Some would say "no", some would say "yes".
I seriously doubt CDPR, let alone Sapkowski, have ever called the games canon. It's always "The Witcher game is based on the prose of Andrzej Sapkowski.".
In my opinion only Sapkowski can create Witcher canon, and I've never seen the games as more than what the disclaimer says (merely based on the novels).
I also think the fact that there are choices for players to make (and that directly affect the story) in the games automatically makes the games non-canon.
I seriously doubt CDPR, let alone Sapkowski, have ever called the games canon. It's always "The Witcher game is based on the prose of Andrzej Sapkowski.".
In my opinion only Sapkowski can create Witcher canon, and I've never seen the games as more than what the disclaimer says (merely based on the novels).
I also think the fact that there are choices for players to make (and that directly affect the story) in the games automatically makes the games non-canon.
SImple answer: No.
Next to the fact that Sapkowski himself said it is no canon-friendly sequel to his books, tehre are also a lot of changes CDPR did, and some of them simply do not work with the book canon.
Just see the games as ery well written fanfiction.
Do you think the characters in the game well reflect the description of the character in the books of Andrzej Sapkowski?
There are differences. I've not read all of the novels, and I've only read them in English, so there will be some disparity here. The major things I've noticed are:
- Geralt is supposedly pretty lanky looking. He's muscular, but slender and not very intimidating. He also has a more sullen personality. Frankly, he whines a lot. I envision the character in the books looking a lot younger than the portrayal in the games, as well.
- Ciri is more hard-edged. Less cheerful and more of an attitude-y teen with a nasty streak. If she was part of our modern world, I'd put her in the emo / goth crowd. Far more likely to stick up her middle finger or roll her eyes than say hello.
- Dandelion is a bit more of a reckless smart-ass, rather than innocent and naive. I envisioned his action in the book being a little sociopathic, actually...giving him and Geralt something immediately in common. He's also supposed to be a really good performer. Something we never see much of in the games. I actually find this interesting, as it seems that CDPR always intentionally underplayed Dandelion, and I think I would have handled the character differently, myself. Most significantly, we see a much more established friendship in the books. Geralt and Dandelion honestly enjoy one another's company. They're buds. Dandelion is much less of "sidekick" and more of foil for all of Geralt's sulking and moaning. He's naturally self-centered, but not innocently so. He's simply a bit of a jerk. But at the same time, he truly cares about his friends even if he's not comfortable openly showing it. Something that Geralt mirrors. I think an approach like Owen Wilson's "Hansel" in Zoolander would have been an energy closer to the way Dandelion is portrayed in the novels. Bit of an idiot. Bit of a git. Not that bad overall.
- Triss is much more of a powerhouse. Not so much a young girl crushing on Geralt...more of a desperate housewife energy. I see her action being much "older" in my mind. Plus, she's supposed to be permanently disfigured, her torso being more or less torn up during the battle of Sodden, then her allergy to healing magic leaving pretty bad scars. I think the game goes a long way to differentiate her from Yen, but the novels draw more of a parallel between the two. I see the relationship in the books as Yen being the older, more pragmatic, and generally authoritative sister; Triss is the younger, more passionate, and honest sister. But both of them are college professors, scientists, and politicians that have military service in their background, as a baseline for their action and energy. (Yen is protrayed pretty closely to the books.)
I think his depiction in Assassins of Kings was far more characteristic, in this regard, at least, than in the first or third game. In The Witcher, he comes across as rather simple, and then again in Wild Hunt he's quite different, but, depending on one's path in Witcher 2, he behaves more like the roguish, if rather inept, Dandelion I imagined from the stories.
I'm not asking you what is officially considered canon or what the author views as canon, I'm asking if you as fan, view the Witcher games as three parts to an eleven part series with the books taking up eight parts. When you read the books, do you imagine the games as actually continuing the story and vice versa? What is the ending to the complete Witcher saga in your head canon?
(games can have their own canon, as well as series)
I'd be inclined to say yes; Sapkowski made great work, but I think given how he claims "the books made the games popular rather than vice versa," he kinda has sour grapes that it took CDPR to popularize his (amazing) works and doesn't want to say that anything aside from that which is directly from him is canon.
I just finished reading the books and to me there's no reason why the games can't be considered canon. It's clear CDPR went to pretty extraordinary lengths to make the games seamlessly fit into the plot and timeline with minimal holes, I think it ties in nicely and tbh I much prefer the W3 conclusion to Geralts story anyway
if there was no intention to make the games canon, why follow the same story line?
I agree that if Sapkowski was getting royalties from the games, he would happily consider them "official" canon lol
To me its a YES!
if there was no intention to make the games canon, why follow the same story line?
I agree that if Sapkowski was getting royalties from the games, he would happily consider them "official" canon lol
To me its a YES!
They are not, since the author had no creative input into making the games. They are technically "fanfiction", however CDPR did such an incredible job I think they're actually much better than the books and should be held in higher regard than your typical fan work. I've read all the witcher books and played all the games, and I'm also a big fantasy novel fan, to me the books are only average, with the exception of the first 2 short story collections, while the games are some of the best forms of entertainment ever created.
Whether you want to call them canon or not is ultimately your decision. What I find difficult to reconcile is the rather flimsy narrative that joins the end of the book's plot with the beginning of the games: Geralt and Yennefer were stolen away from their private paradise by the Wild Hunt as bait to lure Ciri to them. It bothers me that this premise is explained very minimally, giving no explanation as to how the Wild Hunt found them, or why Ciri would even know they her parental figures were hostages if they had no way of communicating with her. Geralt's amnesia is clearly a device meant to separate the two "plots" into distinct stories. Both of them are excellent, but I prefer to think of them as two separate canons.