- Status
yes, similar to the ship scene and Geralt vs that Wild Hunt Guy scene (and maybe more).
Did I not describe two?
I'm just saying I hope they continue going their own way, heedless of Sapkowski.
If they do, though, they may be retiring Geralt to use Ciri or a new Witcher because of him, though.
Hard to say. I've been a loyal fan of Halo series. Bungie once said that Halo 3 will the end of Master Chief journey. 5 years later; Bam, masterchief (John 117) returns but under the flagship of Microsoft 343. They even announced there will be Halo 4, 5 & 6! Why announce all the sequel in once announcement?
Because Microsoft saw the potential, even after Bungie left the Halo franchise to develop their own Intellectual Property (IP) which is the FPS 'Destiny'
What a 360 degree turnaround. I've had substantial knowledge about the Halo universe because I'm fascinated by their works, I read all the novels & etc.
Up from Halo 1 to Halo 3, it's all about the Human-Covenant war. After Halo 4, things changed. It's about the Forerunner Trilogy.
Even after Halo 4, the plot is still interesting. Just sucks they changed the gameplay from an Arena styled shooter to Call of Duty style. What an ass move.
Doesn't matter though. The point is:
Witcher series might turn out to be more successful if they moved away from the books. Maybe Witcher 1 - 3 is about Geralt, for now. CDPR can always make a shocking announcement saying that "you know what, we fooled you. Witcher 3 isn't the end of Geralt. It's actually the beginning of the end"
I have mixed feeling about TW3 portrayal that this is the end of Geralt's adventure. It should be all about Geralt, but his appearance is somewhat overshadowed by Ciri. If CDPR was serious about Geralt's end, why not just make an ending where Geralt would die? Why not follow the Mass Effect 3 ending (though it sucked, they made a point that Commander Shepard story is done for) with less drama. Spare us the thought of having to speculate.
Why leave us with a vague epilogue? To me, it's not a proper farewell for Geralt. Or... they still might have plans for Geralt.
The next Witcher series can still be about Geralt, but they have slowly shift the spotlight from Geralt to a new protagonist. Currently the most standout candidate is Ciri. Heroes, like it or not will eventually have an end to their story.
Which is why IMO, Witcher series still have few years left in them. It doesn't hurt to dream. Who knows they might even use our idea for the upcoming game?
Food for thoughts.
Because Microsoft saw the potential, even after Bungie left the Halo franchise to develop their own Intellectual Property (IP) which is the FPS 'Destiny'
What a 360 degree turnaround. I've had substantial knowledge about the Halo universe because I'm fascinated by their works, I read all the novels & etc.
Up from Halo 1 to Halo 3, it's all about the Human-Covenant war. After Halo 4, things changed. It's about the Forerunner Trilogy.
Even after Halo 4, the plot is still interesting. Just sucks they changed the gameplay from an Arena styled shooter to Call of Duty style. What an ass move.
Doesn't matter though. The point is:
That's why games uses the word 'adapted' instead of 'adopted'
Witcher series might turn out to be more successful if they moved away from the books. Maybe Witcher 1 - 3 is about Geralt, for now. CDPR can always make a shocking announcement saying that "you know what, we fooled you. Witcher 3 isn't the end of Geralt. It's actually the beginning of the end"
I have mixed feeling about TW3 portrayal that this is the end of Geralt's adventure. It should be all about Geralt, but his appearance is somewhat overshadowed by Ciri. If CDPR was serious about Geralt's end, why not just make an ending where Geralt would die? Why not follow the Mass Effect 3 ending (though it sucked, they made a point that Commander Shepard story is done for) with less drama. Spare us the thought of having to speculate.
Why leave us with a vague epilogue? To me, it's not a proper farewell for Geralt. Or... they still might have plans for Geralt.
The next Witcher series can still be about Geralt, but they have slowly shift the spotlight from Geralt to a new protagonist. Currently the most standout candidate is Ciri. Heroes, like it or not will eventually have an end to their story.
Which is why IMO, Witcher series still have few years left in them. It doesn't hurt to dream. Who knows they might even use our idea for the upcoming game?
Food for thoughts.
Last edited:
Hard to say. I've been a loyal fan of Halo series. Bungie once said that Halo 3 will the end of Master Chief journey. 5 years later; Bam, masterchief (John 117) returns but under the flagship of Microsoft 343. They even announced there will be Halo 4, 5 & 6! Why announce all the sequel in once announcement?
Because Microsoft saw the potential, even after Bungie left the Halo franchise to develop their own Intellectual Property (IP) which is the FPS 'Destiny'
What a 360 degree turnaround. I've had substantial knowledge about the Halo universe because I'm fascinated by their works, I read all the novels & etc.
Up from Halo 1 to Halo 3, it's all about the Human-Covenant war. After Halo 4, things changed. It's about the Forerunner Trilogy.
Even after Halo 4, the plot is still interesting. Just sucks they changed the gameplay from an Arena styled shooter to Call of Duty style. What an ass move.
Doesn't matter though. The point is:
That's why games uses the word 'adapted' instead of 'adopted'
Witcher series might turn out to be more successful if they moved away from the books. Maybe Witcher 1 - 3 is about Geralt, for now. CDPR can always make a shocking announcement saying that "you know what, we fooled you. Witcher 3 isn't the end of Geralt. It's actually the beginning of the end"
I have mixed feeling about TW3 portrayal that this is the end of Geralt's adventure. It should be all about Geralt, but his appearance is somewhat overshadowed by Ciri. If CDPR was serious about Geralt's end, why not just make an ending where Geralt would die? Why not follow the Mass Effect 3 ending (though it sucked, they made a point that Commander Shepard story is done for) with less drama. Spare us the thought of having to speculate.
Why leave us with a vague epilogue? To me, it's not a proper farewell for Geralt. Or... they still might have plans for Geralt.
The next Witcher series can still be about Geralt, but they have slowly shift the spotlight from Geralt to a new protagonist. Currently the most standout candidate is Ciri. Heroes, like it or not will eventually have an end to their story.
Which is why IMO, Witcher series still have few years left in them. It doesn't hurt to dream. Who knows they might even use our idea for the upcoming game?
Food for thoughts.
I have a feeling that you might make a good soothsayer someday.
without you, @Willowhugger, @Gilthoniel, @charcho & @luc0s this would be a boring thread.
I have mixed feeling about TW3 portrayal that this is the end of Geralt's adventure. It should be all about Geralt, but his appearance is somewhat overshadowed by Ciri. If CDPR was serious about Geralt's end, why not just make an ending where Geralt would die? Why not follow the Mass Effect 3 ending (though it sucked, they made a point that Commander Shepard story is done for) with less drama. Spare us the thought of having to speculate.
Why leave us with a vague epilogue? To me, it's not a proper farewell for Geralt. Or... they still might have plans for Geralt.
The next Witcher series can still be about Geralt, but they have slowly shift the spotlight from Geralt to a new protagonist. Currently the most standout candidate is Ciri. Heroes, like it or not will eventually have an end to their story.
Which is why IMO, Witcher series still have few years left in them. It doesn't hurt to dream. Who knows they might even use our idea for the upcoming game?
Food for thoughts.
Yikes no, i'm very glad they went the route they did rather than the tired old this is the end of the series so let's railroad the murder of the protagonist. ME3 was so bad in that regard and so many other regards. I like that there's a variation of epilogues seeming death, lonely, happy with Triss, happy with Yen but they could have been meatier.
Geralt as a cameo in a Ciri story would seem a fitting way to shift the focus and something i'd welcome with some caveats.
I'm genuinely perplexed why so many games keep doing this.
It NEVER goes over well.
Saves development time = Saves cost
Besides, less headache for the devs.
I was just being sarcastic in my last post. In all seriousness, yes I wish future developers refrain themselves from doing it. Unless that character have no more growth.
Putting effort into writing a good ending = Good reviews = Happy fans = Reputation up = $$$ in the long run.
Not saying TW3 ending is so bad (it's x100 better than ME3), but the epilogue left us with more questions, which in a way it's both good and bad.
Good because we might have the chance to explore that someday. Bad in the sense that it breaks the immersion. Still fixable and lots of room for improvement
Last edited:
Saves development time = Saves cost
Besides, less headache for the devs.
I was just being sarcastic in my last post. In all seriousness, yes I wish future developers refrain themselves from doing it. Unless that character have no more growth.
I'm just reminded of Fallout 3 and how much rejoicing there was when they released "Broken Steel" which revived the protagonist.
That little piece of text goes really well with both endings, not just the witcher ending. Ciri wants to save the world from evil, she can either try to do this as a witcher or as an empress. Arguably Ciri could do more as an empress than a witcher. A witcher just kills monsters, they don't save the world. Ciri's views on witchers are nothing more than idealism. But Ciri is different. She's not a real witcher. She can save the world, either as a witcher or as an empress.
Being an empress and witcher aren't mutually exclusive either. Geralt says as much: "You're a witcher. Remember what I taught you. You never know, could be useful there too."
As much as I like the Witcher Ciri ending, I do feel the Empress Ciri ending is the most complete ending. CDPR clearly put the most effort into the Empress Ciri ending.
Ultimately I like all 3 endings though, none of them are bad. But if I have to rank them I'd say:
1) Empress Ciri
2) Geralt Suicide
3) Witcher Ciri
---------- Updated at 07:39 PM ----------
There's already 2 seperate canons anyway. The book canon and the game canon. While the game canon is a continuation of the book canon, it's not an official continuation and eventually the book canon will go down a different path (they already do at some points). Rumors go Andrzej Sapkowski is writing a new Witcher novel again, which will continue the story of Geralt, but will be completely different from the games. And I'm fine with that.
It's kinda like what Disney did with Star Wars, separating the film canon from the extended universe canon. I'm one of the few people who's fine with that too.
I'm going to make a confession, @lucos.
I think I may be bringing a lot of my preconceptions to the Witcher ending. Part of the issue I've been having on both these forums and my playthrough is that I can tell the game is intending me to go down a specific path but it's not the path I want to go down. It's the concept of "railroading" and it's something which has existed in both tabletop and video games since time began. Normally, I'm not necessarily against railroading as plenty of games are like a rollercoaster, you get on them for the ride but you're not DRIVING. This has changed with the increasing advancement in choices and technology.
In the case of the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, I can tell the game had some very specific ideas about where Geralt should go. He should end up with Yennefer of Vengerberg, he should kill Radovid then save Roche, and he should make Ciri a Witcher. Three is very questionable, though, because a lot of gamers seem to feel the game is railroading you into the other direction, though, which actually fits to my point. Part of the issue is that the game lets you step right instead of left but stepping right instead of left kind of leaves the game a little less balanced.
We've seen the ridiculous number of Triss posts for example on the subject, which is getting to the point of silliness (I say that as a Triss fan) given it also involves putting down Yennefer for just happening to be the one whom the writers have favored. The problem is that if you veer right instead of left, your relationship with both Yennefer and Triss kind of hits a brick wall. I wanted to continue developing Geralt's post-romance relationship with Yennefer and the fact it "ends" with the infamous Lake Teleportation scene really bothered me. There was a lot more which needed to be said, like, "WHERE THE HELL IS YENNEFER IF CIRI IS A WITCHER?" I mean, shouldn't she have something to say in all this?
She is Ciri's mom.
It also plays into my personal desire to see Nilfgaard delivered a bloody black guy or, if not Nilfgaard then Emhyr. I despise the character due to his actions in the books and don't believe my Geralt (or the book Geralt) would have anything but overwhelming hatred for the man who berayed his and Calanthe's and Ciri's trust so many times. The problem is the game clearly has a very set idea about what your relationship should be with Emhyr. As a result, if you choose to always come down very hard on him, then the game seems kind of confused. I'm glad the choices EXIST but they confuse the narrative.
I think I may be bringing a lot of my preconceptions to the Witcher ending. Part of the issue I've been having on both these forums and my playthrough is that I can tell the game is intending me to go down a specific path but it's not the path I want to go down. It's the concept of "railroading" and it's something which has existed in both tabletop and video games since time began. Normally, I'm not necessarily against railroading as plenty of games are like a rollercoaster, you get on them for the ride but you're not DRIVING. This has changed with the increasing advancement in choices and technology.
In the case of the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, I can tell the game had some very specific ideas about where Geralt should go. He should end up with Yennefer of Vengerberg, he should kill Radovid then save Roche, and he should make Ciri a Witcher. Three is very questionable, though, because a lot of gamers seem to feel the game is railroading you into the other direction, though, which actually fits to my point. Part of the issue is that the game lets you step right instead of left but stepping right instead of left kind of leaves the game a little less balanced.
We've seen the ridiculous number of Triss posts for example on the subject, which is getting to the point of silliness (I say that as a Triss fan) given it also involves putting down Yennefer for just happening to be the one whom the writers have favored. The problem is that if you veer right instead of left, your relationship with both Yennefer and Triss kind of hits a brick wall. I wanted to continue developing Geralt's post-romance relationship with Yennefer and the fact it "ends" with the infamous Lake Teleportation scene really bothered me. There was a lot more which needed to be said, like, "WHERE THE HELL IS YENNEFER IF CIRI IS A WITCHER?" I mean, shouldn't she have something to say in all this?
She is Ciri's mom.
It also plays into my personal desire to see Nilfgaard delivered a bloody black guy or, if not Nilfgaard then Emhyr. I despise the character due to his actions in the books and don't believe my Geralt (or the book Geralt) would have anything but overwhelming hatred for the man who berayed his and Calanthe's and Ciri's trust so many times. The problem is the game clearly has a very set idea about what your relationship should be with Emhyr. As a result, if you choose to always come down very hard on him, then the game seems kind of confused. I'm glad the choices EXIST but they confuse the narrative.
It's interesting that you think you should kill Radovid. May I ask why? Cos I don't see Geralt from the books killing him. He never let him involve in politics. The Witcher 2 change this but it's a game not books. So I'm curious what is your motivation to kill Radovid?
Speaking as a book fan, it's important to remember Geralt WANTS to stay out of politics but fails...miserably.
All the time.
It's like his joke with portals. Geralt claims neutrality but is anything but. Not the least being because he keeps Ciri from the various powers who want to control her with tooth and claw. Which MASSIVELY effects the politics in the region.
In the case of killing King Radovid, it's not necessarily the case of whether or not Geralt would be a part of the plot on the books but whether or not the game EXPECTS you to be a part of the plot and it very clearly does as the game directly punishes you and the entire gameworld if you choose to leave Radovid alone. To be fair, the game does a decent job of justifying why Geralt would want to get involved in a regicide too. King Radovid is planning to murder all of the sorcerers and magic users of the North as well as the nonhumans.
Yennefer, Triss, and Ciri are magic-users (and so is Geralt but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't worry about that).
Likewise, a large number of Geralt's friends are nonhumans.
I suspect if Radovid was just a capricous tyrant, Geralt wouldn't give a shit but this is directly taking a dump on his lawn.
The problem I have with this justification is that Radovid going after Ciri, Yennefer, Triss and so on is no different than what Emhyrs has done in the past.
Attachments
-
tumblr_nq810dQhkf1rwhyzco1_500.jpg
:wub: love this - thank you for posting this
The Escapist did a funny but anti-Yennefer comic.
http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/922/922922.png
I really hope Yennefer shows up in any future Witcher games.
Ciri or Geralt as the protag.
http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/922/922922.png
I really hope Yennefer shows up in any future Witcher games.
Ciri or Geralt as the protag.
I dont think it is anti-Yen.
Seems like it is celebrating that the player can finally jump and move easily in the world.
In W1 and W2 movement was more limited and you could not jump from a window. Hence the "I waited two games to do this". Else it would be "I waited 8 books to do this
"- Status