The Triss content and the inconsistency of our romance's choice

[ltdk92]

Found this a little strange in retrospect after reading the books. It's normal for them to yo-yo between mad passion and spiteful antagonism, they really got over that hump in the last book imo. The way they were portrayed was kinda like a reset back to the 'Ciri in the temple of Melitele' days. Doubly so because Witcher 3 starts with you looking at the "Dear friend," letter Yen sends you.

But the whole Yen romance feels watered down compared to the books. The passion and longing is mostly replaced with nostalgic flirting and their shared quest to find Ciri. It had a bit too much of a 'in love for a long time and the fire of passion isn't as bright anymore' vibe when in the books their passion got progressively more intense the more they got over the emotional obstacles causing a rift between them.

Triss' romance feels a lot more alive and has much bigger emotional moments. Definitely has a 'exciting new ground' feeling to it that makes elevates it.

Agreed. The gamer gets a greater sense of the passionate aspect of their relationship through Pricilla's song than in-game interactions. It also seems like Geralt is having a reflective moment about this as well during the tavern scene lol

 

[CTPhipps]

Well, unlike other games, the Witcher games have a series of "Enhanced Editions" which do exactly that.

---------- Updated at 10:17 PM ----------

Agreed. I think the open-endedness of the "good" endings leaves CDPR the option of returning to the Witcher universe with Ciri or another character as the protagonist, which seems like something they would want to pursue.

That's one thing which keeps me from freaking out over Anais, Iorveth, Saskia, and so on. This isn't the last Witcher game and resolving EVERYTHING would be stupid for such a successful series.

 

[Zeroscape]

I don't like either of them because they end up separated in all endings.

Yeah I agree. Although I think the problem is more the spartan nature of the epilogue/slideshow rather than the ending itself.

Why doesn't Ciri use her power to still stay with Geralt or Geralt+LI? Is there a fear using her powers would cause someone to track her again?

They really needed to flesh out how things pan out between Ciri and Geralt (plus love interest) so we could have closure. I get that the devs wanted to impart a feeling of finality to their eventual separation because Ciri needs to live her own life, but I just wasn't convinced that's what would happen.

Since the books are the foundation of their history, they both basically say "we'll never part again" towards the end of their journey. Nothing that happens in the game changes that sentiment. But nothing reaffirms it either. It's like the devs just ignored it and did their own thing. It's really confusing.

 

[Eruvadhor]

Why doesn't Ciri use her power to still stay with Geralt or Geralt+LI?

For starters, Ciri never was a fan of Triss's influence on Geralt. Yennefer was her 'mom', and she saw Triss as meddling in 'her family'.

Secondly, Ciri's book LI lives (or rather, lived) in our world, not the witcher-verse.

 

[AdamSnow]

For starters, Ciri never was a fan of Triss's influence on Geralt. Yennefer was her 'mom', and she saw Triss as meddling in 'her family'.

Secondly, Ciri's book LI lives (or rather, lived) in our world, not the witcher-verse.

Please elaborate.

 

[CTPhipps]

Yeah I agree. Although I think the problem is more the spartan nature of the epilogue/slideshow rather than the ending itself.

Why doesn't Ciri use her power to still stay with Geralt or Geralt+LI? Is there a fear using her powers would cause someone to track her again?

To be fair, the Witcher ending doesn't seem so much like a final parting as, "See you during the Holidays."

Ciri is moving out to get her own place but not disappearing forever from his life.

 

[ltdk92]

Well, unlike other games, the Witcher games have a series of "Enhanced Editions" which do exactly that.

---------- Updated at 10:17 PM ----------



That's one thing which keeps me from freaking out over Anais, Iorveth, Saskia, and so on. This isn't the last Witcher game and resolving EVERYTHING would be stupid for such a successful series.

Agreed. I think the "good" endings were deliberately left vague to leave room for a sequel. The fact that they gave so much attention to Ciri at the end of the game and even gameplay of her own suggests to me that CDPR does intend to use her in some future installment. These two reasons have also lead me to believe that the Witcher ending may be the most canonical, given it sets up such a wonderful conflict with Emhyr.

 

[Eruvadhor]

Please elaborate.

Lady Of The Lake spoiler follows

Spoiler

Sir Galahad from King Arthur's court.

 

[C0bR]

Yeah because you didn't go to see Emhyr. By not going she is never given the option of becoming Empress. Geralt, in your case, limited what options she had down the road.

If you go and make the same choices as you did later, she can still become Witcheress, but she chooses the life of an Empress. There's no twist of fate that forces her down that road, or a threat of violence. She has all the options the game has to offer and given the full menu, she picks the royal life on her own accord. I still don't understand why she would ever choose it and the game doesn't give us an explanation, but she does it anyway.

The thing is that you can get the Witcher ending even if you visit Emhyr. If either Radovid or Dijkstra stay in power, Emhyr gets deposed by the opposition. However that should have no bearing on Ciri's decision as Emhyr is still alive by the time the Witcher ending happens. So unless she sees into the future, she makes two different decisions that are based on things that are yet to happen even though all the other "info" she has stays the same.

It's a bit nonsensical (unless I am looking over something).

 

[Zeroscape]

For starters, Ciri never was a fan of Triss's influence on Geralt. Yennefer was her 'mom', and she saw Triss as meddling in 'her family'.

Secondly, Ciri's book LI lives (or rather, lived) in our world, not the witcher-verse.

My point was more that it wasn't explained and thus caused us to have more questions than answers at the end of the game. Lack of closure that, for me anyway, gave the two 'good' endings a bad and unnecessary taste.

Also in regards to Ciri's LI, it's kinda hard to say what happened there one way or another. Felt like a possible happily-ever-after ending considering it was the final book, but the games kinda changed things. Nevertheless, the game's epilogue provided no further info so who knows.

 

[CTPhipps]

The thing is that you can get the Witcher ending even if you visit Emhyr. If either Radovid or Dijkstra stay in power, Emhyr gets deposed by the opposition. However that should have no bearing on Ciri's decision as Emhyr is still alive by the time the Witcher ending happens. So unless she sees into the future, she makes two different decisions that are based on things that are yet to happen even though all the other "info" she has stays the same.

It's a bit nonsensical (unless I am looking over something).

Well, there's a time skip.

Ciri probably makes her FINAL decision based on the idea Emhyr rules most of the North and she's going to try and help them.

If Emhyr is running with his tale between his legs, she may decide that being Empress isn't as important.

 

[Zeroscape]

The thing is that you can get the Witcher ending even if you visit Emhyr. If either Radovid or Dijkstra stay in power, Emhyr gets deposed by the opposition. However that should have no bearing on Ciri's decision as Emhyr is still alive by the time the Witcher ending happens. So unless she sees into the future, she makes two different decisions that are based on things that are yet to happen even though all the other "info" she has stays the same.

It's a bit nonsensical (unless I am looking over something).

I think the key is that letter she received from Emhyr that she talks about during the epilogue. We don't know what it said, but the political situation in Nilfgaard would absolutely play a part in its contents. Throughout the game it's made clear that there's a lot of turmoil in the empire and Emhyr's successes are the only thing holding things together for him. He's got extremely good political instincts and would've seen the writing on the wall. Considering she would be "his" successor, there would've likely been two corpses instead of one if she had been invited.

 

[C0bR]

Well, there's a time skip.

Ciri probably makes her FINAL decision based on the idea Emhyr rules most of the North and she's going to try and help them.

If Emhyr is running with his tale between his legs, she may decide that being Empress isn't as important.

I think the key is that letter she received from Emhyr that she talks about during the epilogue. We don't know what it said, but the political situation in Nilfgaard would absolutely play a part in its contents. Throughout the game it's made clear that there's a lot of turmoil in the empire and Emhyr's successes are the only thing holding things together for him. He's got extremely good political instincts and would've seen the writing on the wall. Considering she would be "his" successor, there would've likely been two corpses instead of two if she had been invited.

Yeah, you guys are right. I did not get the empress ending so I only skimmed through it on YT, not paying attention.

What an opportunist she is:troll:

 

[Zeroscape]

Agreed. I think the "good" endings were deliberately left vague to leave room for a sequel. The fact that they gave so much attention to Ciri at the end of the game and even gameplay of her own suggests to me that CDPR does intend to use her in some future installment. These two reasons have also lead me to believe that the Witcher ending may be the most canonical, given it sets up such a wonderful conflict with Emhyr.

That's a good point.

I just wish the endings had more closure, but it is in line with the previous installments in the series and other RPGs for the most part.

@Willowhugger

You're right about the Witcheress ending being a little less of a final goodbye. Since I originally got the Empress ending, it negatively coloured my view of the endings. Perhaps more than it should have, though closure isn't particularly good with etiher 'good' ending and that's what I was really hoping for with this being Geralt's end.

 

[ltdk92]

The thing is that you can get the Witcher ending even if you visit Emhyr. If either Radovid or Dijkstra stay in power, Emhyr gets deposed by the opposition. However that should have no bearing on Ciri's decision as Emhyr is still alive by the time the Witcher ending happens. So unless she sees into the future, she makes two different decisions that are based on things that are yet to happen even though all the other "info" she has stays the same.

It's a bit nonsensical (unless I am looking over something).

That's news to me. I was under the impression that the Empress ending is the one unlocked if all the "fatherly" choices are made and Emhyr is visited when the game prompts you to decide to visit him or head to Bald Mountain. The necessary action needed is to visit Emhyr to get the Empress ending when it comes to Geralt's interactions with Ciri. The Radovid/Dijkstra part also needs to be resolved to ensure the North falls.

 

[DaWitcher]

The game and the book are two seperating entities. The game characters are based on the book however the game is interactive meaning users are free to diverge.

Users playing the game love Triss because her relationship with Geralt seems real. Yen is not a bad character but I don't want her to be shove down the my throat in a game that should be about choices.

Hence we want more Triss. She may not be likeable in the book to some but regardless of book or game many people still love Triss.

In the days of computer animation I don't think it's incredibly difficult to add to the game. And I don't think CDPR have to bring one a lot of resource to fix the interaction issues between Triss amd Geralt. Or between Geralt(user) and choice romantic inrerest.

 

[ltdk92]

That's a good point.

I just wish the endings had more closure, but it is in line with the previous installments in the series and other RPGs for the most part.

@Willowhugger

You're right about the Witcheress ending being a little less of a final goodbye. Since I originally got the Empress ending, it negatively coloured my view of the endings. Perhaps more than it should have, though closure isn't particularly good with etiher 'good' ending and that's what I was really hoping for with this being Geralt's end.

The Witcher ending also sets up a inevitable conflict with Weavess. Given what happens on Bald Mountain, Ciri will be on the prowl and the Witcher ending best establishes a potential run-in with the beaten Crone in the future. I am also wondering why

Spoiler

she steals Vesemir's amulet from Ciri.

 

[CTPhipps]

The Witcher ending also sets up a inevitable conflict with Weavess. Given what happens on Bald Mountain, Ciri will be on the prowl and the Witcher ending best establishes a potential run-in with the beaten Crone in the future. I am also wondering why

Spoiler

she steals Vesemir's amulet from Ciri.

Spoiler

Want to make her a REALLY hatable villain?

Maybe tying him to someone's corpse or a suit of armor.

She summons Vesemir's ghost to send after you.

 

[Trinitao]

Please remember guys we re here to discuss the horrible lack of Triss not the differnet outcomes of the game olice:
I don't try to be a smart ass, just want to keep things in order.

 

[celroid]

Since the books are the foundation of their history, they both basically say "we'll never part again" towards the end of their journey. Nothing that happens in the game changes that sentiment. But nothing reaffirms it either. It's like the devs just ignored it and did their own thing. It's really confusing.

So if I got this right Ciri and Geralt aren't separated at the end of the books?