Triss vs Yennefer [NOW WITH SPOILERS. Oh, well.]

[zeypheruk]

The point is disregard the books for a second, for many of us the games are all we know of the franchise and therefore the arguments are made with ONLY games as the source of knowledge.

---------- Updated at 08:03 PM ----------

Not to mention that retiring is very in character for Geralt..do you think he likes being a witcher? Please..he may like travelling etc but he never enjoyed the fate which was decided for him...so i don't really understand the point some of you are trying to make

---------- Updated at 02:31 PM ----------



Out of curiosity, has anyone tried this option? What happens? Because the ending is still the same, right? So all in all those dialogue options have no impact whatsoever...

I have Geralt says he likes Witchering, waking up with dew on his face. Triss says "he can go on the path whenever he wants for how ever long he wants, Just that he will have a place to come back too."

Geralts says "well the house does look a lot more cosier than Kaer Mohen"

basically i find in Triss ending both the parties involved can still be themselves which i find lacking with Yen

 

[Redemyr]

So what?Because the developers didn't give players an option to refuse,Yennefer somehow forced him to retire?It makes no sense.

It can be taken in two ways,

a)It was an oversight that might or not be fixed.

b)It was an attempt to accurately portray their relationship, one in which Geralt doesn't say no to Yennefer (except on certain boat) and is the only one doing the accommodating. Therefore, the player, having chosen Yennefer, with the pros and cons that the decision entails, has no further input on shaping Geralt's future.

 

[Zyvik]

It can be taken in two ways,

a)It was an oversight that might or not be fixed.

b)It was an attempt to accurately portray their relationship, one in which Geralt doesn't say no to Yennefer (except on certain boat) and is the only one doing the accommodating. Therefore, the player, having chosen Yennefer, with the pros and cons that the decision entails, has no further input on shaping Geralt's future.

Makes sense.But again it's Geralt's choice.Yen didn't force him to do anything

 

[Redemyr]

Makes sense.But again it's Geralt's choice.Yen didn't force him to do anything

Yup, the player made Geralt buy the whole package, good and bad. And tbh, even as someone who prefers Triss, I'll have to be honest and say that the good outweighs the bad.

 

[OutgoingHermit]

b)It was an attempt to accurately portray their relationship, one in which Geralt doesn't say no to Yennefer (except on certain boat) and is the only doing the accommodating.

That's pretty much it. If she's willing to ask him to go against his principles, his good sense, and his instincts for self-preservation to charge at the golden dragon, and then he's actually going to do it, I can't imagine he's going to walk out on her because he doesn't like the hut she picked out.

 

[xxgwxx]

I'm reading all this and literally can't believe what I'm seeing. Yen's the one who's willing to sacrifice everything for Geralt - all her previous life,ambitions etc- and yet folks here are somehow twisting it in order to make her the bad guy? Why? Because there's not a dialogue option in which Geralt could disagree with her? She's not forcing him into anything nor is Geralt unhappy about it - in fact, I think the way they handled it is not an" accurate portrayal of the relationship", but fullfilling Geralt's dream from the books about dropping the sword for good (yeah from the books, because as much as you want to seperate games from the books, you can't- at least NOT when it comes to geralt&yen's relationship). She's also ASKING HIM ('Coming with?') and you can see how nervous she actually is about his possible answer. You can't deny her at this point because you've already chosen her in the Last Wish quest. And even if you could - would it change anything? Nope, the ending would still be the same (them living in some secluded cottage etc).

I forgot to add another Yen's line, when Geralt is being sceptical and he's sarcastic like :"and the garden to attend to?" - she says : "why not, if that's what YOU want " - so tell me again, who is making sacrifices for whom here?

 

[Redemyr]

Majority votes are no hard fact.

They are, it's just that they can change over and it's not that easy to quantify them.

As to the other matter, before Witcher 1 the franchise was huge in Poland and neighboring countries, not on the world. What made it popular was the games.

Spoiler

A PlayStation 2 dev kit was smuggled from Interplay's offices in London over to Poland, and work on Dark Alliance PC begun. But then the phone rang, and it was Interplay and the Dark Alliance deal falling apart. "But we already caught the virus," says Iwiński. They wanted to make a game, but what could they make?

***
There is no bigger fantasy licence in Poland, a country steeped in medieval history, than Wiedźmin ("veedj-min"), or The Witcher as we know it (actually an English translation created by CD Projekt). The books are written by Andrzej Sapkowski, a man with little love for video games, but with a fantasy so wonderful he's regarded as a Polish Tolkien. "That's what he means to us," stresses Iwiński. "He's just in a different league than anybody else. If you say 'Sapkowski' it means top class - there is nobody else."

Such is his prestige that Iwiński hadn't even considered it likely he'd be able to sign the rights. But there they were, ripe for ripping from hands of a Polish mobile gaming company that wasn't doing anything with them. "We got in touch with [Sapkowski] and we ask: 'We heard that the game is really not happening and maybe we could talk?'" Sapkowski, a writer not a businessman, didn't seem to know what was going on. "You find out," was his answer. So they did. They told him the mobile game wasn't being made. "OK, make me an offer," he replied. So they did. "It wasn't a huge amount of money," recalls Iwiński, but it worked. "We got the rights and that's when the real difficulty started, because we had to make a game and we had no real idea of how to do it."

But I concur, it's off topic so let's drop it Before that though, I leave you the link to the whole article, not because of this particular argument but because it's a very cool read in general.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-06-seeing-red-the-story-of-cd-projekt

 

[Scholdarr.452]

They are, it's just that they can change over and it's not that easy to quantify them.

Popularity has nothing to do with what the core of a franchise is. Two different things entirely. But yeah, let's drop that. It's a purely academical question anyway.

 

[Redemyr]

Yen's the one who's willing to sacrifice everything for Geralt -

Not going to respond to your other points because I believe I already did.

As for this though, I believe retiring IS what Yen wants. And it can also be what Geralt wants and it is also indeed what Geralt wanted in the books.

The point is, in that particular conversation, the player cannot specifically state that he wants a Geralt who "can have the cake and eat it too". Provided he wants a witcher who continues on the path. In that case, you chose Yennefer so.

 

[xxgwxx]

the player cannot specifically state that he wants a Geralt who "can have the cake and eat it too". Provided he wants a witcher who continues on the path.

Let's imagine you can. There is such an option. And what then? Then your player's choice would be completely ignored because in the end Geralt would retire anyway. IT's like with this Kovir thing and Triss - she says that she can deny the position and even if Geralt disagrees with her plan - it has no impact. So it's like you want the dialogue option for the sake of it.

 

[wichat]

July, 2014

"The books, I know they have many fans, and we don't want to upset them by doing something improperly, so to speak," says Tomaszkiewicz. "We try to be very careful in translating this whole experience into a game. We try to be as close to what Sapkowski established in the books."

 

[Redemyr]

Let's imagine you can. There is such an option. And what then? Then your player's choice would be completely ignored because in the end Geralt would retire anyway. IT's like with this Kovir thing and Triss - she says that she can deny the position and even if Geralt disagrees with her plan - it has no impact. So it's like you want the dialogue option for the sake of it.

Yup, there is no ending slide difference in either path. But dialogues options for the sake of it are kind of the staple of the series right? This not as a critique, I like the fact that I can usually have two or tree options in dialogues that don't amount to much except the immediate response from whoever we are talking to.


Popularity has nothing to do with what the core of a franchise is. Two different things entirely. But yeah, let's drop that. It's a purely academical question anyway.
If somebody asked people to name a program related to "Spreadsheets", most would say Excel, even though Microsoft based (stole) it on Lotus 1,2,3.But yep, let's drop it

 

[xxgwxx]

Yup, there is no ending slide difference in either path.

That's what I mean. I would't be against such possibility but only if it meant different 'version' of Yen ending. Whereas the way it is - it would be pointless and empty as I'd like my choices to have an impact.

 

[Redemyr]

That's what I mean. I would't be against such possibility but only if it meant different 'version' of Yen ending. Whereas the way it is - it would be pointless and empty as I'd like my choices to have an impact.

Don't you just hate when after some pages of discussion you find that middle ground that you can agree on? Now I need to think of something else to do till the next hot topic arrives, boring things like tidying up the house. Thank you very much.

 

[TreesAreCanon]

@Redemyr that's the thing. I don't like to complain about romance inconsistencies, I never did, but what's the point
of giving "options" if they don't even matter and change nothing at all? Creating a false feeling of freedom is nasty...

 

[kJustK]

And what would she do if he just said no? I can't see Yen being ok with that answer. She isn't the type for that. She does whatever she wants to do and either Geralt accepts and assimilates or he can go on without her. That's the simple deal.

Depends on the situation and the wider context. And this is what this is all about.

Having a dream and suffering from personal trauma isn't an excuse for being a selfish control freak (which she is). It explains why she is how she is. But that's about it. People are still responsible for their actions

n u sir, hv agn hit all d nails on d head! (Y)

 

[ccchong187]

This is why i liked triss told her i like being a witcher etc and shes fine with it. Yennifer doesnt allow that. In the end i personally prefer Triss's personality more and i avoid people with Yennefer's personality in both real life and fiction.

Their conversation at the camp...

Yen: "Listen to me. Once it's over, if we survive... I wish to leave, go far away. And I'd like you to come with me."

Geralt: "Where?"

Yennefer: "Wherever. To Poviss, beyond the Dragon Mountains, Zerrikania, even. As far as possible from politics, plot and so-called high society."

Could you point out which part of the conversation did she ask/force Geralt to quit witchering? She said she wanted to stay far away from politics and high society, nothing about Geralt's witcher work. Oh, are you going to twist her words and say she doesn't care what Geralt wants now? :angry2:

 

[DerickS]

How / When does Triss take advantage of Geralt? This is not my attempt to defending a character but just my curiousity in the lore.

 

[Charcharo]

Talking about the game, both endings with triss geralt can be a witcher, he can be himself (If you want) and Triss is fine with it. Yen is bloody isolation in a hut. If thats what you want good for you, but i didnt play geralt that way.

Finally to all the book elitists this is a game forum and in the end a lot of us are discussion a character by what is shown in the game. So just do not give me book evidence as that does not matter in our situation much since we talking about a rpg not books. Cause books in simpler terms can be considered a set point of view, games allow different people to have different point of views with their own choices.

So some like Triss some like Yen and that is completely subjective

I actually see mostly unfounded Video Game Elitism here.
Funny aint it. From being considered toys, to at best Low Art... we now have people thinking they are better than Literature... a cornerstone of human civilization and the cultures of our world....

If you are a fan of the games, then you would only help yourself by reading the books.
If you like the games, your opinion on the universe should be respected. More than that of someone who does not know what Witcher is. But a lot less than a book reader's opinion.

My 2 cents... from a person that loves both games and books...

 

[FarrySquall]

@Redemyr that's the thing. I don't like to complain about romance inconsistencies, I never did, but what's the point
of giving "options" if they don't even matter and change nothing at all? Creating a false feeling of freedom is nasty...

Pacth 1.8: -Now if you disagree with Triss or Yen's plan, automatically Geralt enter "lone wolf" ending :devil:

How / When does Triss take advantage of Geralt? This is not my attempt to defending a character but just my curiousity in the lore.

In Witcher 1 to the end of Witcher 2 prologue