. Only that he is not familiar with their plot and that he doesn't want to get familiar with it.
Although, it could be a misunderstanding - he did criticize game writers- the ones writing video game-inspired books (as a supporting material for games). Most of literal people on Earth would agree that game books are an utter trash. He said this because English publishers used TW2 artwork for some of his books and he didn't want his work to be wrongly associated with that garbage.

There's a lot he doesn't admit to. He has chose not to admit that the games helped the sales of the books, in past interviews. What he admits to, and is actually going on, I believe to be quite different. I am doing some speculating, but it is well grounded.

You'll have to ask the OP for the reference, I've heard Author sling all sorts of mud, I'm not that interested. Heard enough, know where it comes from, not legitimate critiques, ends there for me.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
NukeTheMoon;n9280021 said:
He has chose not to admit that the games helped the sales of the books, in past interviews. What he admits to, and is actually going on, I believe to be quite different. I am doing some speculating, but it is well grounded.

"Maybe it's time to set the matters straight," he went on. "'The Witcher' is a well made video game, its success is well deserved and the creators deserve all the splendour and honour due. But in no way can it be considered to be an 'alternative version', nor a 'sequel' to the witcher Geralt stories. Because this can only be told by Geralt's creator. A certain Andrzej Sapkowski."


"I believe it is the success of my books that significantly affects the popularity of the games," he returned. "That in reality, the games used this fact, as my success beat the games to the punch."

"The translations of my books into most European languages - including English - preceded the release of the first game. Long before the game - and it's a known fact - I was a well known writer, even there, where there have been no translations of my work."

"Of course I don't want to diminish the role of the video game, it is obvious that it had a positive impact on the interest of foreign publications and the number of translations. A lot of gamers, of course, have only gained interest in the books because they liked the games. Otherwise, they would have never read it."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...r-of-the-witcher-books-thinks-about-the-games
 
NukeTheMoon;n9280011 said:
As for The Author criticizing the games writing, for being game writing, that I don't know much about.

He talked about it in several interviews:

"A video game serves a different purpose. It works differently. How much substance can there be in the lines of text when the hero walks through the woods and talks to a squirrel? Where's the literature in that? Where's the room for depth or sophisticated language with which games could elevate culture? There's none."

In another interview he admitted that he has deluxe editions of all three games, but never even opened them, because he has "better things to do."

Many people give him a hard time for being so dismissive of video games and totally forget that he's a guy from a diferent generation when the gaming industry didn't even exist. Though I do find it weird that he never actually considered checking them out. C'mon Sapko! Aren't you even a little curious how the games butchered portrayed your characters?



 

Guest 3823474

Guest
Zyvik;n9280681 said:
Though I do find it weird that he never actually considered checking them out. C'mon Sapko! Aren't you even a little curious how the games butchered portrayed your characters?
I think he might be avoiding that because he's afraid of either the thought of his future works being perceived as being influenced by the games or he himself fearing that might actually happen. It also sounds a lot like he has already made up his mind; thus he doesn't have to check out the games. It wouldn't affect his chosen stance, which is a closed, defensive one. Not a sign of strength. Easily knocked over by Aard. If he is focusing so much on form (like 'elevating culture through wording' - sounds very Dandelion, heh), it weakens the cause for good storytelling, the heart, the core of it all. To use an analogy, Dandelion decides how to convey the story, but without Geralt there wouldn't be a story. So with the books, Sapkowsky is the star. With the games, Geralt is the star. You read the books and you think: Damn, good author, I like his books. With the game, it's a whole team, the writers don't hold big signs with their names up all the time. Playing the game, you can immerse yourself more into the events. Geralt is the target of admiration there. You have different means of form for conveying it, some from the book format lacking, but the resulting experience can be equal. And one shouldn't kid themselves: Computer game fiction is entertainment, but so is fiction in book form. Pushing a cultural agenda with books is a way to put people off.
Well, to get all the details and an accurate picture, one would probably have to ask Sapkowski the right questions, in an in-depth interview, philosophical and personal, rich in those elevated cultural aspects so important to him. :)
My personal musings are also affected by observations about people's true motives, and cases like J.K. Rowling make me furl my eyebrows. Harry Potter, in my perception, is a product tailor-made to create a success career. Always easier with children, and following all the guidelines. Having to 'bugfix' logical errors in your stories is an indication of someone not truly devoted to a material with their heart. (And she also doesn't seem very good at following the lessons she conveys in her own books sometimes, which might be a further clue.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dowlphin;n9288501 said:
With the game, it's a whole team, the writers don't hold big signs with their names up all the time.
I guess you haven't seen the BaW Easter Egg.
It's a actual sign, well only a picture, of the people involved in making the game.
You need mods or consol mode to see it though.
 
slothman32;n9290111 said:
You need mods or consol mode to see it though.

There is an exploit that lets you clip through the magical barrier around the Land of 1000 Fables, and then the entire map of Toussaint can be explored, including the place where that picture is. Riding there and climbing the mountain is somewhat tedious, though. There are many easter eggs in Blood and Wine in any case, and this is not the only one where the names of developers can be found.
 

Guest 3823474

Guest
slothman32;n9290111 said:
I guess you haven't seen the BaW Easter Egg.
It's a actual sign, well only a picture, of the people involved in making the game.
You need mods or consol mode to see it though.

Underlining my point. ;-)
 
If I was Sapkowski I would be upset--if it was for me it wouldn't be about the money, but about the fame and recongnition. I think it would be horrible for any author that there is a perceived notion that the games came first or that someone "improved" the characters.

I'll stand by my point that I think CDPR butchered the characters/watered them down.

While some may say CDPR storytelling is good--they reused major plot points from the books. Searching for Ciri (later books), Wild Hunt chasing Ciri (later books), Lodge in W2 (copy of Thanedd), etc. Syanna is just a cheap copy of Renfri.

Geralt is suppposed to be whiny--everyone hates him and he hates his job. It's not like in the games where monsters are plentiful; they're going extinct. Even Yennefer has to increase the price for his contracts. Geralt wasn't originally supposed to be this "bad-ass" hero. CDPR even gave his the "gruff" Batman voice.

I know this will be contentious, but I never liked the how the games ended or how they uprooted the ending in the book. Geralt and Yennefer dying fits with the message and themes conveyed throughout the books. Ciri gets to be happy (if that's possible with Galahad) away from the Witcher world. It's interesting how the stories of Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri eventually drifted into legends--with Nimue trying to research and read about them. The connection to storytelling, Arthurian legends, Galahad, Le Morte d'Arthur, Avalon, etc. is lost in the games.

Game gripes:

Why would Ciri trust Avallac'h after he basically blackmailed her to try to sleep with Auberon? Why is Ciri now so important---it was always about her child or grandchild. The games just elevated her to a "semi-Mary-Sue" who had to stop the White Frost.

The White Frost was not a defeatable entity but rather a axis tilt/climate shift that wouldn't affect the work for a few thousand years.

The Last Wish is retconned/changed. The games insinuate that the Wish could have affected Geralt's love for Yennefer--the Wish is never brought up again in the book. It's implied by Mr.Krepp that Geralt bound his fate to Yennefer's.

Ciri's relationship with Yennefer did regress in the games--she's not that close to her and never calls her "mother".

Dandelion is reduced to an annoying companion compared to his book-self (one who offered continued advice for Geralt).

Triss' dealings with the Lodge or her betrayl in the books is never mentioned.

The game offered out of character choices like having Yennefer tell Geralt that he should bring Ciri to see Emhyr or having Geralt possibly receive coin from the Emperor ( I just guessed they forgot when Emhyr ordered them to commit suicide and was forcibly taking Ciri away from them).

Eredin isn't a one note villain like he is in the games--he's more charming and charismatic.

Book Emhyr is a more compelling character-the games reduced him to a father looking for his daughter (they never bring up what he wanted to do to Ciri or that he ordered Geralt and Yennefer to commit suicide).

The only good villain was Gaunter. Eredin was boring compared to his bookself. Detlaff was blinded by his 'love' for Syanna.
 

Guest 3823474

Guest
Samiel27 Nice comparison, since I never read the books. Some things are understandable changes to fit the game format. Changes to Geralt's character would be in order to have a likeable protagonist, which seems very important for mass appeal or is at least mainstream. I found the way the White Frost was portrayed in W3 so bad that it was confusing bordering on comedic. I always understood it as an ice age reference, but even if it was some magical phenomenon, it wasn't even given proper portrayal how Ciri dealt with it. It was like 'Lemme go through that portal and get rid of the frosty ball using some sleek moves.'
The old Polish TV series that can be found on Youtube was interesting. Didn't seem as far distanced from the games as the books, based on your description. Was very compacted though. Dandelion seemed to have the same basic traits in that series and in the games, just the emphasis was probably a bit different.
 
Samiel27;n9298451 said:
Why would Ciri trust Avallac'h after he basically blackmailed her to try to sleep with Auberon? Why is Ciri now so important---it was always about her child or grandchild. The games just elevated her to a "semi-Mary-Sue" who had to stop the White Frost.

Ciri spends a long time with Avallac'h between the books and the third game, while she travels between worlds and hides from the Wild Hunt. It is not that surprising that she relates to the elf differently than she did in the books, when he is her only ally during that time. Also, since Ciri returns to the Witcher world (which is related to Geralt returning first, something that did not happen in the books, that is the point from where the stories diverge), it makes sense that her story is different from the books and that she becomes more important.

The White Frost was not a defeatable entity but rather a axis tilt/climate shift that wouldn't affect the work for a few thousand years.

Again, the games do not have to match everything that happens in the future in the books, they already changed the fates of major characters like Ciri.

The games insinuate that the Wish could have affected Geralt's love for Yennefer--the Wish is never brought up again in the book.

The game does not say that as a fact, only some of the fans do. In my opinion, Geralt's line that the magic is gone is only metaphorical, it simply means that he no longer feels the same towards Yennefer, but nothing in the game states that it was only because of a spell in the past. In fact, if you ignore The Last Wish, the game ends with no Yennefer romance, that would not make sense if it was really because of the spell, but it does not contradict my interpretation. It is not the fault of the game if its content is misinterpreted (possibly deliberately) by people.

Ciri's relationship with Yennefer did regress in the games--she's not that close to her and never calls her "mother".

She does not call Geralt "father" either in dialogues with him. Ciri is a young adult in the game, while she was a teenager in the books. People do change over those years, it is when they want to become independent and live their own lives. It is also normal for the game that NPCs interact much less with each other than they do with Geralt (the player's character), it is not like Ciri and Yennefer in particular have been singled out with that treatment.

Triss' dealings with the Lodge or her betrayl in the books is never mentioned.

Why would it be mentioned? It is not relevant to the story of the game. The games do not provide information dumps about everything that happened in the books or even the previous games, they minimize exposition whenever possible. Triss' dealing with the Lodge is of course a topic in the first two games, because it is something that happens in their own stories, but by the end of Witcher 2, she is done with them, that thread in the story is closed and wrapped up. That is why in Wild Hunt, you are only told that she is no longer a member of the Lodge and does not want to return either.

The game offered out of character choices like having Yennefer tell Geralt that he should bring Ciri to see Emhyr or having Geralt possibly receive coin from the Emperor ( I just guessed they forgot when Emhyr ordered them to commit suicide and was forcibly taking Ciri away from them).

If you think those choices are out of character, just do not choose them, it is a role playing game after all. Other people may think they make sense under the given circumstances, out of necessity or for whatever reason, they are entitled to their opinions as much as you are to yours.

Eredin isn't a one note villain like he is in the games--he's more charming and charismatic.

Eredin is not a one note villain in Witcher 1, and even in the last game you do learn more about his motives if you pay attention to the background information provided by other characters and written material. Of course, he does not have much dialogue, but in all encounters he is an enemy and has to be fought, the lack of conversation is realistic.

Book Emhyr is a more compelling character-the games reduced him to a father looking for his daughter (they never bring up what he wanted to do to Ciri or that he ordered Geralt and Yennefer to commit suicide).

See above, in Witcher 3, it is him looking for Ciri that matters to the story. But the negative aspects of his character are shown in the second game, and even in Wild Hunt, you can see it in White Orchard and Velen that living under Nilfgaardian rule is not all good.

Dowlphin;n9301621 said:
Samiel27 Nice comparison, since I never read the books. Some things are understandable changes to fit the game format. Changes to Geralt's character would be in order to have a likeable protagonist, which seems very important for mass appeal or is at least mainstream. I found the way the White Frost was portrayed in W3 so bad that it was confusing bordering on comedic. I always understood it as an ice age reference, but even if it was some magical phenomenon, it wasn't even given proper portrayal how Ciri dealt with it. It was like 'Lemme go through that portal and get rid of the frosty ball using some sleek moves.'

The last chapters in the game are admittedly not perfect, but in CDPR's defense it might be worth noting that those parts had to be reworked late in the development cycle, and a fair amount of content was changed or cut, there was not enough time to polish everything. For example, the final battle with the Wild Hunt was supposed to take place in Novigrad instead of Undvik, with a quest before that where Geralt temporarily infiltrates the Wild Hunt, the travel between worlds in The Spiral would have been longer (possibly more explanation regarding the White Frost and events between the books and games), Avallac'h could possibly have been a "boss" enemy at the end, Emhyr would have arrested the remaining members of the Lodge, the epilogues would have been different (like the witcheress one in Novigrad instead of White Orchard), and so on. What has been released is still good, and obviously not all changes were for the worse, but it can be seen that the finale is somewhat rushed.

When it comes to books vs. games, I think one just needs to accept that the latter are somewhat different, there are multiple reasons for that, it is a different medium, different authors (even between the games), and most importantly not just a retelling of what happened in the books, but rather a new story (with branching paths due to player choice) that builds on the fundamental premise that Geralt does not really die, and he comes back to the Witcher world. It is a "what if" scenario, with Geralt's fate being different from the beginning, of course that affects characters related to him, so the story unfolds differently. Also, whether changing a character compared to the books (the changes are usually not that major anyway, and it is natural that they are not all exactly the same as they were years ago) can be considered "improving" or "butchering" them, it is subjective, some will like the game versions more, others will not.

Perhaps it would be the best if CDPR moved on from The Witcher (although from a business point of view, that decision might not be attractive, sequels do sell after all), they have grown enough since the first game to stand on their own legs. If Cyberpunk turns out to be really good, do we need more Witcher with the story already wrapped up? If his books are no longer used as source material, then Sapkowski can hardly complain about anything. Except maybe the lack of attention.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Samiel27;n9298451 said:
If I was Sapkowski I would be upset--if it was for me it wouldn't be about the money, but about the fame and recongnition. I think it would be horrible for any author that there is a perceived notion that the games came first or that someone "improved" the characters.

I'll stand by my point that I think CDPR butchered the characters/watered them down.

While some may say CDPR storytelling is good--they reused major plot points from the books. Searching for Ciri (later books), Wild Hunt chasing Ciri (later books), Lodge in W2 (copy of Thanedd), etc. Syanna is just a cheap copy of Renfri.

Geralt is suppposed to be whiny--everyone hates him and he hates his job. It's not like in the games where monsters are plentiful; they're going extinct. Even Yennefer has to increase the price for his contracts. Geralt wasn't originally supposed to be this "bad-ass" hero. CDPR even gave his the "gruff" Batman voice.

I know this will be contentious, but I never liked the how the games ended or how they uprooted the ending in the book. Geralt and Yennefer dying fits with the message and themes conveyed throughout the books. Ciri gets to be happy (if that's possible with Galahad) away from the Witcher world. It's interesting how the stories of Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri eventually drifted into legends--with Nimue trying to research and read about them. The connection to storytelling, Arthurian legends, Galahad, Le Morte d'Arthur, Avalon, etc. is lost in the games.

Game gripes:

Why would Ciri trust Avallac'h after he basically blackmailed her to try to sleep with Auberon? Why is Ciri now so important---it was always about her child or grandchild. The games just elevated her to a "semi-Mary-Sue" who had to stop the White Frost.

The White Frost was not a defeatable entity but rather a axis tilt/climate shift that wouldn't affect the work for a few thousand years.

The Last Wish is retconned/changed. The games insinuate that the Wish could have affected Geralt's love for Yennefer--the Wish is never brought up again in the book. It's implied by Mr.Krepp that Geralt bound his fate to Yennefer's.

Ciri's relationship with Yennefer did regress in the games--she's not that close to her and never calls her "mother".

Dandelion is reduced to an annoying companion compared to his book-self (one who offered continued advice for Geralt).

Triss' dealings with the Lodge or her betrayl in the books is never mentioned.

The game offered out of character choices like having Yennefer tell Geralt that he should bring Ciri to see Emhyr or having Geralt possibly receive coin from the Emperor ( I just guessed they forgot when Emhyr ordered them to commit suicide and was forcibly taking Ciri away from them).

Eredin isn't a one note villain like he is in the games--he's more charming and charismatic.

Book Emhyr is a more compelling character-the games reduced him to a father looking for his daughter (they never bring up what he wanted to do to Ciri or that he ordered Geralt and Yennefer to commit suicide).

The only good villain was Gaunter. Eredin was boring compared to his bookself. Detlaff was blinded by his 'love' for Syanna.

Some sacrifices, alterations and adjustments had to be made when one is developing story and characters for game compared to the literature. Different demands, different limitations...
Emphasizing Geralt's badassery and purging away his whinny side was necessary for creating the strong protagonist for games and their audience. Demand for whinny player's avatars have never been high in gaming and most likely never will be. Besides, Geralt only had some whinny episodes in the books, it's not like that was his primary trait. In hindsight, it was a wise move to play to his strength, not weakness.
About Triss' betrayal - her roles in the novels and games are not quite the same: side character snubbed by Geralt vs major character in first two games and optional LI. For many players her taking advantage of Geralt's amnesia was controversial and creepy enough for her to be discarded as the waifu material. What would the reaction be if "she and her Lodge wanted to use your foster daughter as the baby maker for the Prince of Kovir" was added on the beam scale?
Anyway, there was perhaps a hint about said betrayal in TW2, when Philippa said something like: Triss knew nothing about the assassinations, but was dishonest to you (Geralt) about some other matters. Take it as you will.
Ciri/Yennefer thing was handled in a very weird way to say the least, but I'm glad they've made a small but important change about it in Curse of Crows. Far from ideal, but improvement nonetheless.
The way Ciri/Avallac'h was handled remains gross, however. A cutting-edge cringe.

Point being, while it always makes me throw up a little in my mouth everytime I read the games have "improved and perfected" portrayal of some books characters, it is unfair to compare the games to the novels directly in the first place. Books will always win in plot cohesion and character depth departments. Which is basically what Sapkowski is telling all along - if the writing and storytelling are your primary concerns (like it's the case with him), don't look at video games and go read something.
A fair comparison would be between The Witcher games and the other AAA RPG titles. This is where CDPR creation, their worldbuilding, story, themes and characters makes other developers looks obsolete and amateurish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ooodrin;n9304171 said:
Emphasizing Geralt's badassery and purging away his whinny side was necessary for creating the strong protagonist for games and their audience. Demand for whinny player's avatars have never been high in gaming and most likely never will be. Besides, Geralt only had some whinny episodes in the books, it's not like that was his primary trait. In hindsight, it was a wise move to play to his strength, not weakness.

There are "whiny" dialogue options in the games as well at times, so if that is not his primary trait, then it is fair to only include it occasionally. I figure most players would rather pick the "badass" lines when they are available, however.

For many players her taking advantage of Geralt's amnesia was controversial and creepy enough for her to be discarded as the waifu material. What would the reaction be if "she and her Lodge wanted to use your foster daughter as the baby maker for the Prince of Kovir" was added on the beam scale?

Geralt does not consider himself to have been taken advantage of, that is apparent from dialogues in the game. But the "controversy" is something that shows that many players are overly concerned with meta-gaming and also with what other people choose in the game, and end up not understanding its concepts. Other than trying to convert people to the presumably right "team", what special purpose would it serve to include cherry picked negative bits about a character from the books, and ones that are not even relevant to the games' story, while ignoring everything else (like in this particular case that she ultimately sided with Geralt and his family by the end of the books)?

If you try to view things from the developers' point of view, their decision makes sense, they avoid unnecessary recaps of past events whenever possible. Despite the size of the game, there is a kind of minimalist approach to its story telling, and I think that contributed to its success. There are a lot of things that happened in the books but you are not told about in the games, simply because the writers or director decided they do not matter enough to their narrative to waste the players' time with, and not because they are trying to balance romance wars on the internet, as you seem to insinuate. Finally, as I already mentioned, they do even have a somewhat similar story in the games themselves, the events are different of course, but the important points are more or less the same as far as Triss' character and how she relates to the Lodge are concerned.

Anyway, there was perhaps a hint about said betrayal in TW2, when Philippa said something like: Triss knew nothing about the assassinations, but was dishonest to you (Geralt) about some other matters.

It more likely refers to recent game events related to the Lodge, which is indeed exactly what Geralt is upset about in the dialogue with Triss not much later if she is rescued. Otherwise, those who did not already read the books would not get the "hint" at all. Of course, it is also the scene in Chapter 3 in the prison where you need to decide who to rescue, so Philippa has some interest (motivated by self preservation) in making Triss look bad.

The way Ciri/Avallac'h was handled remains gross, however. A cutting-edge cringe.

As I posted above, Ciri spends a long time with Avallac'h as her only ally until she is found in the third game. Is it really inconceivable that her attitude towards the elf becomes more positive after that? It is easy to ignore events that happen off-screen and are only briefly mentioned, but they did happen nevertheless.

Which is basically what Sapkowski is telling all along - if the writing and storytelling are your primary concerns (like it's the case with him), don't look at video games and go read something.

The storytelling in the game is fine. It is just necessarily different from that of a book, some things you can do in a book but not in a game, however, it is also true the other way around. In the game, there are no monologues, you cannot read the characters' thoughts, dialogues are centered around the player's character and there are very little between NPCs, and it generally follows a "show, don't tell" approach with minimal exposition. You experience the story from the protagonist's point of view, through his more or less realistic interaction with the world and other characters. On the other hand, there are kinds of information you do not have in a book, visual and audio, facial expressions, music, interactive dialogues, and sometimes you do also find written material like letters. Of course, when someone tries to enforce a book centric view on games, the latter will always end up looking broken or inferior. And games that try too hard to be like books or movies often end up being not very good.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
sv3672;n9305211 said:
If you try to view things from the developers' point of view, their decision makes sense, they avoid unnecessary recaps of past events whenever possible. Despite the size of the game, there is a kind of minimalist approach to its story telling, and I think that contributed to its success. There are a lot of things that happened in the books but you are not told about in the games, simply because the writers or director decided they do not matter enough to their narrative to waste the players' time with, and not because they are trying to balance romance wars on the internet, as you seem to insinuate. Finally, as I already mentioned, they do even have a somewhat similar story in the games themselves, the events are different of course, but the important points are more or less the same as far as Triss' character and how she relates to the Lodge are concerned.

No, I'm not insinuating CDPR was concerned in balancing waifu wars on internet. I'm stating something that should be pretty obvious - you won't get many praises as RPG developer if you predominantly offer trivial white/black, good/evil, right/wrong choices in your game.
Look at the portrayal of Nilfgaard or Emhyr himself in TW3. Are they whitewashed by accident? Did everyone doing the writing for TW3 just conveniently forgot to mention the way Nilfgaard waged the war against the North? Massacres, pillaging, destruction and "scorched Earth" policy? That they were not saving Nordlings from their own economic backwardness and religious zealotry like they do in TW3?
Was the fact that Emhyr married False Ciri after he tried to capture, marry and impregnate the real one irrelevant for the story of the game where he is participating once again in the search for her?
Or they wanted to strike a balance and give enough worth to "Nilfgaardian victory" and "Empress" endings by omitting some important bits and details that would make majority of playerbase unsympathetic towards Nilfgaard and their Emperor.
The same goes for Triss - it's hard to expect most people will have serious dilemma about the waifu choice if they'd revealed absolutely everything about what she did in the past.
Naturally, when Sapkowski wrote her character and her actions he didn't have to worry about whether people would see her as someone Geralt could settle with. Just like he didn't have to worry about which side would his readers support at Brenna? Or what they'd think about Ciri going to Emhyr and inheriting his Empire after everything he did to her (and her mother and grandmother).
So no, it's not about preventing some internet outrage, it's about concept of meaningful choices and consequences in their RPG.

sv3672;n9305211 said:
As I posted above, Ciri spends a long time with Avallac'h as her only ally until she is found in the third game. Is it really inconceivable that her attitude towards the elf becomes more positive after that? It is easy to ignore events that happen off-screen and are only briefly mentioned, but they did happen nevertheless.

I think we've been over this enough already. ;)

sv3672;n9305211 said:
In the game, there are no monologues, you cannot read the characters' thoughts, dialogues are centered around the player's character and there are very little between NPCs, and it generally follows a "show, don't tell" approach with minimal exposition. You experience the story from the protagonist's point of view, through his more or less realistic interaction with the world and other characters. On the other hand, there are kinds of information you do not have in a book, visual and audio, facial expressions, music, interactive dialogues, and sometimes you do also find written material like letters.

Yes, this is more or less what I meant by saying it's unfair to compare them directly. Games are at natural disadvantage when it comes to storytelling, but have advantages in some other areas.
I'd just add that Sapkowski is very descriptive when it comes to facial expressions, sounds, smells etc.. It's extremely easy to visualize characters and scenes in his books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sv3672;n9302061 said:
She does not call Geralt "father" either in dialogues with him. Ciri is a young adult in the game, while she was a teenager in the books. People do change over those years, it is when they want to become independent and live their own lives. It is also normal for the game that NPCs interact much less with each other than they do with Geralt (the player's character), it is not like Ciri and Yennefer in particular have been singled out with that treatment.

She didn't call Geralt "father" in the books either, so that one is actually consistent with the lore. And I'm not sure how being independent is conected with her stopping calling Yennefer "mother" considering that she still calls Vesemir "uncle" despite not being particularly close with him in the first place. Of course I don't expect Ciri to interact with Yen as much as she does with the protagonist, but the lack of interaction is not the main problem here (though the lack of Yennefer's presence in the Empress ending is criminal). Every Ciri's relationship from the books was either kept as it was or made stronger, Except for the one she has with Yennefer. Yen pretty much went from being one of the two most important Ciri relations to her father figure's girlfriend/ex-girlfriend (she doesn't seem to care either way). What's worse she's on Ciri's black list along with Emhyr and the Lodge and has "plans" for her. But Avallac'h is different. I'm sorry did you hit yourself on the head, girl? He had plans for you from the very start! He pretty much stole Yennefer's role as Ciri's mentor. Out of all the changes with the characters this one is the most mind-boggling to me.
 
ooodrin;n9306921 said:
No, I'm not insinuating CDPR was concerned in balancing waifu wars on internet. I'm stating something that should be pretty obvious - you won't get many praises as RPG developer if you predominantly offer trivial white/black, good/evil, right/wrong choices in your game.

In other words, you do insinuate the essence of what I wrote. That claim is basically accusing CDPR of being dishonest to their audience by deliberately hiding information from them to manipulate their choices in the game, the exact reason is less important. It just proves my point, and is not very flattering towards the developers, nor towards other players who (possibly having read and played it all anyway) happen to prefer those choices.

Nevertheless, game writers do have the right to change characters as they see fit, they could even have turned Geralt into a female elf if they wanted to. Sapkowski gave them the license to do anything, he does not care, the catch is that nothing in the games will ever be canon to the books, so it is fair that way. So, in case they really did this on purpose to change players' perception of the character, then in my opinion the books can be considered non-canon to the games in this aspect, the information you are not told has been retconned not to exist in the games' context. That is also a valid interpretation, and means that the book content in question can be rightfully ignored when playing the games if it was deliberately ignored by the game writers as well as a creative decision. Game (W3) Triss is better than book Triss anyway, CDPR improved the character, so it is not like erasing the latter is a big loss. ;)

The same applies to Emhyr, Nilfgaard, Avallac'h and whatever else, by the way.

Look at the portrayal of Nilfgaard or Emhyr himself in TW3. Are they whitewashed by accident? Did everyone doing the writing for TW3 just conveniently forgot to mention the way Nilfgaard waged the war against the North? Massacres, pillaging, destruction and "scorched Earth" policy? That they were not saving Nordlings from their own economic backwardness and religious zealotry like they do in TW3?

From what I remember, I have seen massacres, pillaging and destruction in White Orchard and Velen in the first chapters of the game, so the Nilfgaardians are not exactly portrayed as entirely benevolent. Additionally, there is already an entire game devoted to them assassinating the kings of the North (with the Lodge of Sorceresses framed for the murders, leading to the witch hunts) and preparing an invasion.

Was the fact that Emhyr married False Ciri after he tried to capture, marry and impregnate the real one irrelevant for the story of the game where he is participating once again in the search for her?

Yes, it is irrelevant because he is not trying to do any of those in the time frame of the games. I find it perfectly understandable that CDPR did not add 50 hours of "previously on Witcher" recaps and cutscenes just to retell everything that happened long before their part of the story, lest proponents of some choice in the game be offended by the alleged white washing. In the end, those who want to learn about everything that happened in the past can always just read the books and/or play the previous games, there is no substitute for that. Do Sapkowski's books reiterate things that happened in their prequels a lot, or do they just assume that you have already read them?

Or they wanted to strike a balance and give enough worth to "Nilfgaardian victory" and "Empress" endings by omitting some important bits and details that would make majority of playerbase unsympathetic towards Nilfgaard and their Emperor.

There is nothing that proves that accusation (but see also the first paragraph), and it is not like Radovid does not look bad enough on his own merits. I also get the impression that the "preferred" order of Ciri endings, both in terms of portrayal by the game and by players, is witcher > empress > dead, making Emhyr less sympathetic would probably not make enough difference for people to begin to prefer even the "dead" ending.

The same goes for Triss - it's hard to expect most people will have serious dilemma about the waifu choice if they'd revealed absolutely everything about what she did in the past.

There are plenty of people who read the books and choose Triss, from what I have seen, it was between 25-30% even among those who read the books first, and nearly half of those who read them after playing the games. Do not generalize your own opinion to everyone else. Also, if the game really wanted to reveal everything about the past, which should include both the good and the bad, it would take up an unreasonable amount of content. And it would ultimately not make much difference, because one can learn enough about the character in the games themselves, they do not tell what happened in the books, but instead they show her relevant traits (both positive and negative) as a character throughout their own trilogy. Now of course if what is wanted is for CDPR to selectively include only the worst bits from the books (the condescending tone and constantly calling her "waifu" give that impression), that is another matter, but are they really the ones who are biased in that case? Saying nothing can be better than giving a partial picture, another one of the games' basic principles - if we cannot do something justice, we'd rather not do it at all.

In any case, all the debate over what Triss did or did not do in the past is ultimately a red herring for those who understand the game's concept of role playing as a pre-written character. It does not matter because it is not what would decide Geralt's choices, he has already been pre-written to view her as an overall positive character. Therefore, not being told about what would not matter to his decisions is perfectly OK. Of course, he can prefer Yennefer, but that is because of their long history together, something that the game, by some strange coincidence, puts a great effort into showing to you.

And it is not like the developers of Witcher 3 were overly concerned with balancing choices, ever wondered what percentage of people does not choose Cerys as the ruler of Skellige?

I think we've been over this enough already.

Where? If the argument boils down to something along the lines of "characters cannot ever change, no matter the circumstances", then I disagree, but let's leave it at that.

Games are at natural disadvantage when it comes to storytelling, but have advantages in some other areas.

It is not necessarily a disadvantage, I have seen people saying that the games have better storytelling than the books, while the latter are better at creating background lore and characters. Although "storytelling" is not a term that everyone defines exactly the same way.

Zyvik;n9307021 said:
And I'm not sure how being independent is conected with her stopping calling Yennefer "mother" considering that she still calls Vesemir "uncle" despite not being particularly close with him in the first place.

She only calls Vesemir "uncle" a couple of times, but more importantly, her emotional reaction to his death is important in the game, so it needed to be established somehow that she cares about Vesemir. Yennefer does not die, her role as adoptive mother is shown already in the prologue, players do not need to be constantly reminded of it, it is not like they can influence the Ciri-Yennefer relationship anyway. It is shown in important moments like the reunion in Kaer Morhen after Ciri is found.

though the lack of Yennefer's presence in the Empress ending is criminal.

Given that Ciri does not want her to be involved in Nilfgaardian politics, it is not that surprising.

Every Ciri's relationship from the books was either kept as it was or made stronger, Except for the one she has with Yennefer.

That is not quite correct as far as I can tell, she interacts very little with most characters in game when she is an NPC, Geralt is of course an obvious exception because of being the protagonist, but other than that, when any particular effort is put into showing Ciri's relationship with someone, that is because it serves some purpose in the main story. Like in the case of Vesemir and Avallac'h.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
sv3672;n9309111 said:
In other words, you do insinuate the essence of what I wrote. That claim is basically accusing CDPR of being dishonest to their audience by deliberately hiding information from them to manipulate their choices in the game, the exact reason is less important. It just proves my point, and is not very flattering towards the developers, nor towards other players who (possibly having read and played it all anyway) happen to prefer those choices.

Accusing? Lolwut?
Yes, "those monsters at CDPR" are deliberately and purposefully trying to make a better RPG! How dare they! What were they thinking?

sv3672;n9309111 said:
So, in case they really did this on purpose to change players' perception of the character, then in my opinion the books can be considered non-canon to the games in this aspect, the information you are not told has been retconned not to exist in the games' context.

You are free to consider the books whatever you want in context of the games, not my problem.

sv3672;n9309111 said:
That is also a valid interpretation, and means that the book content in question can be rightfully ignored when playing the games if it was deliberately ignored by the game writers as well as a creative decision.

You are also free to rightfully ignore whatever you want in the books and games, just as everyone else is free not to ignore anything.

sv3672;n9309111 said:
Game (W3) Triss is better than book Triss anyway, CDPR improved the character, so it is not like erasing the latter is a big loss. The same applies to Emhyr, Nilfgaard, Avallac'h and whatever else, by the way.

Not sure what does that have to do with anything regarding the topic or what I wrote, but sure, you are free to believe in that too. Good for you, I guess...



As for the rest - I have no interest in further off-topic discussion, nor repeating myself over and over again. I also do not have interest in correcting you about things I never wrote and picking up those strawmen you so bravely knocked down when you were defending Triss' honor, so I'm out, have a nice day. :)

 
Top Bottom