Pondering Sapkowski's stance on the game series

+
One more bit regarding making the game a "better RPG", my point was that it is not really a good RPG if it only looks like one because of the player's lack of information that can be obtained from other sources anyway. It is not honest towards the customer that way, the quality of the game as an RPG should not suddenly decrease a lot just because you read the books. It could have just included a different set of choices then, but it is also possible to explain the missing bits of information in ways that do not imply that the game becomes a worse RPG after reading the books. That is what I was trying to do above, saying that what you are not told is missing simply because it does not matter, in the narrative of the game, to the decisions the protagonist makes, from his point of view. Not because of some artificial choice balancing that becomes useless as soon as the player reads the books. And considering those parts of the books non-canon to the game is just another possible interpretation (not that I say it is the right one) where the quality of the game does not depend on book knowledge, or the lack of thereof.

Also, throughout my posts, I was trying to explain that various things that have been criticized as "bad writing" in the games actually make sense if you understand their concepts and how they approach storytelling. Rational explanations can be given to them that do not imply (even if indirectly) that the game writers are incompetent or disingenuous. I do not think that is off-topic, given that the thread has been about writing in the games (and criticism of thereof) since the beginning. I was just trying to address the issues raised, and that resulted in some long posts.
 
sv3672;n9309111 said:
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.

I'd say the fact that they needed a reason for Yen/Ciri relationship to play some importance in the story is a problem in itself. Ciri is the second playable character and pretty much the most important character in the game and one of her two most important relationships from the books was almost completely ignored in favor of relationships with the characters who weren't close to her in the past. There's just no excuse for that.

sv3672;n9309111 said:
Given that Ciri does not want her to be involved in Nilfgaardian politics, it is not that surprising.

And why doesn't she want her to be involved? Why does she say it to Geralt and to Yennefer herself? It's not even explained. Just like her "plans" for Ciri. It's just some throwaway phrase that means nothing. Beisdes, how not wanting her to be involved with politics stops Ciri from saying goodbye to her mother figure?

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.

I disagree. In the books she has a good character arc while in TW3 she just spends all the game saving the mages (who apparently forgot how to teleport). She has no conflict, no meaningfull story. And if you don't romance Triss she pretty much becomes a non-entity in the third arc.
 
Zyvik;n9310161 said:
Ciri is the second playable character and pretty much the most important character in the game and one of her two most important relationships from the books was almost completely ignored in favor of relationships with the characters who weren't close to her in the past. There's just no excuse for that.

Even if a relationship played a major role in the books, it does not mean it necessarily has to receive a large amount of screen time in the game as well. Of course it might if it plays a role in the game's story, but not just for the sake of showing more of it. The story in The Witcher 3 is what it is, but is it fair to say that it is bad because it happens to focus on different relationships than the books? In my opinion it is not.

And why doesn't she want her to be involved? Why does she say it to Geralt and to Yennefer herself? It's not even explained. Just like her "plans" for Ciri.

It is hard to tell what she meant exactly, but I do not think it was something negative towards Yennefer. Also, she could very well have told it to Yennefer, too, we just do not see it because it happens off screen, only Geralt's POV is shown. You do not see her saying goodbye to anyone else in the inn either, by the way.

She has no conflict, no meaningfull story.

I disagree with that, but it would be a matter of another discussion.
 
Last edited:
Samiel27;n9298451 said:

CDPR had their own direction for the series. The audiobooks voiced Geralt as gruff, as part of his Rivian accent ...and I don't think the games make him sound like Batman as you describe.

Yes there are now monsters all over the place, but it's 5 years later, after a great war and during the middle of another one, it's not earth shattering.

I'm glad they uprooted the ending from The Last Wish book, that sucker is full of holes, and nothing that goes on in TW3's story telling is a bad as the last book, or TW2.... TW1, well. that is another story. The Last Wish books is so full of holes on my 4-th listen through it makes it hard to listen to it.

Why would Ciri trust Avallac'h? Don't know what happened over the last 6-7 years.

The White Frost was re-defined, but it was never that well defined to begin with, or interesting in what it was.

The wish is never brought up again in the books because the genie in the bottle thing was an inane bad idea. It's like pretty much you farted and decide NOT to save in a ziplock bag and to release it later.

Dandelion was annoying douche who was there to make sh*t happen. Hilarious though.

"""I just guessed they forgot when Emhyr ordered them to commit suicide and was forcibly taking Ciri away from them""""
Yeah, lets just forget the retardness of Yennifer and Geralt being down with the idea, agreeing to commit suicide, not saving up magical energy for teleportation, not escaping, not any of that.
Geralt and Yen are going to just f*cking kill themselves while Ciri gets raped by her dad. I think you're missing something here big league.
Also, Emhyr did back out of it, and they were at his mercy. He didn't prove to be such a prick in the end. Just putting interest of state before everything.

Eredin is pretty much just an asshole and he seemed to be pretty much just a murderous asshole once he started to attack Ciri on the boat and I don't think that ever changed.

Gaunter was a great villain. Detlaff is was interesting, more interesting than the vampire stuff we see these days.

 
NukeTheMoon;n9279441 said:
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.

Sapkowski would have laughed at the writing of the games. The developers just reused plot elements of the books. The games did little to improve the characterization of the main cast.

Books vs Games.JPG
 
Samiel27;n9383911 said:
Sapkowski would have laughed at the writing of the games. The developers just reused plot elements of the books. The games did little to improve the characterization of the main cast.

If you compare two long stories, especially when both are in the same universe and involve the same main characters, there will always be both similarities (the majority of which in the above list are only vague and hardly evidence of any plagiarism) and discrepancies. Cherry picking them to prove a point is basically how confirmation bias works. Things like a Nilfgaardian invasion (if it already happened more than once, why not again?), Geralt searching for Ciri or him rescuing other main characters, a romance scene in bath, a blonde trobairitz, torture scenes, and whatever else could be in any Witcher story. Although a couple of the similarities are valid points, mostly those pertaining to Syanna or The Witcher 1 (which was CDPR's first game, made by an inexperienced studio with a low budget).

Regarding the discrepancies, many of them can reasonably be seen as the characters developing or making different decisions the second time (they are not robots, after all, nor are the circumstances the same as in the books), or are subject to the player's choices (such as Ciri's ending, or how Geralt sees his job as a witcher - he may or may not want to retire by the end). The game does not imply that the last wish influenced the love between Geralt and Yennefer, it is only one possible interpretation. The quest can even be ignored altogether, and the default outcome that follows from that does not exactly agree with theory that the wish influenced any love. Not sure about the game implying that Yennefer has never been to Kaer Morhen, given that that is where she can be seen right in the first minute of the game. Of course, it is only a dream, but it still suggests to the player that she has been there. Or is it explicitly stated somewhere that she has not?

Nothing is said about Philippa's fate in The Witcher 3, she may or may not be alive, it is left open. By the way, there is some unused dialogue that in fact says she is captured by Emhyr after the final battle with Eredin, and is probably going to be tortured and killed. That is still not exactly what happens in the books, but I do not see a problem with that anyway. The games do not need to continue the story the same way as the books, they can be seen as a kind of alternate universe, where Geralt and Yennefer are alive and return to the Witcher world. And that naturally affects the fates of the characters they interact with.
 
Last edited:
Samiel27;n9383911 said:
Sapkowski would have laughed at the writing of the games. The developers just reused plot elements of the books. The games did little to improve the characterization of the main cast.

Every book except for the last one, compared to first games, books were infinitely better.
The last book, compared to the last game, the game wins, no contest. That's because TW3 story was amazing, and The Lady of The Lake sh*t the bed.

Of coarse the game had similarities with the books, if you have the license then why not relive the best things from the books, like air sex (which the book only briefly mentions)

But also Ciri returning means alot of the things started by the books but never finished can be returned to. Why wouldn't the Lodge be interested in Ciri now that's she's back.

There was a hell of a lot more in the story in the games that just what had been done in the books.
There are 15 plot connections spanning 3 games lasting hundreds of hours. And 6 out the 15 were from the last book, which was a joke, so no surprise those things would be revisited.

Some of it was definitely done better in the game than in the books. Geralt finally finding Ciri was way better than "oh hey, with both showed up here at the same time, what a funny coincidence!"

Also little to improve characterization? Tell that to all the people who say the characters are completely different from the books.
 
Last edited:
NukeTheMoon;n9401071 said:
Every book except for the last one, compared to first games, books were infinitely better.

Actually, I like the first games, obviously they are limited to some extent by the lower budget and older technology, and there are some inconsistencies (perhaps due to the leads changing over the years, but it is not the fault of TW1 for example that the sequels took a somewhat different direction), but they are otherwise good nevertheless. Also, things like book lines being repeated in TW1 might have been included as easter eggs.

Tell that to all the people who say the characters are completely different from the books.

They usually mean the characters became worse (not that I necessarily agree with that). :) It is difficult for game writers to please everyone, either they change nothing and get criticized for lack of originality, or they do change characters and get criticized for "butchering" them.
 
Last edited:
Martinvls;n9261211 said:
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..

Hmm, think I would have to disagree with this. All credit for CDPR for making three AMAZING games but, from what I understand, The Witcher based novels and short stories are MASSIVE in Poland and neighboring countries. I think that alone had a huge influence on the games success in that region of the world. The wider world is perhaps a different matter but if it wasnt a success in their local regions, there probably wouldn't be a Witcher 2 or 3.
 
Top Bottom