Triss-Yen continued friendship is odd given most people couldn't do so with the clear knowledge they are both in love with the same man. They are just both very much able to separate that personal conflict from the professional friendship, guess a sorceress thing. As for Triss in TW1, yes she takes her opportunity. As far as she's aware Yen is gone and Geralt has turned up half dead. She's certainly selfish and very human in seizing the opportunity to see if the very close they bond they had can become what she so desperately wants it to be. By the TW2 it's definitely in Geralt's hands whether he wants to continue to explore it as the memory of Yen resurfaces. She doesn't chase after him once he leaves to find Yen either out of nobility or defeatism. So Triss isn't a saint but her motivations are understandably human.
I personally prefer Triss, but I feel no hate towards Yen.In fact I found Yennefer to be a very complex and interesting character with obvious strong and complicated relationship with Geralt. Triss is a very flawed character, she is definitely not the perfect and naive girl as the games sometimes represent her, but that's what I like about her and the things that blog author mentioned as Triss flaws only make me like her even more. Seeing how games are not cannon and are based on player choice it is nice that they have included a quest where you can break the Djin bond. The only complaint about the Last Wish I have is that maybe it should have happened earlier in the game and in the case that player chooses to break the bond with Yen, it would have been nice for other characters to acknowledge that decision. Both Triss and Yen are great characters with their own personal dilemmas and motives. Neither is flawless and for me that choice boils down to what type of character each player prefers. I very much dislike people trashing either one just because they like the other one better. Its fine to dislike Yen or Triss, but if your reasons for that are: I hate Yen because I like Triss, or the other way around, I find that stupid. If you're gonna dislike a character at least have some valid reasons, whatever those reasons are for different people.
Last edited:
I felt the scene had a couple of problems:
1. The chronology - it doesn't really make sense to have this scene after all the Triss stuff. While it fits really snugly into the main story, it doesn't really fit in the romance sub-plot.
2. You can't discus or explain anything in the scene itself. In the scene itself it felt like:"don't love you anymore.", "okay" - silence - anddd... back to work! While this way of doing things might actually be close to Geralt's character, it still felt odd.
3. Cant explain or discuss anything after the whole scene. in fact, I don't think it's ever mentioned again. The whole romance sub-plot was one of the major storylines through the 3 games, and this being one of the major moments in said storyline, that felt father cut short.
So while I felt the scene in itself wasn't bad (beside maybe point 2), where it was placed and how it was handled afterwards just felt wrong.
1. The chronology - it doesn't really make sense to have this scene after all the Triss stuff. While it fits really snugly into the main story, it doesn't really fit in the romance sub-plot.
2. You can't discus or explain anything in the scene itself. In the scene itself it felt like:"don't love you anymore.", "okay" - silence - anddd... back to work! While this way of doing things might actually be close to Geralt's character, it still felt odd.
3. Cant explain or discuss anything after the whole scene. in fact, I don't think it's ever mentioned again. The whole romance sub-plot was one of the major storylines through the 3 games, and this being one of the major moments in said storyline, that felt father cut short.
So while I felt the scene in itself wasn't bad (beside maybe point 2), where it was placed and how it was handled afterwards just felt wrong.
Last edited:
I thought it was handled very well. It's content was good whether you read the books or not, though perhaps the part after the curse is broken could be lengthened.
I liked that it came after Triss, and fit into the Skellige/Yennfer portion of the game. Geralt was with Triss for a long time during the djinn's curse, so I don't see how this stops the player from choosing Triss in a meaningful way.
The dialog was well done; it was sweet if the player decides to not change, and pointed enough if you choose to reject her.
I liked that it came after Triss, and fit into the Skellige/Yennfer portion of the game. Geralt was with Triss for a long time during the djinn's curse, so I don't see how this stops the player from choosing Triss in a meaningful way.
The dialog was well done; it was sweet if the player decides to not change, and pointed enough if you choose to reject her.
And what about those who wanted the game to stick with the original story? Yen have fans too. Triss got far more attention on the games than she ever got in original story. It's true, Yen was this time more present, but I think she deserved every single minute of it. She was completely left out on the first two ones. AND you can choose to stick with Triss in third game as well. Is that not enough for you?
And what's the meaning of telling the story behind Geralt and Yen; he looking for her for so long and then just dumping her?
I think SOME of the Triss fans should just take chill bill and stop bashing Yen like she is the enemy..
Last edited:
Right after the fact when you're in Yennefer's room, you can talk to her and try to ask her about what had happened. She just says there's nothing to discuss.
I have to say the line Geralt said if he chose to reject Yen after breaking the bond was... harsh. I actually felt bad for Yen seeing she obviously still have feelings for Geralt.
What Geralt said felt like semi-forcing the players to interpret his infatuation towards Yen as nothing more than an artificial thing created by the Djinn's magic, a result of a spell. While I think that sort of interpretation can be used to explain why Geralt keeps on hitting on Yen even if he's already committed to Triss in the game (at least that's how I tried to make sense of that behavior), I feel it betrayed Yen's genuine feelings in the worst possible way.
While I prefer Triss all the way, it's just wrong to reject with that sort of remark. Like I've seen some people suggested in this forum, there should be a third option to reject Yen by making Geralt explain his real feelings, not blaming it all on the Djinn.
What Geralt said felt like semi-forcing the players to interpret his infatuation towards Yen as nothing more than an artificial thing created by the Djinn's magic, a result of a spell. While I think that sort of interpretation can be used to explain why Geralt keeps on hitting on Yen even if he's already committed to Triss in the game (at least that's how I tried to make sense of that behavior), I feel it betrayed Yen's genuine feelings in the worst possible way.
While I prefer Triss all the way, it's just wrong to reject with that sort of remark. Like I've seen some people suggested in this forum, there should be a third option to reject Yen by making Geralt explain his real feelings, not blaming it all on the Djinn.
Triss saw Yen die in the books. She had no way of knowing if Ciri revived Yen along with Geralt. When she finds out Yen is alive in TW2, she immediately breaks up with Geralt per TW3.
I wanted to highlight the difference in Geralt and Yen's interactions depending on whether he rejected her or not. The videos are of the scene in Kaer Morhen, where Geralt finds out that Yen threw out the bed in anger. As you can see, their tone with each other totally changes based on your choice in her personal quest.
If Geralt rejects Yen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zkdHgYD83c
If Geralt declares his love for Yen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEo4vZTnWRs
If Geralt rejects Yen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zkdHgYD83c
If Geralt declares his love for Yen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEo4vZTnWRs
To me, the idea of breaking up with Yen through 'the Last Wish' was...lazy? Like I dunno, they're thinking of the way in which Geralt could do that and they're like :"Djinn! Bingo!"?? That's all they can come up with? I mean it's kind of insulting to Sapkowski in the first place - such a good writer would NEVER think of such nonsense - that a Djinn only is responsible for Geralt's feeling towards Yennefer. The fact that the wish remains a mystery to the readers is what makes their relationship so interesting. Also everything that happened AFTER that - 20+ years of knowing each other, all their experiences - it's just for nothing because they broke the spell? wtf?
I think they should have handled it differently - like for example Geralt explaining to Yen what happened between him and Triss during the amnesia, that he started to develop feelings for her etc etc. Also someone pointed out that even if you break up with Yen she still kisses you passionately in front of Triss when they all meet with Ciri. Yennefer would NEVER do that (after Geralt's rejection). She's way too proud for that. She could bitch slap him at best ^^
I think they should have handled it differently - like for example Geralt explaining to Yen what happened between him and Triss during the amnesia, that he started to develop feelings for her etc etc. Also someone pointed out that even if you break up with Yen she still kisses you passionately in front of Triss when they all meet with Ciri. Yennefer would NEVER do that (after Geralt's rejection). She's way too proud for that. She could bitch slap him at best ^^
Book spoiler follows
In the books, Yennefer merely passed out from the exhaustion of her useless spell trying to save Geralt. He was revived by Ciri through Ihuarraquax and they were both taken away by Ciri, with Triss knowing they were both alive. She saw Geralt be revived, and then Ciri tells her to apologize to The Lodge, because she can't stay [in this world] if Geralt and Yennefer leave.
That frustrates me even more then. They went to all the effort to give those who declared their love for Yen a completely different scene whilst anyone who rejected isn't allowed to even stand up for their relationship with Triss(despite the fact they may very well have declared love for her). I'm starting to hate the whole horribly constructed Kaer Morhen section with a burning passion.
That's clearly the wrong and most literal interpretation of events. If you understand Sapkowski's work, it is very very clear that Geralt and Yennefer are dead. It is a perfect end to both characters. The witcher decides he is not a witcher and the sorceress learns to sacrifice for love. Ciri has not brought them to a new world, she has brought them to the after-life, where they can revel and enjoy each other in peace. This is why she leaves Geralt and Yennefer. She can't stay there with them - Ciri is alive. Geralt and Yennefer waking up is meant to be entirely symbolic. The game took a very very ham-fisted literal approach in order to continue the story, but its clear the intentions of the book are far different.
I agree. It's really like they thought that blaming everything on the djinn would be the only good reason to break up with Yen.
It is a literal interpretation yes, but not at all wrong. There are many different ways of interpreting what happened. Neither character is explicitly stated to be dead, and Ciri only uses the unicorn's magic on Geralt, not Yen. We don't really know what that magic meant. Did the magic revive Geralt? But she didn't use it on Yen, so does that mean Yen just passed out? Or did the magic allow them to be transported to a different world, despite being dead? There are many questions. And the reason why Ciri didn't stay with them, I always interpreted as she is still being hunted by Eredin and had to keep fleeing.
My interpretation of the ending changes often, but that is what makes it such a great and interesting ending, even though it is very sad.
Yen goes on just before the djinn quest about how she and Geralt get together, break up, repeat etc. for 20 years. Geralt should have had an option to say "I know and I'm tired of it," to give context for players planning on dumping her (and for Yen's benefit too so she doesn't blame it all on Triss.)
These sorceresses are like kryptonite for Geralt. Where's Shani?
Sometimes the literal interpretation is the right one.
Book spoilers follow
You have a point, and while I conceed it's a nice idea, I've learned over time that when it comes to literary analysis, the literal approach is always the right one unless the alternate explanation is better supported.
Book spoilers follow
"“There is nothing more pathetic,” said Ciri sternly, “than a sorceress in tears. You taught me that. But now you’re pathetic Yennefer. You and your magic, which is useless.”
" Triss was surprised that the black-haired sorceress was able to withstand for so long."
"Then she ceased to be surprised because Yennefer stopped in the middle of the magic formula and fell on the pavement next to the witcher."
“I,” Ciri said slowly, still kneeling on the bloody ground, “I once gave up my power. If I didn’t, I could save him now. (notice the lack of Yennefer needing saving) I could cure him. I know it. But it is too late, I can’t do anything. It is like I killed him myself.”
"The silence was broken by Kelpie’s whinny. Then by Dandelion’s muffled gasp. They were all stunned."
Dandelion gasped, this time in awe. Triss felt overwhelmed by her emotions. Euphoria. "
“Ihuarraquax,” Ciri spoke to him. “I was hoping you’d come.”
"With one hand she touched the unicorn’s horn, with the other she touched the witcher. From her fingers drifted a ribbon of flickering light."
Ciri is reviving Geralt through Ihuarraquax, who is a unicorn. Unicorns (in mythology) have the power to heal people, through their horn. Ciri is the necessary vessel because (notice how Ihuarraquax strides in over water without actually walking on it, and the book mentions Dandelion and Triss's shock at how it came to them, despite knowing the legend of unicorns running 'light, agile and silently'), he is most likely not 'in their world', but Ciri has the ability to bridge them.
Now the part with Galahad, does suggest they never were married, and Ciri tells Triss she doesn't know what she's asking, but we can be certain Yennefer and Geralt are alive...they may simply be unable to come back to the 'witcher world', due to Ihuarraquax's magic healing. If his magic would have worked in the witcher-world, he'd just have shown up entirely in their world, instead of as an apparition.
" Triss was surprised that the black-haired sorceress was able to withstand for so long."
"Then she ceased to be surprised because Yennefer stopped in the middle of the magic formula and fell on the pavement next to the witcher."
“I,” Ciri said slowly, still kneeling on the bloody ground, “I once gave up my power. If I didn’t, I could save him now. (notice the lack of Yennefer needing saving) I could cure him. I know it. But it is too late, I can’t do anything. It is like I killed him myself.”
"The silence was broken by Kelpie’s whinny. Then by Dandelion’s muffled gasp. They were all stunned."
Dandelion gasped, this time in awe. Triss felt overwhelmed by her emotions. Euphoria. "
“Ihuarraquax,” Ciri spoke to him. “I was hoping you’d come.”
"With one hand she touched the unicorn’s horn, with the other she touched the witcher. From her fingers drifted a ribbon of flickering light."
Ciri is reviving Geralt through Ihuarraquax, who is a unicorn. Unicorns (in mythology) have the power to heal people, through their horn. Ciri is the necessary vessel because (notice how Ihuarraquax strides in over water without actually walking on it, and the book mentions Dandelion and Triss's shock at how it came to them, despite knowing the legend of unicorns running 'light, agile and silently'), he is most likely not 'in their world', but Ciri has the ability to bridge them.
Now the part with Galahad, does suggest they never were married, and Ciri tells Triss she doesn't know what she's asking, but we can be certain Yennefer and Geralt are alive...they may simply be unable to come back to the 'witcher world', due to Ihuarraquax's magic healing. If his magic would have worked in the witcher-world, he'd just have shown up entirely in their world, instead of as an apparition.
You have a point, and while I conceed it's a nice idea, I've learned over time that when it comes to literary analysis, the literal approach is always the right one unless the alternate explanation is better supported.
Last edited:
The only clear thing with Sapkowski is, that nothing is really clear.