Why the main narrative in the last third of the game is a bad hot mess [major spoilers!!!]

[CTPhipps]

*Sigh

Ever the apologist. I can't begin to understand how the majority of players (who certainly have not read the books) can simulate Geralt's decision-making process and the history and relationships that structure it given that it took 5 novels and several short stories to make that conceptually clear, none of which can be presented to Geralt succinctly. You seem to be making way too many excuses for this game and/or are pathologically incapable of admitting serious faults.

Generally, I think that Geralt's experiences in the previous two games should inform the character as much as the books. Likewise, you don't need to get him exactly right since the "final" Geralt is subject to the player's choice anyway.

Or, to rephrase.

"It's just a game dude. You don't need Geralt to be 100% synched like Assassin's Creed as long as you have fun and are satisfied with your character choices."

In short, he's YOUR Geralt not the book Geralt.

 

[inanimate_object]

Generally, I think that Geralt's experiences in the previous two games should inform the character as much as the books. Likewise, you don't need to get him exactly right since the "final" Geralt is subject to the player's choice anyway.

Or, to rephrase.

"It's just a game dude. You don't need Geralt to be 100% synched like Assassin's Creed as long as you have fun and are satisfied with your character choices."

In short, he's YOUR Geralt not the book Geralt.

Except that's complete bull. Because the choices most personal to Geralt are the ones about a character he hardly interacts with, whose relationships were developed a long time ago in external material and whose influences we never see in the game. The character you play is Geralt in the BOOKS - particularly difficult to make choices on that front when you only know Geralt from the game. You really don't seem to be understanding anything I'm saying regarding how supplanting a player into the character's head cannot work if the character is holding out information, experiences and memories from the player. It is a psychological disconnect and choices made to honor the psychological disposition of the character will always be flawed.

 

[CTPhipps]

Except that's complete bull. Because the choices most personal to Geralt are the ones about a character he hardly interacts with, whose relationships were developed a long time ago in external material and whose influences we never see in the game. The character you play is Geralt in the BOOKS - particularly difficult to make choices on that front when you only know Geralt from the game. You really don't seem to be understanding anything I'm saying regarding how supplanting a player into the character's head cannot work if the character is holding out information, experiences and memories from the player. It is a psychological disconnect and choices made to honor the psychological disposition of the character will always be flawed.

You're not making an exceptionally complex argument, actually.

"You can only properly roleplay Geralt if you have read the books because he's a character established there."

I just disagree.

 

[inanimate_object]

And you are not making any argument at all beyond a simple apologist agenda. If you want to have a serious discussion come back to me with counterpoints instead of indignantly disagreeing without proof or justification.

 

[CTPhipps]

And you are not making any argument at all beyond a simple apologist agenda. If you want to have a serious discussion come back to me with counterpoints instead of indignantly disagreeing without proof or justification.

Well, my point is that Geralt is a character who is subjective in the games because there is no "One True Geralt" that you have to roleplay because the personality of Geralt becomes malleable in the context of an RPG. He has a fundamental core but unlike the pen of Sapkowski, he has no 100% perfectly defined self and the "True Geralt" is determined by the Player.

Essentially, I'm asserting that the Geralt of the games is the same as the Luke Skywalker action figure you played with in your backyard when you were a kid.

We can't touch Sapkowski's Geralt but if you want your action figure Geralt to marry the resurrected corpse of Leo Bonheart in your head, you can. The games don't allow you to do that but the principle is the same.

The purchase of the Witcher games is a license not of the world to CD_Red but CD_Red to the player to do with Geralt what they like.

 

[vTemeria]

All video game you play is basically like playing with your action figures tbh. That's why they're quickly replacing toy sales for kids.

 

[inanimate_object]

Well, my point is that Geralt is a character who is subjective in the games because there is no "One True Geralt" that you have to roleplay because the personality of Geralt becomes malleable in the context of an RPG. He has a fundamental core but unlike the pen of Sapkowski, he has no 100% perfectly defined self and the "True Geralt" is determined by the Player.

Essentially, I'm asserting that the Geralt of the games is the same as the Luke Skywalker action figure you played with in your backyard when you were a kid.

We can't touch Sapkowski's Geralt but if you want your action figure Geralt to marry the resurrected corpse of Leo Bonheart in your head, you can. The games don't allow you to do that but the principle is the same.

The purchase of the Witcher games is a license not of the world to CD_Red but CD_Red to the player to do with Geralt what they like.

Are you purposefully trying to miss the point?

What does anything in your post have to do with the question:

How does a player position himself/herself to make choices consistent with a character's own psyche if the character knows more than the player?

At this point, I'm not sure you are actually reading posts, or are arguing like a Pavlovian response to Witcher 3 criticism. In either case, I have no interest in repeating the OP. So I invite you to take a more closer read at the OP than you did originally.

 

[Rawls]

Yeah there is no one true Geralt in the video games. There could be no choice and consequence system if you had to play Geralt one way. I'll agree that at times there are choices where the "correct" choice from a lore perspective was obvious for a person who has read all the books (like me). However, that doesn't make it the only correct choice for all people playing the game. I welcome those who have not read the books to play the game. The fact that they purchase the game means a larger budget for CP 2077 and (hopefully) The Witcheress. So by all means, let those unfamiliar with Geralt purchase the game and make choices that make little sense lore-wise. They are helping pay for my enjoyment of games I intend to play in the future.

 

[CTPhipps]

Are you purposefully trying to miss the point?

What does anything in your post have to do with the question:

How does a player position himself/herself to make choices consistent with a character's own psyche if the character knows more than the player?

At this point, I'm not sure you are actually reading posts, or are arguing like a Pavlovian response to Witcher 3 criticism. In either case, I have no interest in repeating the OP. So I invite you to take a more closer read at the OP than you did originally.

We're missing each other, I think. My point is that Geralt's psyche is not determined by the events of the past they don't know about but by a generic feeling the player has about Geralt.

You don't need to know every little detail about Geralt because the character is YOURS to command.

You may feel this is wrong but I don't.

 

[Redemyr]

We're missing each other, I think. My point is that Geralt's psyche is not determined by the events of the past they don't know about but by a generic feeling the player has about Geralt.

You don't need to know every little detail about Geralt because the character is YOURS to command.

You may feel this is wrong but I don't.

Agree.

For example, Geralt is neutral. But he can help kill Radovid. Or not. He can kill Sigi or let his friends die.

Geralt lifts curses. Yet he can kill the botching, or turn him into a lubberkin.

He used to love Yennefer, now he can love Triss and tell the former the magic is gone.

Geralt follows the path, yet he can turn down money from contracts. Either because he feels the people need it more than him or because he doesn't like Niifguard.

There's even an official trailer about this, where they tell us you shape Geralt the way you want and they use the bar scene when meeting some Baron's men.

The list is endless.

Book Geralt is dead (the author killed him), long live game(our) Geralt!

 

[AVMC]

The character you play is Geralt in the BOOKS

If you said he was based on the character, I'd agree. Otherwise I think the author and CDPR might have some things to say about that. You know, what with the all the games' inconsistencies with the books.

I do get your point, but the fact is, CDPR crafted the game using the world of the Witcher and not all the material is translated 1:1 to the game world. Some of it is entirely invention of their own. So here, you have a character who not only doesn't have some of the interactions from the books, but DOES have interaction that never did happen in the books. Interaction based on the character, but driven by the player.

It sucks they seem to have gone heavier into the Yen and Ciri line without exploring why he even cares for Ciri at all, or going deeper into Yen's personal desires that cause conflict. That is a major flaw.

But the game stands, as it is, as a work on its own. Players can still empathize and make decisions based on the information they are given. Whether the info is definitively right is a non starter. Whether they gave enough info is debatable. What's really important in a work of interactive fiction is if the player feels an attachment, feels they understand motivations, and feels the character's joys and sorrows.

In my opinion, of course...

 

[CTPhipps]

Also, bluntly, sometimes you just gotta go with it.

Booker Dewitt is a man who's past is a mystery to us but we follow his journey anyway.

 

[moonknightgog]

Also, bluntly, sometimes you just gotta go with it.

Booker Dewitt is a man who's past is a mystery to us but we follow his journey anyway.

So I'm the only one who think that Bioshock Infinite is really bland, both on narrative and main plot standpoint?

 

[CTPhipps]

So I'm the only one who think that Bioshock Infinite is really bland, both on narrative and main plot standpoint?

Not the only one.

But a significant minority.

 

[Jou05]

So I'm the only one who think that Bioshock Infinite is really bland, both on narrative and main plot standpoint?

Why do you say that?
Its not my favourite game but it has definitely one of the best stories I have ever seen in a game

---------- Updated at 08:11 PM ----------

Also, bluntly, sometimes you just gotta go with it.

Booker Dewitt is a man who's past is a mystery to us but we follow his journey anyway.

I think Booker is a bad example though
Its supposed to be a mystery and Bioshock is a pure mindfuck anyway

TW on the other hand is a RPG series so I think they should have handled him regaining his memories better

 

[inanimate_object]

If you said he was based on the character, I'd agree. Otherwise I think the author and CDPR might have some things to say about that. You know, what with the all the games' inconsistencies with the books.

I do get your point, but the fact is, CDPR crafted the game using the world of the Witcher and not all the material is translated 1:1 to the game world. Some of it is entirely invention of their own. So here, you have a character who not only doesn't have some of the interactions from the books, but DOES have interaction that never did happen in the books. Interaction based on the character, but driven by the player.

It sucks they seem to have gone heavier into the Yen and Ciri line without exploring why he even cares for Ciri at all, or going deeper into Yen's personal desires that cause conflict. That is a major flaw.

But the game stands, as it is, as a work on its own. Players can still empathize and make decisions based on the information they are given. Whether the info is definitively right is a non starter. Whether they gave enough info is debatable. What's really important in a work of interactive fiction is if the player feels an attachment, feels they understand motivations, and feels the character's joys and sorrows.

In my opinion, of course...

I should have worded myself better. The Geralt you play, is in the end, the Geralt you know from the games. What I'm trying to get at is these very personal choices the game gives the player DEMANDS that Geralt be the character from the books with a rich history and lore. Think of the relationship with Ciri. Now it's alright in the games, if a bit bland. But the game asks you to make decisions that will stick with Ciri. Decisions that have to reflect Geralt's balance between being a friend, father and personal hero and Ciri's own haunting past of death and how she deals with it. These are quite loaded and personal decisions when you think about it and the game does not adequately prepare the player to make the decision in Geralt's place (nor can it, this is an impossible task without lengthily summarizing Sapkowski's novels). The player is being asked to emulate a character that they don't entirely understand. THIS I think is the problem with the deeply personal choices Geralt makes - particularly towards Yennefer and Cirilla. You can't feel like you are Geralt because Geralt knows things that the player does not.

A single passage from the books is appropriate here (I'm translating from Polish so forgive small errors)

But this time was very different. Now she believed it. For it was Geralt of Rivia, the White Wolf, the Witcher who had said the words. The man of her destiny. The man for whom she was destined. Geralt the Witcher, who had found her encircled by war, death and despondency, who had taken her with him and promised they would never part again.

Think about this. The man for whom she was destined. That is a VERY loaded phrase, and in my view, the relationship that the writer's chose to identify with when mapping out the choices and consequences between the player and Ciri. But if the player never knows that the character feels this way about Ciri, how can he make these personal decisions? Or more importantly, how can he make sense of the consequences?

 

[Redemyr]

I should have worded myself better. The Geralt you play, is in the end, the Geralt you know from the games. What I'm trying to get at is these very personal choices the game gives the player DEMANDS that Geralt be the character from the books with a rich history and lore. Think of the relationship with Ciri. Now it's alright in the games, if a bit bland. But the game asks you to make decisions that will stick with Ciri. Decisions that have to reflect Geralt's balance between being a friend, father and personal hero and Ciri's own haunting past of death and how she deals with it. These are quite loaded and personal decisions when you think about it and the game does not adequately prepare the player to make the decision in Geralt's place (nor can it, this is an impossible task without lengthily summarizing Sapkowski's novels). The player is being asked to emulate a character that they don't entirely understand. THIS I think is the problem with the deeply personal choices Geralt makes - particularly towards Yennefer and Cirilla. You can't feel like you are Geralt because Geralt knows things that the player does not.

A single passage from the books is appropriate here (I'm translating from Polish so forgive small errors)

But this time was very different. Now she believed it. For it was Geralt of Rivia, the White Wolf, the Witcher who had said the words. The man of her destiny. The man for whom she was destined. Geralt the Witcher, who had found her encircled by war, death and despondency, who had taken her with him and promised they would never part again.

Think about this. The man for whom she was destined. That is a VERY loaded phrase, and in my view, the relationship that the writer's chose to identify with when mapping out the choices and consequences between the player and Ciri. But if the player never knows that the character feels this way about Ciri, how can he make these personal decisions? Or more importantly, how can he make sense of the consequences?

Even if we never saw all that other parts it on screen, the fact that both (Geralt and CIri) acknowledge either other and when talking to other people as Father/Daughter tells us pretty much what they mean to each other. Her line when she's rescuing the child in Velen, "My father could do so much more." always makes me smile.

 

[Zeroscape]

The game really didn't impart the intense connection between Ciri and Geralt. "His destiny" "Never be parted again" were very strong propellants for book Geralt, yet the game reduces that to a mere father/daughter relationship. It's more than that and you get the feeling from the game that there's more to it than what they are telling you too. It's like the game is cherry-picking certain aspects of the history and neglecting others (such as the part of the prophesy regarding Ciri's son and grandson).

Just feels like they had a much bigger script originally and started cutting away themes and content because it would've just been too much to explain to non-book readers. That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't feel like a holistic package. Things ~feel~ like they are missing.

Witcher 3's lore is a mash-up of the game universe and the books, landing somewhere in the middle and not quite feeling right. Like an itch you can't scratch.

 

[AVMC]

But if the player never knows that the character feels this way about Ciri, how can he make these personal decisions? Or more importantly, how can he make sense of the consequences?

Yup, I totally feel this way as well. Agree 100%. But if I could transport myself to a "place" where I didn't know anything outside of the games, I could still empathize with him based on the info given. Like Willowhugger said, it's kind of a player's version of Geralt based on their interpretation and the info given. [sorry if I paraphrased your point wrong, Willowhugger!]

You won't get much argument with me about the lack of information though. I'm one of the ones who feels an entire third, at minimum feels cut from the game... specifically the very character interactions and story building that would show us why we should care. It's like they were building toward it, and the Baron quest made me ecstatic at what I'd find when we'd finally talk with Yen, Triss, etc... And although Kaer Morhen was great, the actual interaction wasn't there... I felt they rushed us through to the end, and I don't know enough to speculate why.

Spoiler

Imagine the Baron treatment for the issues with Yen's infertility and its effect on her actions, or Triss' less that certain [even to herself] motivations with Geralt... flashback quests with Ciri could have played a large role explaining how she continually entered his life early on, even when Geralt chose to part with her... they could have used her training to show other main character interactions and her visions to show the tie in with even that we HAVE seen in game. I don't know... again... alternate world so they could stretch these to fit how they wanted... so many lost opportunities.

But, I also get people can be completely satisfied, not knowing the rest because [sadly, in my eyes] they've been given a picture that... yup, btw... Ciri, she's his daughter... go be a protective daddy. But it can work, and it does work, and other people are satisfied with it.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Official chapter 5 of my assessment of the narrative, follow up of my initial starting post:

5.) Ciri as the defeater of the White Frost?

I've added this section because I think that the inconsistencies and issues of the deus ex machina moment aren't described thoroughly enough yet, especially if we take a closer look at Ciri, who she is and what she is capable of. As written above in the very end of the game Avallac'h and Ciri open a portal between the worlds and Ciri goes through it in order to "fight the white frost".

But wait a minute? Who is Ciri exactly and what exactly empowers her to do such a thing? Well, let's start first with how Ciri and her powers are described in the book. We know that she is a descendent of Lara Dorren aep Shiadhal, an Elven Sage, an Aen Saevherne like Avallac'h, who was the bearer of the Hen Ichaer, the Elder Blood, a genetic mutation of old Elven blood, prosecuted by the Aen Elle during hundreds of years in order to re-establish powers they've long lost - the powers to open a gate between different worlds, the Ard Gaeth. Like Lara Ciri bears the Elder Blood. So is she actually able to open Ard Gaeth? Well, in the books that is actually never even a question. She only has one purpose to the ones who want to control the gate: to give birth to a child. Ciri is actually senn by nobody as the saviour of the world. Only her child is, or even her later descendents are at the earliest. Every "expert" on the topic is agreeing on that very point:

The Aen Elle and Avallac'h:

"We want to have your child, swallow, daughter of Lara Dorren."
Andrzej Sapkowski, The Lady of the Lake

The lodge of the sorceresses:

"Cirilla, Pavetta of Cintra's daughter, Calanthe the Lion's granddaughter. The Elder Blood, the ice flame of the North, the destroyer and renewer, whose advent has been predicted already hundred of years ago. Ciri of Cintra, the queen of the North. And her blood, of which the queen of the world will be born."
Andrzej Sapkowski, Baptism of Fire

Emhyr var Emreis:

"Cirilla [...] will be happy like most of the queens I've spoken of. That will happen over time. Her love that I won't demand from her, will be passed onto her son whom I will beget with her. The crown prince and upcoming emperor. The emperor who will beget a son. The son who will be the ruler of the world and who will save the world from annihilation. That's what the prophecies tell us, the prophecies whose content only I know."
Andrzej Sapkowski, The Lady of the Lake

Vilgefortz has a somewhat different "approach" to the topic but it's quite clear as well that he doesn't want or need Ciri herself neither, but only her blood (and certain parts of her body...):

"Maybe you're concerned about it, maybe you're happy about it, but you should know that you won't give birth to a child. Who knows, maybe it would be indeed a big chosen one with exceptional abilities, a saviour of the world and ruler of all people. But nobody is able to vouch for that and I don't want to wait so long anyway. I need blood. Placenta blood, to be precise. As soon as the placenta will be developed I will cut it out."
Andrzej Sapkowski, The Lady of the Lake


So it seems to be pretty clear that Ciri herself doesn't have such spectacular abilites. Nobody is really interested in her person or abilities but only literally in her crotch. Everyone wants to have sex with her in order to beget a child. That's why everyone is hunting Ciri. But Avallac'h has a lot more to say on the topic. He explains in detail what the White Frost actually is and how Ciri is supposed to deal with it:

"We have [...] more than good reason to assume that your world is in danger of annihilation. A climatic catastrophy of extreme scope. With your profound education you've surely heard of Aen Itlinn Speath, Itlina's prophecy. It relates to the White Frost. We think that it means a strong glaciation. And since 90 percent of the main land of your world are located on the northern hemisphere a glaciation can threaten the very existence of most beings. They will just die of cold. Those who will survive will descend into chaos, wiping each other out in merciless struggles for food, becoming the prey of predators mad of hunger themselves. Remember the wording of the prohecy: time of contempt, time of axe, time of wolve storms... [...]
The child we care about so much, the descendent of Lara Dorren and bearer of her gene which was specially built by us can save the inhabitants of this world. We have reason to believe that Lara's descendent - and yours, naturally - will have abilities at their command that will be more than a thousand times stronger than ours, the ones of the Sages. And which you have at your command as well, in a rudimentary form.[...] It's about the possibility to not only be able to transport yourself, you own not so important person, between the worlds. It's about the opening of Ard Gaeth, the big and steady gate that can be used by everyone. Before the conjunction we once managed to achieve that and we want to be able to do so again now. We will evacuate the Aen Seidhe from the dying world in which they live. Our brothers to whom we owe help. We couldn't live with the awareness that we missed something in order to save them. And we will save them, we will evacuate everyone who is threatened in this world. Everyone, Zirael. Even the humans."
Andrzej Sapkowski, The Lady of the Lake

So while the last passage about the saving of the humans and in particular the conditions of such an endavour are probably highly debatable there is no reason why Avallac'h should lie about the rest. That's pretty much the known prophecy of Itlina anyway, just extended by the concrete interpretation of the Aen Saevherne, probably the most prolific experts on the topic that could be found.

What does this mean for the Witcher 3 and its ending? What does this mean for Ciri and her abilities? Well, first she doesn't seem to have that awesome abilities after all. She can obviously travel between worlds. But can she open Ard Gaeth? Well, actually nobody thinks so. Everybody thinks that one of her descendants will once be able to do so. Obviously the genetic mutation in her blood isn't ready for that step. And then after all, nobody ever talk about an ability to "stop the white froze altogether". For pretty much everyone in the books, every expert on the topic, Avallac'h and the Aen Saevherne and all the powerful sorcerers and sorceresses alike, the White Frost is something that is just there, an irrevocable force of nature. The task of the Elder Blood isn't to fight and win against the Wild Frost but not enable survival for a new beginning. To open a gate. To give people a chance to flee and start somewhere else anew. Nothing of that is even remotely mentined in the ending of the Witcher 3.

Of course Witcher 3 could deviate from the book lore and establish it's own, modified version. The problem is that it never really does. It never explains Ciri's supposed powers. It never explains how she is able to fight and win against the White Frost. It never explains why Ciri should go through the portal and what she should do on the other side. It never explains why suddenly Ciri herself is important. Which ability that is displayed in the game should grant her any power to fight and end the white frost? And why does she need a portal to a different world if the White Frost threatens the world she lives in already? Why does she need a portal after all? If it's only about her why doesn't she just use her normal travelling abilities? Is the White Frost some kind of "living entity" in the Witcher 3? If yes, why isn't that explained to give the proper context? So many question, but not even one satisfying answer. I mean, I get the argument that the games don't necessarily have to stick to all the lore established in the books. But if there is no other explanation for some elements, how should we evaluate them? Either they are based on book lore or they have to be properly explained which obviously isn't the case here.

I mean, it's really a shame. The whole thing is pretty complex in the books which includes the motives of the Wild Hunt. In the books they aren't all evil super villains. They are pretty much like many humans, just from a different perspective. They think that they are naturally "better" and superior than every other race and that every other race should serve them. Of course that is fundamentally opposed to the human interest in the witcher world and so the Aen Elle are natural enemies, so to say. But they are not just "evil", not even Eredin. He's a power hungry murderer and invader but he shares these traits with human rulers of the likes of Emhyr var Emreis.

If you ask me the end just doesn't make any sense in the given context. It's not consistent with the lore and characterization of Ciri in the books. It's not consistent with the characterization of the White Frost in the book. It's not properly explained in the game itself neither. But by excluding all sexual topics from the game (except Geralt's "love interests") they also took away the basic motivation why every "villain" wanted to capture Ciri in the first place, Eredin included. There is no real motivation left for Avallac'h's actions after all, at least not a (newly) described one (Auberon is dead and he obviously doesn't want Eredin to capture Ciri for whatever reason). No matter how you look at it, the deus ex machina portal event at the very end makes no much sense and is full of narrative inconsistencies. It's just a hot mess, like I said in the title of this thread.