And there is still a lot to show from Geralt's story. A prequel would still have lot of ground to cover. They could have put his trials in the game for example. Which would have been quite interesting to experience. And yes, Eskel, Lambert or a younger Vesemir would also have been a very legit choice.
Nah, screw prequels. They would ultimately amount to nothing, what is there to tell even? He was a traveling monster hunter before, did a bunch of stuff, killed a bunch of monsters. There can be no overarching narrative, because most important events in his life haven't happened yet, there can be no new important characters that wouldn't die/ leave and disappear for good - and most importantly, it would be just milking Geralt.
I have no doubt that CDPR are capable of writing entertaining prequel game or series about Geralt's adventures, but that for me would always be lamer than them writing a sequel and moving a franchise forward.
Actually I did not missintepret your point of view at all. And it was very well pointed why by koalahugs already.
Possibility works differently than impossibility. Everything is by default possible. Unless prooved otherwise it stays this way. I understand you're saying that your point of view is just opposite, but from logical prospect your arguments need to be stated to be considered valid - thus I consider them 'because I said so'. From logical point that's what your 'ideas' are. And it's really nothing personal. As stated before - I accept that you have your own preference and that's perfectly fine. We all are different and that's a great thing.
I am saying that your argumentation is based on what you yourself think would best fit lore, not on facts already included in it. You directly say that if things are explained differently than what you would do then they are wrong. While others simply say that there are possibilities - without locking anything out.
@ AvarageEnjoyer
I am really fond of good exchanges of arguments as well - thus I've directly added that I am not trying to stop you all from continuation, I barely said that both sides are throwing arguments of different calbier with one side admitting that their mind is set and can't be swayed.
No sorry, but that's really not how it works though.... If something is not yet proven to be possible, especially in this case, the possibility of impossible is still on the books. You guys seem to be convinced it' the other way around, without asking the simple question: why hasn't it been proven possible yet? He had 8 books to do that. Yet it never came up and never, for decades or perhaps centuries, girl witchers or lets just call them witches were succesfully made.
But my arguments are based on facts... they have always been. And I have clearly demonstrated that. It's all the changes they want to implement that are basically factless. We literally still have to wait for whatever explanation the devs want to give to all this. So all the assumptions you guys make for what, why and when are still based upon thin air.
I guess this is a case of your coloured glasses vs mine.
Besides, the way I'm seeing this convo, both sides aren't ready to be swayed. Not just me. When you want to judge this, you are going to have to learn what objectivity is.
Nah, screw prequels. They would ultimately amount to nothing, what is there to tell even? He was a traveling monster hunter before, did a bunch of stuff, killed a bunch of monsters. There can be no overarching narrative, because most important events in his life haven't happened yet, there can be no new important characters that wouldn't die/ leave and disappear for good - and most importantly, it would be just milking Geralt.
I have no doubt that CDPR are capable of writing entertaining prequel game or series about Geralt's adventures, but that for me would always be lamer than them writing a sequel and moving a franchise forward.
I get that. But in this case making an as true as possible book adaptation is also a challenge in itself. I'd still rather play that just so see how well they did it. If you look at a movie based upon a book, you'd still be enjoying even though you know the book. then the challenge is how much of the book is implemented. And moving a franchise forward blindly might as well also be driving the franchise off the cliff.
Yeah, because they aren't adapting books. They never were adapting them either - the first one you can make a case of being a soft semi-reboot, but even that is stretching it.
It was always a new territory.
That's precisely how things work... And your argument that Sapkowski had 8 (9?) books to show this or that if he wanted is just out of nowhere...
With your logic:
It's impossible for Geralt to care for a little girl - because in the first book it wasn't stated and if Sapkowski wanted - he would write about it in the first book.
It's impossible for Ciri to be into girls - because if Sapkowski wanted her to be bisexual he would write it in the second book, where she was introduced...
It's impossible for Emhyr to become an emperor because if Sapkowski wanted him to be an Emperor he would write so in 'A question of price' story...
I am not saying that you can't look at things the way you are doing. I am saying it's wrong from logical point of view. Not mine. Not other people commenting. Unless something is prooven impossible it's considered possible. That's a fact. When a sport competition starts, both teams/players consider winning possible and their mind can be changed if they get serious beating and there is not enough time to turn the tables anymore - which prooves winning not possible anymore. But by default winning is possible for everyone.
Simple answer to your question: Why Sapkowski hasn't introduced any female witcher yet? - Because this was irrelevant so far.
Why Sapkowski hasn't mentioned all the adventures of Geralt and just the few chosen ones? Does that mean Geralt hasn't killed any monster or taken any other wicther contracts than what was in the books?
Why Sapkowski didn;t mention every single Sorceress or every single Witcher that existed? Does that suddenly mean that there were no wicthers before Vesemir and no Sorceresses before whoever in the books is the eldest?
Sapkowski/games/any authors don;t mention MILLIONS of things because these are irrelevant to what the story tells. That doesn;t mean everything before, after and somewhere nearby is impossible and never existed... If a person never visits foreign countries nor lerans about them they won't suddenly perish from the world...
And then - by saying we are basing our assumptions or whatever on this or that you are missing the vital point... That is because we are not assuming anything... That's the whole point.
I'm saying 'Let's wait and see how it plays out' and then judge. It's hard for me to be wrong when I have no opinion on something that doesn't yet exist... You have a strong opinion on something that doesn't exist - that's your right, sure. But you are the only one who has already put judgment on the game, thus you are the only one who can't be swayed. That's objective.
Again - it's not personal. I fully accept that you don't like the ideas here and there. That's totally cool. All I am saying is how logics work and how you are sticking to whatever is alright to you personally, and not to what actually is in books and/or games. But that's cool.
That's precisely how things work... And your argument that Sapkowski had 8 (9?) books to show this or that if he wanted is just out of nowhere...
With your logic:
It's impossible for Geralt to care for a little girl - because in the first book it wasn't stated and if Sapkowski wanted - he would write about it in the first book.
It's impossible for Ciri to be into girls - because if Sapkowski wanted her to be bisexual he would write it in the second book, where she was introduced...
It's impossible for Emhyr to become an emperor because if Sapkowski wanted him to be an Emperor he would write so in 'A question of price' story...
I am not saying that you can't look at things the way you are doing. I am saying it's wrong from logical point of view. Not mine. Not other people commenting. Unless something is prooven impossible it's considered possible. That's a fact. When a sport competition starts, both teams/players consider winning possible and their mind can be changed if they get serious beating and there is not enough time to turn the tables anymore - which prooves winning not possible anymore. But by default winning is possible for everyone.
Simple answer to your question: Why Sapkowski hasn't introduced any female witcher yet? - Because this was irrelevant so far.
Why Sapkowski hasn't mentioned all the adventures of Geralt and just the few chosen ones? Does that mean Geralt hasn't killed any monster or taken any other wicther contracts than what was in the books?
Why Sapkowski didn;t mention every single Sorceress or every single Witcher that existed? Does that suddenly mean that there were no wicthers before Vesemir and no Sorceresses before whoever in the books is the eldest?
Sapkowski/games/any authors don;t mention MILLIONS of things because these are irrelevant to what the story tells. That doesn;t mean everything before, after and somewhere nearby is impossible and never existed... If a person never visits foreign countries nor lerans about them they won't suddenly perish from the world...
And then - by saying we are basing our assumptions or whatever on this or that you are missing the vital point... That is because we are not assuming anything... That's the whole point.
I'm saying 'Let's wait and see how it plays out' and then judge. It's hard for me to be wrong when I have no opinion on something that doesn't yet exist... You have a strong opinion on something that doesn't exist - that's your right, sure. But you are the only one who has already put judgment on the game, thus you are the only one who can't be swayed. That's objective.
Again - it's not personal. I fully accept that you don't like the ideas here and there. That's totally cool. All I am saying is how logics work and how you are sticking to whatever is alright to you personally, and not to what actually is in books and/or games. But that's cool.
you are taking it out of context. It is obviously he ment Geralt to care about this girl, otherwise he wouldn't make him chase her allover the world. you are describing things that were described, so it's a poor comparison.
Same thing with Vesemir, if he is coming from a tradition of witcher making, it's only logical he himself was created by others and he couldn't have done it to himself.
however when it comes to the trials of the grasses and Ciri becoming a full witcher, it is a completely different case. Because he describes no female witcher ever being created. For decades, possibly centuries. And if you read well, he does provide an account where only the males survive from a mixed group. So that proves girls weren't just being kept out for socio cultural reasons. Now if you'd have to go to court over something, it is up to the procecutor to provide the burden of proof. You say it's possible then you have to prove it. Otherwise the case gets dropped. You say the crime happened and the suspect is guilty you have to have prove it did and he was. it's really not that hard to understand.
But you are assuming. You just take the trailer and from there of on all this topic has been is making up assumptions of why she would pass and arrive to what we see in the trailer. My strong opinion is based upon exactly what already exists. We have the final outcomes on W3 and the books. It's you guys who are filling up assumptions to fill in the gap in between those outcomes and the trailer. and so far the only things from the books speaking in her favor is just her personal wishes and someone imagining her being a witcher. You realise that is pretty flimsy, right?
Nonsense. if you are in a debate, no matter with how many the opposition is, it's still two sides. And so far I'm also not succeeding in swaying you guys. So that means both sides are not swaying. No matter if I'm alone in this topic. And so far I haven't judged anything ... yet. I'm just very weary. If I would have judged it already, I wouldn't be attempting this debate. I would just keep my money where it is and move on to other stuff. The fact that i'm still arguing in here, means there is still a very slight chance I will invest in it. and I seriously do not think my logics are failing me.
If we go by the logic of what Sapkowski did and did not include, then the games in their current form shouldn't exist. He didn't include Anna Henrietta's long lost sister, he didn't include Crach an Craite having a daughter named Cerys, he didn't have any eldrich witches, living in the bogs of Velen and he definitely didn't have incredibly powerful vampires beyond mortal's comprehension, guarding the gates between the worlds. None of it exists in the book, yet it exists in the games. It exists, because writers wanted to tell stories about these things.
In the large scheme of things, whether or not Sapkowski has written female witcher is meaningless. He said himself that he views the world as simply a backstage for his characters to tell their stories, nothing more. Maybe he didn't include witcheresses because he wanted a cool sword swinging boy club, maybe he didn't include them because he wanted to have Geralt be deprived of motherly love to explain his insecurities and attachment issues, maybe he didn't include them to show how men were viewed as more expendable, maybe he didn't include them to show how women weren't viewed as worthy enough - or maybe he just didn't think about including them at all and it just happened this way.
To refer the world building of a man who self-admitedly doesn't care about world building is fruitless. This isn't Sanderson, this is a guy who wanted to see how a mercenary with a heart of gold would fare in a mishmash of folklore tales, Tolkien's and Moorcock's stories and Earth-like countries. Now other people are continuing his stories and they want to see what would happen if a fantasy princess and traditional Chosen one would turn into a mutated killing machine.
To-rephrase Stan Lee, the answer to whether or not Ciri can be a witcher is whether or not writers will decide to make her one:
Writing quality is the only thing that matters, lore can be changed in whatever ways they want, as long as they can make it authentic.
If we go by the logic of what Sapkowski did and did not include, then the games in their current form shouldn't exist. He didn't include Anna Henrietta's long lost sister, he didn't include Crach an Craite having a daughter named Cerys, he didn't have any eldrich witches, living in the bogs of Velen and he definitely didn't have incredibly powerful vampires beyond mortal's comprehension, guarding the gates between the worlds. None of it exists in the book, yet it exists in the games. It exists, because writers wanted to tell stories about these things.
In the large scheme of things, whether or not Sapkowski has written female witcher is meaningless. He said himself that he views the world as simply a backstage for his characters to tell their stories, nothing more. Maybe he didn't include witcheresses because he wanted a cool sword swinging boy club, maybe he didn't include them because he wanted to have Geralt be deprived of motherly love to explain his insecurities and attachment issues, maybe he didn't include them to show how men were viewed as more expendable, maybe he didn't include them to show how women weren't viewed as worthy enough - or maybe he just didn't think about including them at all and it just happened this way.
To refer the world building of a man who self-admitedly doesn't care about world building is fruitless. This isn't Sanderson, this is a guy who wanted to see how a mercenary with a heart of gold would fare in a mishmash of folklore tales, Tolkien's and Moorcock's stories and Earth-like countries. Now other people are continuing his stories and they want to see what would happen if a fantasy princess and traditional Chosen one would turn into a mutated killing machine.
To-rephrase Stan Lee, the answer to whether or not Ciri can be a witcher is whether or not writers will decide to make her one:
Writing quality is the only thing that matters, lore can be changed in whatever ways they want, as long as they can make it authentic.
You know, I don't want to be contraproductive and averse all the time. We can just agree to disagree. And yes, I do agree descriptions in the books are too vague to fully support either side of the argument. And I agree also that I think Sapowski probably just wanted to make some adventure novels. i dont think he even was expecting them to become so well known.
Nevertheless he was good in world building or not, he still did it. So it's not really fruitless. because whether you like it or not, it is still the only reference we have.
Anyway, I basically started all this because I thought of this proposition to make the player himself chose whether she takes the trials or not. my proposition was not about kicking witcher ciri out. it was about adding the option to play magical progeny Ciri who didn't become a witcher. Give something to both sides so both sides could be satisfied.
And I'm really surprised on how much of a chilly reception that got here. Especially when I posted that everywhere else the opinions were roughly 60/40 pro and con. I still think it's an idea worth including as it would vastly improve player experience. And If I don't talk about it during this early phase of development in the game, it will simply never be heard. If there is a time for propositions, it is now and not 3 months before the game is released. To brush it off and say "just wait untill until devs come out with their story" , it would be too late. I don't know if they read these topics or not, but if i want to make it visible, this is the way to do it. And if you think very high of cdpr writers, which you certainly do, then this should really not be that hard for them to pull off.
Anyway, I basically started all this because I thought of this proposition to make the player himself chose whether she takes the trials or not. my proposition was not about kicking witcher ciri out. it was about adding the option to play magical progeny Ciri who didn't become a witcher. Give something to both sides so both sides could be satisfied.
I understand your frustration, but I don't think it's physically possible in a game of such scale, with full voice-acting, motion capture and personalized main narrative. Because a witcher - as in, fully mutated witcher - requires almost complete rewrite on how almost every NPC would treat protagonist, how combat would work (alchemy is essentially gone without mutations, for example), probably a lot of plot elements too.
It's not even the matter of writing, it's the matter of time and budget, that would bloat incredibly. It's like difference between playing as a vampire in Elder Scrolls and playing as a vampire in Vampire the Masquerade - in the second case, you can't just switch between human and vampire willy-nilly, because it is an irreversible process with a whole lot baggage associated with it, including completely different abilities, completely different interactions, sometimes even completely different looks.
I guess you can make a counter-example of Dishonored 2, where Emily or Corvo can reject Outsider's mark, which will affect the game differently - but the thing is, Outsider's mark isn't nearly as obvious and drastic as witcher mutations and, most importantly, it's not what narrative revolves around.
I understand your frustration, but I don't think it's physically possible in a game of such scale, with full voice-acting, motion capture and personalized main narrative. Because a witcher - as in, fully mutated witcher - requires almost complete rewrite on how almost every NPC would treat protagonist, how combat would work (alchemy is essentially gone without mutations, for example), probably a lot of plot elements too.
It's not even the matter of writing, it's the matter of time and budget, that would bloat incredibly. It's like difference between playing as a vampire in Elder Scrolls and playing as a vampire in Vampire the Masquerade - in the second case, you can't just switch between human and vampire willy-nilly, because it is an irreversible process with a whole lot baggage associated with it, including completely different abilities, completely different interactions, sometimes even completely different looks.
I guess you can make a counter-example of Dishonored 2, where Emily or Corvo can reject Outsider's mark, which will affect the game differently - but the thing is, Outsider's mark isn't nearly as obvious and drastic as witcher mutations and, most importantly, it's not what narrative revolves around.
Well yes, but to be honest if this game is supposed to come out in 2025 or by the end of it, it is kind of rushed. If i'm not completely wrong, pre production probably started around 2021, but full production just started. for a full production of a game of this scale it feels really fast. So I don't mind if some more time is invested, especially for something like this, as it would repay them in hard dividends.
and btw, now all of the sudden something is impossible? - don't let me start the previous pages again lol.
But on the other side they did say this was going to be their most ambitious game up to date. and the key word for me is "player agency".They did promise that as well: a lot of player agency. I definitly think they can pull this off, being a studio of this magnitude. It would add a lot of value and replayability, you can't deny that. And I do think a lot of assets will be reused from previous games. models, rigs, prerecorded animations etc etc. I do know a bit of the pipeline as I used to work in preproduction (not for CDPR of course). Companies like these have got quite a bit of stock on reusable assets they will use to save time and just rework them a little. And not literally every bit of dialogue would also be needed to be rewritten. It's not like every npc would call Ciri "witcher". In a game like this there is plenty of neutral dialogue as well.
like you said before: the narrative has not been set in stone yet for this one. At least not officially.
you are taking it out of context. It is obviously he ment Geralt to care about this girl, otherwise he wouldn't make him chase her allover the world. you are describing things that were described, so it's a poor comparison.
Same thing with Vesemir, if he is coming from a tradition of witcher making, it's only logical he himself was created by others and he couldn't have done it to himself.
however when it comes to the trials of the grasses and Ciri becoming a full witcher, it is a completely different case. Because he describes no female witcher ever being created. For decades, possibly centuries. And if you read well, he does provide an account where only the males survive from a mixed group. So that proves girls weren't just being kept out for socio cultural reasons. Now if you'd have to go to court over something, it is up to the procecutor to provide the burden of proof. You say it's possible then you have to prove it. Otherwise the case gets dropped. You say the crime happened and the suspect is guilty you have to have prove it did and he was. it's really not that hard to understand.
But you are assuming. You just take the trailer and from there of on all this topic has been is making up assumptions of why she would pass and arrive to what we see in the trailer. My strong opinion is based upon exactly what already exists. We have the final outcomes on W3 and the books. It's you guys who are filling up assumptions to fill in the gap in between those outcomes and the trailer. and so far the only things from the books speaking in her favor is just her personal wishes and someone imagining her being a witcher. You realise that is pretty flimsy, right?
Nonsense. if you are in a debate, no matter with how many the opposition is, it's still two sides. And so far I'm also not succeeding in swaying you guys. So that means both sides are not swaying. No matter if I'm alone in this topic. And so far I haven't judged anything ... yet. I'm just very weary. If I would have judged it already, I wouldn't be attempting this debate. I would just keep my money where it is and move on to other stuff. The fact that i'm still arguing in here, means there is still a very slight chance I will invest in it. and I seriously do not think my logics are failing me.
Again, you missed the point at the beginning. But, I will start with something different.
I completely agree that in perfect scenario it should be down to players whether Ciri goes through mutations or not. For the reasons already mentioned by AvarageEnjoyer, I can't really see this happening, but I am on the same page that it would be best to have players decide that themselves. However we have a time skip and we will need things to happen during this gap so i wouldn't hold my breath.
I am also not saying your opinion is bad. It's just as good as any other. I am saying it's not the only one based on lore and 'one and only' correct one. It's just YOURS and that's that. That's my only point here.
But back to logical aspects:
It's obvious he meant Geralt to care about Ciri - but he didn't introduce the concept in the first book. I made the example to show you that if something wasn't already included in the books it doesn;t mean it was intentionally made impossible and non-existant by Sapkowski. That was the only point there... Your logic that if Sapkowski wanted to show that girls can be witchers he would, is unfortunately a meaningless claim, and thus my examples.
The fact that only a male survived tests doesn't suddenly mean girls can't pass them (speaking from logical point of view). Imagine a national maths competition - thousands of girls and boys taking part... And in the newspapers you then read: Three victors were girls: Layla, Tina and Anna, or three victors were boys named: Tom, Harry and Jack. Which of these titles means the other gander can never win a competition?
My point is you are taking your interpretations and you are introducing them as absolute and actual facts. As interpretations these are cool, interesting and so on. But that does NOT make them facts.
And again: your example of the court and trial is missed. We are discussing possibility and impossibility... Every suspect in a trial is by default a POSSIBLE culprit. Otherwise trials would be held not to sentence people but to proove that it was possible for them to even be a suspect... It's not a prosecutor's job to proove that it's possible that the suspect could have commited a crime... It's to proove that even if we knew it was possible that it actually happened.
As for books and TW3 endings - Books were not created by CDPR. I say the game interprets the universum splendidly, but it's an intepretation nevertheless. It's not a copy. It was never intended to be one.
And the endings? I didn't reach all the endings so I won;t make myself an expert... But I don't remember seeing any of the endings that would make impossible for Ciri to become a witcher after a few years of a time skip. As with almost all games - producers can't have every single event from a huge branched game like TW3 perfectly continued in the new game.
I understand your point. From the get go I kept repeating - there are ways to make the explanation why Ciri is a witcher in a very wrong way and in a very good way. It's great for you to show doubts to underline what are your fears for plot holes and so on. My whole point is not to criticise what hasn't yet been written and not to present own ideas as absolute facts. That's all.
But on the other side they did say this was going to be their most ambitious game up to date. and the key word for me is "player agency".They did promise that as well: a lot of player agency. I definitly think they can pull this off, being a studio of this magnitude. It would add a lot of value and replayability, you can't deny that. And I do think a lot of assets will be reused from previous games. models, rigs, prerecorded animations etc etc. I do know a bit of the pipeline as I used to work in preproduction (not for CDPR of course). Companies like these have got quite a bit of stock on reusable assets they will use to save time and just rework them a little. And not literally every bit of dialogue would also be needed to be rewritten. It's not like every npc would call Ciri "witcher". In a game like this there is plenty of neutral dialogue as well.
It's still way more ingrained in the narrative than you might think initially.
A lot of the quests and situations in Witcher 3 explicitly refer Geralt's witcher abilities - how he can hear someone's heartbeat, how he can smell someone coming, how fast he is, how he is immune, etc. And it's not just dialogue either, the context of these story situations changes as well - like how he is accused of being a mutant all the time by different scumbags throughout the game, which sometimes causes altercations or helps avoiding them.
Like when he first meets baron's men in Velen's inn and can either fight them, convince them that he isn't a threat or tell them that he is a witcher, which would horrify them and make them leave him alone. Imagine this situation with him not being a mutant - you will only have two options now, because you can't scare them with your magical nature? Than what's the point of this path, if it's only locks out content?
I agree on principle that ability to chose whether or not Ciri will mutate is really cool, but developers have said that she underwent the Trials in a very matter of fact way, which leads me to believe that a lot of story will be centered around exactly that, so this thing will be immutable. It's like how Dragon Age: Origins allows you to play all these different races and characters with different backgrounds, but they all inevitably become Grey Wardens, because that's the main crux of the entire narrative.
I didn't read the books but I really enjoyed TW3. However, the main story line wasn't really extraordinary imo.
Ciri was on the run from the Wild Hunt. Geralt had to find her and save her.
I can see Ciri justified as the lead in a main story line, but I can't see her character being enjoyable throughout the game. Perhaps, I just can't see a girl as the lead. It's like if the next Metal Gear Solid didn't have Snake as the lead but some long lost daughter. It wouldn't be enjoyable.
I might be late to the conversation, but the idea of Ciri taking center stage in a new story within The Witcher universe feels as natural as the sun rising each morning.
Ciri has always been the heart and soul of The Witcher, at least in the books. While it’s true that her introduction is delayed, and she takes some time to establish herself as the focal point of the narrative, she is undeniably the character with the greatest influence and agency in the saga. Many have dismissed her as nothing more than a glorified McGuffin, and while there’s some truth to that, it’s a simplification. Ciri is indeed a McGuffin, but one deeply rooted in one of the most important symbols of European myth: the Holy Grail.
This is not mere speculation. Sapkowski himself has confirmed, on multiple occasions, that Ciri functions as the Grail within The Witcher:
Question: Ciri stands as a central figure in Blood of Elves (Krew elfów) and Time of Contempt (Czas pogardy), fundamentally altering Geralt’s life. The Witchers’ fixation on this girl—their desire to mold her into one of their own by cultivating her magical abilities—raises a compelling question: could this reflect the Witchers’ subconscious longing for fatherhood, given their sterility caused by the potions and mutations they endure?
Sapkowski: This is, of course, the singular reason why I introduced Ciri into the story. Her role is rooted in a universally recognized fairy tale motif, where a monster (or sorcerer) saves a life and demands something unexpected in return. “You will give me something you have but do not yet know” serves as the foundation for the story A Question of Price (Kwestia ceny), which evolves into Sword of Destiny (Miecz przeznaczenia) and ultimately underpins the entire saga.
A girl bound by destiny—a child of prophecy—becomes the adopted daughter of a sterile Witcher and an equally barren sorceress. Through her, both of their lives are irrevocably changed. She is, in essence, a “damsel in distress,” who must be sought, like the Grail itself, and ultimately saved. A valid story, don’t you think?
What’s fascinating about Ciri being a McGuffin is that Sapkowski disrupts this traditional role over the course of the narrative. The “damsel in distress,” the McGuffin, evolves into a disruptive figure who begins to make her own choices and becomes an active protagonist in the story. In fact, she eventually assumes the role of the saga’s protagonist, pushing the former lead, Geralt, into a more secondary position. Does that parallel what’s happening with the transition from the original Witcher trilogy to the new game series? Just like in the books: Something ends, something begins.
Returning to the main point: Ciri is, in my view, not only the most influential character in both passive and active ways, but also the one with the most dimensionality. She undergoes profound transformations throughout her story, embodying evil as a victim and ultimately achieving redemption, granting peace to her parental figures in the process. She is a character aggressively tied to the hypertextuality of the books, particularly the Arthurian legends. Ciri is everything in The Witcher. She encapsulates the majority of the themes explored in the books.
CD Projekt RED, in my opinion, did an excellent job with her character and story in The Witcher 3, and I’m eager to see what they’ll do in The Witcher 4.
So yes, Ciri as the protagonist is not just a good choice—it’s the only choice. Ciri isThe Witcher, and The Witcheris Ciri!
Again, you missed the point at the beginning. But, I will start with something different.
I completely agree that in perfect scenario it should be down to players whether Ciri goes through mutations or not. For the reasons already mentioned by AvarageEnjoyer, I can't really see this happening, but I am on the same page that it would be best to have players decide that themselves. However we have a time skip and we will need things to happen during this gap so i wouldn't hold my breath.
I am also not saying your opinion is bad. It's just as good as any other. I am saying it's not the only one based on lore and 'one and only' correct one. It's just YOURS and that's that. That's my only point here.
But back to logical aspects:
It's obvious he meant Geralt to care about Ciri - but he didn't introduce the concept in the first book. I made the example to show you that if something wasn't already included in the books it doesn;t mean it was intentionally made impossible and non-existant by Sapkowski. That was the only point there... Your logic that if Sapkowski wanted to show that girls can be witchers he would, is unfortunately a meaningless claim, and thus my examples.
The fact that only a male survived tests doesn't suddenly mean girls can't pass them (speaking from logical point of view). Imagine a national maths competition - thousands of girls and boys taking part... And in the newspapers you then read: Three victors were girls: Layla, Tina and Anna, or three victors were boys named: Tom, Harry and Jack. Which of these titles means the other gander can never win a competition?
My point is you are taking your interpretations and you are introducing them as absolute and actual facts. As interpretations these are cool, interesting and so on. But that does NOT make them facts.
And again: your example of the court and trial is missed. We are discussing possibility and impossibility... Every suspect in a trial is by default a POSSIBLE culprit. Otherwise trials would be held not to sentence people but to proove that it was possible for them to even be a suspect... It's not a prosecutor's job to proove that it's possible that the suspect could have commited a crime... It's to proove that even if we knew it was possible that it actually happened.
As for books and TW3 endings - Books were not created by CDPR. I say the game interprets the universum splendidly, but it's an intepretation nevertheless. It's not a copy. It was never intended to be one.
And the endings? I didn't reach all the endings so I won;t make myself an expert... But I don't remember seeing any of the endings that would make impossible for Ciri to become a witcher after a few years of a time skip. As with almost all games - producers can't have every single event from a huge branched game like TW3 perfectly continued in the new game.
I understand your point. From the get go I kept repeating - there are ways to make the explanation why Ciri is a witcher in a very wrong way and in a very good way. It's great for you to show doubts to underline what are your fears for plot holes and so on. My whole point is not to criticise what hasn't yet been written and not to present own ideas as absolute facts. That's all.
I think you and I got off on the wrong foot. This might also be because I'm quite passionate about this subject and yes, that sometimes leads me to be quite headstrong.
Like I said to Average: I don't even know if devs actually follow these forums, but it's as close as I can get to talk about this proposition. After all, if yo don't talk about it, nobody can hear about it either, right? And if you want someone to hear, you gotta propose it . And it's better to do it in the beginning, not at the end. You cannot blame me for trying.
I am convinced that if CDPR could manage to make both options (witcher ciri and magical proginy but non witcher Ciri) into a valuable playthrough, it would actually become quite a masterpiece game, proving all the naysayers atm very wrong.
I don't mean to keep on russling feathers around here, because I know the feelings about witcher Ciri (i'll keep on referring to her like that as the one who passes trials to keep it shorter) are very protective around here.
As for the court case: Well I could also say there has to be enough suspision and curcomstancial evidence in order to even make someone a suspect in the first place. But the point was that with lack of evidence the case gets dropped. My point was more about who has to have the burden of proof. yes indeed, everyone who is appointed a possible suspect, but if the case got too few evidence, it gets dropped. Therefor the case itself becomes impossible. Sure later on it can be reopened later if new evidence shows up, but at the current case the possibilities get short cutted.
It's also funny to make a comparison between the trials of the grasses and a math test. A math test you can repeat if you fail it. If you fail at the trials of the grasses... well let's just politely say you won't be doing that one again... ever. Because being dead might have something to do with that. There is a small difference in stakes here. In a math test the possibilities to pass it become way higher. But yes, strictly speaking possibilities are always open. Just the higher the punishment is for failing, the higher the odds are for those possibilities to fail. And it also involves the higher the imitations are set on those possibilities to be true. if you would for example say for your math test that Layla, Tina and Anna were indeed only the winners, and lets say they only had calculators, followed all classes and lectures, while all the rest did not, the chance of the rest passing suddenly becomes a lot smaller. Not impossible, but a lot smaller. Now imagine if they were all expelled from ever repeating the test if they failed instead of being able to repeat it later?
A time skip is always a kind of a reset button. And in many cases it's needed. Because you are in trouble with things like level progression if your character in the beginning of the next game would be just as powerful as it where you left it off at the end of the previous game. But for the endings of W3, a game that almost universally gets praised as being a one of kind masterpiece. that people were so passionate about in general. To say then that all the endings don't matter... ouf... Yes, technically empress Ciri could still become a witcher, yes even the part where she supposedly die she could still be "revived". Although I don't believe she actually dies in the "evil" ending. She just goes missing and you just presume she dies.
But we have something to critisize that is already present: the game's trailer and the developpers' interviews. We can analyse those already. And we have seen quite a lot of interviews and articles coming from devs. It's quite unusual how many they have done so far. But I think it's because they have already faced quite a bit of critisism.
I agree on principle that ability to chose whether or not Ciri will mutate is really cool, but developers have said that she underwent the Trials in a very matter of fact way, which leads me to believe that a lot of story will be centered around exactly that, so this thing will be immutable. It's like how Dragon Age: Origins allows you to play all these different races and characters with different backgrounds, but they all inevitably become Grey Wardens, because that's the main crux of the entire narrative.
And that is the one thing that I hope will not be true. Or that I hope the other option as non-witcher Ciri would be still left to play. Besides all these still become become grey wardens, but they still keep all their class attributes. a mage doesn't stop being a mage when he becomes a warden. I guess she could still demand people to call her "witcher" even if she isn't one. or she could call herself one and introduce herself as one even if she is still the magical proginy and not mutated. It could be a common way she talks about herself to introduce herself to other people and hide the fact she is not. She needs to have some form of a common life after all and she does have the typical swords. And she wouldn't want literally everyone to know she is indeed this child of prophecies and no mutations. So she certainly could go for the look of a witcher just to keep her other identity safe as being a being a magical entity.
Sure, I kinda feel I underlined it a few times in my earlier responses that there's nothing personal and no bad blood on my part at all. I have been solely focused on the approach, not on you being wrong. My only point was always that you are giving an opinion and not facts. That's that. And as opinion it's all cool.
As for the math competiotion - in my country national competiotions are usually categorized by age - you can take each of them once - no retaking, at least for that particular category Obviously you don't die from not winning, but that's a comparison, not an exact 1 to 1 thing Also adding special conditions can change the view point - sure, but I believe that by default it makes perfect sense to go the way I said.
For the court part - sure, there is the part where one needs to proove the guilt and a case can be dropped. But in terms of possibility and impossibility - the suspect is by default a possible culprit, and it can LATER be prooven impossible to solve the case. That's the whole point - things are possible by default and only later can be turned into impossible. Thus, unless introduced as impossible in a book are considered possible That's just logic - not a matter of opinion.
And you are right about time skips being typically hard resets. And with this NOT being a direct continuation of the trilogy it's even more a given that we won't be keeping many choices from TW3. I think it's more like Baldur's Gate III, where we do have some mentions about BGII and what happened there but all in all it's just a completely new story set in the same universum and that's that.
Oh, and I also think that it's a good time to mention doubts and suggestions. If anyone in the CDPR can still be somehow influenced it's more possible now rather than in 2-3 years. Although I believe we have reached the point where they won;t change the absolute core things. But who knows, can;t blame anyone for trying.
Sure, I kinda feel I underlined it a few times in my earlier responses that there's nothing personal and no bad blood on my part at all. I have been solely focused on the approach, not on you being wrong. My only point was always that you are giving an opinion and not facts. That's that. And as opinion it's all cool.
As for the math competiotion - in my country national competiotions are usually categorized by age - you can take each of them once - no retaking, at least for that particular category Obviously you don't die from not winning, but that's a comparison, not an exact 1 to 1 thing Also adding special conditions can change the view point - sure, but I believe that by default it makes perfect sense to go the way I said.
For the court part - sure, there is the part where one needs to proove the guilt and a case can be dropped. But in terms of possibility and impossibility - the suspect is by default a possible culprit, and it can LATER be prooven impossible to solve the case. That's the whole point - things are possible by default and only later can be turned into impossible. Thus, unless introduced as impossible in a book are considered possible That's just logic - not a matter of opinion.
And you are right about time skips being typically hard resets. And with this NOT being a direct continuation of the trilogy it's even more a given that we won't be keeping many choices from TW3. I think it's more like Baldur's Gate III, where we do have some mentions about BGII and what happened there but all in all it's just a completely new story set in the same universum and that's that.
Oh, and I also think that it's a good time to mention doubts and suggestions. If anyone in the CDPR can still be somehow influenced it's more possible now rather than in 2-3 years. Although I believe we have reached the point where they won;t change the absolute core things. But who knows, can;t blame anyone for trying.
You can't rejoin the math competition lets say a year later or something? That seems harsh for a math competition.
Yes ok with the court case. But that also means that in the long run when things are not yet proven to be possible or impossible, impossible is still a possible outcome for all the possible subjects. And I think I've never said the word "possible" this much in a single sentence. Try read that one if you are a dislectic . all things that are possible have the possibility to be impossible unless proven otherwise. and vice versa. That's got to make sense on some level, right?
Well since so many people invested so much time in W3, carefully crafting their outcome, I think it would be foolish not to include all endings at least. without accounting in Vellguard, games like Dragon age were legendary for importable world states from previous games for example. In BG3 you play entirely with a different crew, except for with Jaheira and minsc, who are legacy characters. Who have been in Bg1, 2 and 3.
I can see Ciri justified as the lead in a main story line, but I can't see her character being enjoyable throughout the game. Perhaps, I just can't see a girl as the lead. It's like if the next Metal Gear Solid didn't have Snake as the lead but some long lost daughter. It wouldn't be enjoyable.
i mean of course ciri is going to experience some sexism... everything else would be strange. I just hope they dont make that the focus. Everyone suffers and its just a fact that even in the witcher world women are only rarely fighters.
Still think that could work with Ciri.
But just in case: [...] PLEASE NO HOUSE OF DRAGON SEASON2!!!
1) Ciri can't be a witcher
2) She's a woman and women can't pass the herbal test
3) Ciri cannot consume witcher potions
4) Ciri is of ancient blood and masters space and time
5) Ciri has green eyes
All this is explained in the Witcher 3, but the trailer shows a woman who consumes potions and who has 2 swords, but it can't be Ciri.
If she's Cirilla, I do not validate any choice made by CD PROJEKT RED concerning the Witcher 4.
1) Ciri can't be a witcher
2) She's a woman and women can't pass the herbal test
3) Ciri cannot consume witcher potions
4) Ciri is of ancient blood and masters space and time
5) Ciri has green eyes
All this is explained in the Witcher 3, but the trailer shows a woman who consumes potions and who has 2 swords, but it can't be Ciri.
If she's Cirilla, I do not validate any choice made by CD PROJEKT RED concerning the Witcher 4.
Even so, I stick to the dialogues of The Witcher 3
Ciri herself says she is not a witcher, her training started too late and she doesn't like studying alchemy and therefore she doesn't know anything about it.
And why is she chased by the wild hunt ? Because she is of Ancient Blood and has extraordinary powers such as teleportation in time and space or even divination
This video doesn't explain everything, it's just a pirouette to explain the inexplicable. Sorry, but CD PROJEKT RED is going straight into the wall with this narrative arc.
Hum... This video proves that the claims "women cannot be Witchers" or "it's impossible for women to become witcher" are false, period. There is nothing in the books nor in the game(s) which could support such claims.
And why is she chased by the wild hunt ? Because she is of Ancient Blood and has extraordinary powers such as teleportation in time and space or even divination
Not sure what this have to do with Ciri witcher... She always her elder blood as a curse and said several times in the game that if it was possible, she would get ride of it.
