Emhyr - The Game Non-Character vs the Book.

[LiarOnElmstreet]

Witcher games were never about completely explaining all things to the player... you could find a lot of info in the background, if you were careful..

look what they did with Alvin..

Spoiler

you could find a letter from him, explaining some things from W1, yet that was completely random thing you could not even notice,if you were not careful...

At least they had a not so subtle hint.

But you're right, the books also never explained everything in detail. Although they only did not explain what had not to be explained, anyway. Yet they never left you wondering (At least not to the extent that one would assume, that the reason for it was just lazy writing.).

 

[jj284b]

games came from books, they use the material mentioned in the books.. majority of characters are set there. CDPR didnt explained who Dandelion or Zoltan are, or Yennefer, or Ciri... practically majority of game characters were mentioned in the books before except for very few new ones..
anyway, in that post, i didnt meant Sapkowski book, but texts in the game... you can find tons of books in the game that mention certain aspects of the story.. Opposition in NIlfgard is one of books that describes what Emhyr is facing home for example...you just need to find those books and read them... (Wild Hunt book for example describes how ordinary folk perceive Wild Hunt themselves.. its full of myths, but with some grain of truth)

 

[LiarOnElmstreet]

games came from books, they use the material mentioned in the books.. majority of characters are set there. CDPR didnt explained who Dandelion or Zoltan are, or Yennefer, or Ciri... practically majority of game characters were mentioned in the books before except for very few new ones..
anyway, in that post, i didnt meant Sapkowski book, but texts in the game... you can find tons of books in the game that mention certain aspects of the story.. Opposition in NIlfgard is one of books that describes what Emhyr is facing home for example...you just need to find those books and read them...

I'v read a lot of them, but no every last one. But it is also not that important regarding the topic we are arguing about: Did they break with the Books from Sapkowski? And from my perspective the only thing I can say is: Yes they did.

But as I said in my first post: It is also not that important for the game. It's still a great game. But the way I see it, it merely qualifies as Fan Fiction not as a real continuation of Sapkowskis Story. And again: That is a totally okay thing.

 

[Willowhugger]

I'v read a lot of them, but no every last one. But it is also not that important regarding the topic we are arguing about: Did they break with the Books from Sapkowski? And from my perspective the only thing I can say is: Yes they did.

But as I said in my first post: It is also not that important for the game. It's still a great game. But the way I see it, it merely qualifies as Fan Fiction not as a real continuation of Sapkowskis Story. And again: That is a totally okay thing.

Eh, there's a difference between Licensed Derivative Work and Fanfiction.

Not the least being approval of the author and professional writing quality.

They're an alternate universe not just the work of some crazy fans on their computer (though it is that too).

 

[jj284b]

i know, and i dont think they did.. actually, you would do completely different decisions after reading the books than you would do if you didn't read them... for example, decision to bring Ciri to Emhyr is actually more controversial if you read the novel.

Spoiler

i would never bring Ciri to him no matter what.. he wanted to "marry" his own daughter and have kid with her because of prophecy.. that alone disqualified him from her life forever..

 

[LiarOnElmstreet]

Eh, there's a difference between Licensed Derivative Work and Fanfiction.

Not the least being approval of the author and professional writing quality.

They're an alternate universe not just the work of some crazy fans on their computer (though it is that too).

Pot{ay}to - Pot{aa}to

Nah, sorry. That was a joke. Not that important. Then let's call it a licensed alternative universe. I'm just sad that the game doesn't continue Sapkowskis World up to my standards. (And to forestall the nexts arguments: My Standards are purely subjective, I know. But that's what this place is all about. Us giving our subjective Feedback.)

 

[Willowhugger]

Eh, I think the game improves on Sapkowski's works in some ways and fails in others.

It's the nature of the beast.

For example, I *DO* prefer the slightly less MALEVOLENT Nilfgaard.

 

[LiarOnElmstreet]

It sure is (Nature of the beast). As I already said, it's still a great game and every medium has the right to interpret it to it's own needs. I prefer the mad Radovid of the game. I think it's good character development and believable.

 

[CostinRaz]

Meh, Radovid the Mad they should call him then. But anyway.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Eh, I think the game improves on Sapkowski's works in some ways and fails in others.

The game doesn't improve on Sapkowski's work at all. The books are better than the (narrative in the) games in every possible way.

The games do some video gamey magic and it's awesome but that doesn't improve the basic quality of the narrative, sorry. Emhyr is a good example for that. His video game NPC is a boring one-dimensional character without any real depth. If you don't know the books he is probably among the most boring and shallow major NPCs in the game. If you know the books you can of course build on your knowledge and just use the information to flesh out the NPC in your imagination but that doesn't change the fact that the game doesn't add anything to the way more complex and deep character that was established in the books. In the game Emhyr doesn't show any new nuance or any new character trait. On the opposite, he shows much less than in the books. In TW3 Emhyr is always just the grumpy old emperor who acts like he had a stick in his ass all the time, no matter if he is shown in public or private. In the books there was a rather big difference between the "private" Emhyr (like in personal, one-to-one conversation with Geralt) and the "public" Emhyr who has to be the mighty emperor of Nilfgaard. The game fails to catch this distinction. In the game Emhyr is just a cliché and not a believable person himself I'm afraid.

 

[Willowhugger]

The game doesn't improve on Sapkowski's work at all. The books are better than the (narrative in the) games in every possible way.

The games do some video gamey magic and it's awesome but that doesn't improve the basic quality of the narrative, sorry. Emhyr is a good example for that. His video game NPC is a boring one-dimensional character without any real depth. If you don't know the books he is probably among the most boring and shallow major NPCs in the game. If you know the books you can of course build on your knowledge and just use the information to flesh out the NPC in your imagination but that doesn't change the fact that the game doesn't add anything to the way more complex and deep character that was established in the books. In the game Emhyr doesn't show any new nuance or any new character trait. On the opposite, he shows much less than in the books. In TW3 Emhyr is always just the grumpy old emperor who acts like he had a stick in his ass all the time, no matter if he is shown in public or private. In the books there was a rather big difference between the "private" Emhyr (like in personal, one-to-one conversation with Geralt) and the "public" Emhyr who has to be the mighty emperor of Nilfgaard. The game fails to catch this distinction. In the game Emhyr is just a cliché and not a believable person himself I'm afraid.

Just because I'm a fan of Sapkowski and his narratives doesn't mean I find I agree with him on 100% of his choices. The bit regarding Emhyr is one which we don't know the full characterization or level of his backstory but there's a point regarding the medium that this is not so much, IMHO, missing so much as deliberately withheld. I believe they wanted newcomers to the series to give Emhyr a fair shake.

The thing I believe CDPR improves on Sapkowski's writing is due to my belief that from the end of Time of Contempt onward, he gets more and more "grimdark" to the deterrent of his narrative. Everything becomes utterly crap and theres all manner of horrid sexual and mental abuse which just really became unenjoyable to read at times.

The Witcher series is a more lighthearted (THAT'S HOW DARK THE BOOKS GOT--yes, the GAMES are lighthearted by comparison) as well as more fun. Darkness does not equal good writing and I just got apathetic toward the end.

Re: Emhyr

I'm not sure there's a way to share Emhyr's backstory in game without making him look like a complete monster because, well, what he did was pretty damn monstrous.

"Yes, well, I kind of wanted to capture Ciri to force her to bear my children after murdering you. I wouldn't abuse her, just force her to bear my incest babies after killing the people who raised her. Oh and I also invaded her homeland and torched it but I really didn't mean to. I also accidentally killed her mom. I never loved her, though, so it's not like that would be a big deal, right?"

 

[Charcharo]

In the end that is very subjective. I did not like only how quickly he ended the series... I have nothing against kinda dark endings... but he went all GoT Season 5 Episode 10 on us in the last book. Killing everyone... and then kinda killing Yen and Geralt.

Too bad re-editing literature to give more info is seen as bad thing ... aint so in gaming.

As for the games? Despite my constant bickering and nitpicking on certain perceived issues.... the games are head and shoulders above what is good EVEN in literature.
Whilst still being awesome games.

In other words.. Witcher 3 is what I would consider a classic work for its medium . AND remediation as a whole NO MATTER the medium.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Just because I'm a fan of Sapkowski and his narratives doesn't mean I find I agree with him on 100% of his choices. The bit regarding Emhyr is one which we don't know the full characterization or level of his backstory but there's a point regarding the medium that this is not so much, IMHO, missing so much as deliberately withheld. I believe they wanted newcomers to the series to give Emhyr a fair shake.

To give Emhyr a fair share? How is making a boring, one-dimensional character without ANY depth or even nuances in characterization giving newcomers to the series a fair shake? I'd say pretty much the opposite is true. In TW3 Emhyr is just a cliché villain. I know that video games are quite limited in terms of characterization compared to novels but when we talk about Emhyr it's just a lot lost potential...

The thing I believe CDPR improves on Sapkowski's writing is due to my belief that from the end of Time of Contempt onward, he gets more and more "grimdark" to the deterrent of his narrative. Everything becomes utterly crap and theres all manner of horrid sexual and mental abuse which just really became unenjoyable to read at times.

The Witcher series is a more lighthearted (THAT'S HOW DARK THE BOOKS GOT--yes, the GAMES are lighthearted by comparison) as well as more fun. Darkness does not equal good writing and I just got apathetic toward the end."

You equal your own taste in terms of narrative topics with quality of writing. I can feel with you that the books get too grimdark for you but that doesn't mean that Sapkowski's writing suffered. It's just not your cup of tea anymore. Good writing is about consistency, about believability, about depth of characters, about having a good idea of the relationships and events in your narrative. All that is true to Sapkowski on a much higher level than it could be said about the games, TW3 in particular. That doesn't mean that Sapkowski's novels are without flaws or shortcomings. It's just that the games don't improve on them in any way in terms of narrative quality and writing. And no, they are way beyond good novels in terms of narrative. That's not because they are badly staged but because they are limited due to their video gamey nature.

And if you ask me the games are still way TOO light-hearted especially since they lack a certain balance of topics (like the almost total exclusion of sexual and mental abuse) and therefor suffer from narrative inconsistency...


Edit: The end of The Lady of the Lake is almost PERFECT. I couldn't think of any better end for the saga tbh. The end of TW3 is a pathetic joke in comparison.

 

[Songborn]

Emhyr needed a lot more time and care in order to properly implement his rather EPIC book story, something that did not seem to be possible in a game that has to juggle so many antagonists that have little crossover aside from the fact that killing Radovid strenghtens Emhyr.
I'd have loved to see Emhyr get the Bloody Baron treatment, but he works for me as a support character well enough.

 

[Willowhugger]

To give Emhyr a fair share? How is making a boring, one-dimensional character without ANY depth or even nuances in characterization giving newcomers to the series a fair shake? I'd say pretty much the opposite is true. In TW3 Emhyr is just a cliché villain. I know that video games are quite limited in terms of characterization compared to novels but when we talk about Emhyr it's just a lot lost potential...

How do you figure he's a villain at all?

You equal your own taste in terms of narrative topics with quality of writing. I can feel with you that the books get too grimdark for you but that doesn't mean that Sapkowski's writing suffered. It's just not your cup of tea anymore. Good writing is about consistency, about believability, about depth of characters, about having a good idea of the relationships and events in your narrative. All that is true to Sapkowski on a much higher level than it could be said about the games, TW3 in particular. That doesn't mean that Sapkowski's novels are without flaws or shortcomings. It's just that the games don't improve on them in any way in terms of narrative quality and writing. And no, they are way beyond good novels in terms of narrative. That's not because they are badly staged but because they are limited due to their video gamey nature.

And if you ask me the games are still way TOO light-hearted especially since they lack a certain balance of topics (like the almost total exclusion of sexual and mental abuse) and therefor suffer from narrative inconsistency...

I'm a Master of Literature on my way to a Doctorate so believe me when I say that I know what I'm talking about that the quality of one's writing can only be judged by personal tastes beyond the technical. Technically, Sapkowski is a superior writer for conveying information as well as mood, ambience, and setting in a suprisingly small amount of text. Like Tolkien, you don't need much text to know EVERYTHING you need to know about the North in a few books. However, the nature of literary criticism is that you must judge the affect it has on the audience as well as the level of emotion the audience inflicts upon it. The idea that Sapkowski's darkness became gratuitous as the torture of certain characters is an entirely valid criticism even if it may remain to certain reader's tastes.

That's the nature of art, baby.

Everyone's a critic.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

How do you figure he's a villain at all?

Whatever you want him to call. He's certainly not Geralt's best friend. But it's not important how you label him. The point is that he lacks complexity and depth as a person, especially compared to the books.

I'm a Master of Literature on my way to a Doctorate so believe me when I say that I know what I'm talking about that the quality of one's writing can only be judged by personal tastes beyond the technical. Technically, Sapkowski is a superior writer for conveying information as well as mood, ambience, and setting in a suprisingly small amount of text. Like Tolkien, you don't need much text to know EVERYTHING you need to know about the North in a few books. However, the nature of literary criticism is that you must judge the affect it has on the audience as well as the level of emotion the audience inflicts upon it. The idea that Sapkowski's darkness became gratuitous as the torture of certain characters is an entirely valid criticism even if it may remain to certain reader's tastes.

That's the nature of art, baby.

Everyone's a critic.

If you think so there is no point in stating that the games improved upon Sapkowski's work. Improvement is the wrong term here and you know that...

And if you ask me I think Sapkowski has a quite strong emotional effect on the audience. I even think the strength of his work gets better during the saga. I think the last two books are among the most impactful ones. They are perhaps "too much" for you but that's on purpose. The books are challenging and unforgiving but that's not a bad thing in itself. I don't think Sapkowski ever uses torture, abuse or anything else of that kind just for sake of using it. It always serves a deeper purpose in the narrative, to either challenge the main characters (Geralt and Ciri mostly) or to challenge the reader (or often both). The purpose of the grimdark and "all bad" atmosphere is to give the chance to master the challenge and to become a better person. That's true for both main characters of the books. Remember Homer's Ilias? There is no joy in it either. It's a story of travelling from one bad stop to the other, a tour de force so to say. But there is a always a purpose to it. Sapkowski just brough in the "real dirt" into the formula. And in the end the pentalogy has a pretty decent katharsis in The Lady of the Lake, something the games never had. Nothing in the games is as emotionally engaging and thought provoking and even troubling than a lot of the story bits in the novels, especially in the last stages of the saga.

But it's good to know that you at least agree with me that Sapkowski is by far the superior technical writer.

 

[Charcharo]

I'm a Master of Literature on my way to a Doctorate so believe me when I say that I know what I'm talking about that the quality of one's writing can only be judged by personal tastes beyond the technical. Technically, Sapkowski is a superior writer for conveying information as well as mood, ambience, and setting in a suprisingly small amount of text. Like Tolkien, you don't need much text to know EVERYTHING you need to know about the North in a few books. However, the nature of literary criticism is that you must judge the affect it has on the audience as well as the level of emotion the audience inflicts upon it. The idea that Sapkowski's darkness became gratuitous as the torture of certain characters is an entirely valid criticism even if it may remain to certain reader's tastes.
Everyone's a critic.

Now dont get me the wrong way (please dont, as I believe in your academic worth, have been a reader before) but I had some other person that was supposedly a Master of Literature tell me how Witcher (books) were low quality drivel (unlike the games) and the Sapkowski was an objectively bad author and there was no way for me to argue since I was not an academic of that field...
That left a VERY sour taste in my mouth.

Should I believe him? Is there something like that? (I mean... to be fair and honest,) I dont study literature, but when I was in my (technically speaking elite high school) our teacher was also a university teacher and she told us that the quality we give to certain authors, is to us ultimately subjective. And that their overall literary worth is something that will be discovered some time down the line.
I think that was what happened with Moby Dick and Tolkien?

I believe that the ultimate quality we assign to a work of art is simply put... subjective.
For example I do believe that Glukhovsky is a very good and talented author. That guy said he too was trash ...

I do belive that SOME things are objective.
For example graphical fidelity in a game is an objective thing. But ART STYLE? Subjective! Just to give an example.
Sorry for this confused rambling Gotta get it out of my system

 

[Willowhugger]

Now dont get me the wrong way (please dont, as I believe in your academic worth, have been a reader before) but I had some other person that was supposedly a Master of Literature tell me how Witcher (books) were low quality drivel (unlike the games) and the Sapkowski was an objectively bad author and there was no way for me to argue since I was not an academic of that field...
That left a VERY sour taste in my mouth.

Should I believe him? Is there something like that? (I mean... to be fair and honest,) I dont study literature, but when I was in my (technically speaking elite high school) our teacher was also a university teacher and she told us that the quality we give to certain authors, is to us ultimately subjective. And that their overall literary worth is something that will be discovered some time down the line.
I think that was what happened with Moby Dick and Tolkien?

I believe that the ultimate quality we assign to a work of art is simply put... subjective.
For example I do believe that Glukhovsky is a very good and talented author. That guy said he too was trash ...

I do belive that SOME things are objective.
For example graphical fidelity in a game is an objective thing. But ART STYLE? Subjective! Just to give an example.
Sorry for this confused rambling Gotta get it out of my system

Because you asked and not at all because I like talking about myself, what you're encountering is the Literary Fantasy Ghetto which is something that has existed since the 1960s and has only now been starting to be seriously challenged. Basically, there's two schools of thought about Fantasy in Literature studies and thats:

1. It's awesome and the oldest proudest tradition of literature there is.
2. It's stupid because REALZ authors write about REALZ stuff.

You can guess which of these two I think is complete bullshit.

Patrick Rothfuss, who is with me on this, has a decent summation of the snobbery in academia which pisses me off as it makes no attempt to actually objectively look at the writing of individuals like Sapkowski.

 

[Charcharo]

Because you asked and not at all because I like talking about myself, what you're encountering is the Literary Fantasy Ghetto which is something that has existed since the 1960s and has only now been starting to be seriously challenged. Basically, there's two schools of thought about Fantasy in Literature studies and thats:

1. It's awesome and the oldest proudest tradition of literature there is.
2. It's stupid because REALZ authors write about REALZ stuff.

You can guess which of these two I think is complete bullshit.

Patrick Rothfuss, who is with me on this, has a decent summation of the snobbery in academia which pisses me off as it makes no attempt to actually objectively look at the writing of individuals like Sapkowski.

I really thank you about this as you have sparred me the encounter with a different group.

You see, he told me that it is bad fantasy, but that there are some that are OBJECTIVELY (spits) better. Like ASOIAF (which I love, but I dont like MORE than the Witcher, just as MUCH as the Witcher), The Wheel of Time (which I do not like, but normally wont badmouth) and others (which I am yet to read, I am FAIRLY new to the genre).

I get liking certain works more than others. I know my science fiction. VERY well. And have preferences. Does not mean that another fan of the genre cant like something I hate or vice versa.

Basically, he was not against fantasy as a genre per say, though I do THANK you for this info, it might be helpful. He was SPECIFICALLY against Witcher and Sapkowski as they were "third-tier" fantasy in his eyes. And worse than mediocre. And that that was an objective fact...

I am not a person with THAT much experience with fantasy. I started reading 3 years ago . But I do think I have read a lot of other genres, and its closest (I think), Science Fiction. I dont think I am that stupid or that what I was taught is wrong.

 

[Songborn]

Personally I am really in two minds about the books. On one hand it has interesting approaches and plots, on the other I felt it was too focused on satirizing other fantasy tropes. I am going to read the German translations soon which some people tell me are better than the English ones, maybe I will feel better about it then.