It seems You try to convince me that I done a very big, no, HUGE mistake by choosing Triss as love for Geralt... :eredinfacepalm:
Last edited:
- Status
That's also the way I see it and I agree with you @0nakita, from books it began the realtionship with Triss and continued been told in games and the authors gave the freedom to choose instead of making it one single story told. Had it been one just one true love then they shouldn't have given the option in games and stick with JUST the books but they didn't, they saw potential with Triss & Geralt and so they continued with it.
I like what they did and how they handle it in the games. Now if only they could fix somethings here and there during the story telling well...even better to look at their story from start towards Witcher 3.
May I ask why it's not valid? Games gives you more options... nothing wrong with this. Some choices are lore friendly some not.
But it is. Books' events precede games events and that's the fact.
That's the key words.
No. I was saying that it was interesting POV that you think game is continuation of books. Interesting because I know you chose Triss as you romance option. And if you read the books you know that Geralt true love isn't Triss. So I'm a bit confused by this facts. Nothing more.
Because it presents in games...:eredinfacepalm:
Triss romance - it's game's privilege
---------- Updated at 11:31 AM ----------
I think u dont undertand. No one pretends that Triss is big Geralt's love in books...
Books are independent piece of art. The fact that games start after event's in the books don't make them prequel to the games.
---------- Updated at 09:36 AM ----------
well, but many of you say that you see games as continuation of books while you know that Triss romance can't be continuation of books.
now even I not fully understand what I'm trying to say!For me Yen wasn't true love. First was Yens controlling spell, than was Djinns wish and obsession by Yen, only in "Time of Contempt" they started to love each other without obsession and djinns. As I said it's totally IMO!
After amnezia he fell in love with Triss and later he ends up loving them both. And in TW3 he understands that he loves Triss more. As I said only in my games and in mine Witcher's world.
From CDP's view yes. The games start where the books end and are basically a continuation with some creative freedom. And as someone pointed out. This is a forum about the Witcher video games and not only the books.
Isn't The Hobbit prequel for LOTR? Aren't SW 1,2,3 prequel for SW 4,5,6? They happen in the same Universe, prequel's events have concequences in their sequels.
Can't argue with this
---------- Updated at 09:40 AM ----------
ok you are right. Are you happy now?
well, but many of you say that you see games as continuation of books while you know that Triss romance can't be continuation of books.
To be honest...i don't really understand what's the point of your questions? Which logical conclusion you try to lead????
People tend to change, you know? Remember how Geralt hated Cahir and what it resulted in? Geralt isn't frozen in time, his feelings can change.
But it also helps to build foundations in favor of changes, in story telling, in adding even more lore in some cases. When it comes to people (fictional or real), stories, characters, traits evolve as it should be instead of staying still and unchangeable.
But sometimes even Triss don't want to change her mind (necromancy). So it's not as simple as you try to say. Changes needed but not lore-breaking. Like we know that Geralt don't kill dragons though in games you can chose to kill one. I think it's not lore friendly choice. But you think it's ok. Different people different opinions.
>>but not lore-breaking
why? Amnesia could change people beyond recognition. So in games Geralt could act differently. But he's still a witcher. That is unchangeable and lore-friendly.
- Status