Well, it might be some bug in storyline. It make more sense when Alvin and Aldersberg is one and the same person.STGhost said:I disagree and this is whyeople in Act II and II (townspeople) mention Jacques de Aldersberg already and his glistening armor. I doubt Alvin can exist in 2 planes at the same time.
I agree it would make more sense, but there certainly are things that speak against it.The other I came across today was me just saving Alvin from Salamandra in Act III and then talking to Siegfried about joining me at the base. He first told me about how he was going to get a medal from JAcques de Aldersberg and how that guy is a visionary.Maybe Alvin is Jacques son though?
I agree, there are things that speaks against it, and that´s what I don´t like- when I can´t be sure how it is. I hope authors will solve it somehow in mods or in sequel to the game.His son? Well, he might be, but why then in game he isn´t showed with his "father" in the same place at the same time?You know, I thought that amulet makes it clear, that Alvin = Aldersgerg, but then other posts speaks otherwise. I played this game just once, for neutral character, and (for example) I remember Segfried mentioning that medal from Aldersberg.STGhost said:
More likely vice versa. After all, the amulet was new when it was given to AlviinBut I still think they're the same person.STGhost said:
I don't want de Aldersberg to be Alvin. That''s not the same as his NOT being Alvin, but I'm really hoping that when we hear the end of the story, de Aldersberg will turn out to be Alvin's son or grandson or something even more removed. Admittedly, we weren't in Alvin's life for very long, but it's still an awful way for a kid we cared about to end up.
From what I have read, there have been an awful lot of insane ideas regarding Alvin's disappearance and the origins of the Grand Master.In my opinion, (my so-amazing-its-like-magic opinion) Alvin is the Grand Master – and this seems to be the general consensus. He travelled back in time when he fled the melee at Murky Waters and grew up to become the delusional master of the Order, inspired by what Geralt had told him, yet tormented by his visions and his inability to harness his extraordinary abilities.One way to look at it is this: Let us assume that Alvin was 7, and Jacque was 50, and that ‘present day’ Temeria is the day the final events of the epilogue occur.43 years before the present day, Alvin appears in the world, seven years old, with all the memories the previous years of his life – years spent in what would then be ‘the future’. He grows up to become the Grand Master. Seven years before the present day, Alvin is born. He spends seven years of his life from then to the present day, before freaking out, time warping to a supposedly better place, and living out his life to become Jacque.The idea this theory is based upon is the underlying theme of the story – destiny. When Alvin first appeared in the world, he was already a young boy – his birth was to occur in the future, and this entire sequence of events was governed by destiny – the same stuff that brought Geralt back from the dead etc.I may not have explained this thoroughly enough, but it is a perfectly logical, flawless solution. And I am a genius. If anyone has any objections I would be happy to hack them to pieces.
And I think that I might help support yours idea, although I don´t understand it completely. But I understand one think- you trying to prove, that Alvin= Jacques De Aldersberg, right?Well, I just remembered, that during the game, in Act III, there is serious talk with Marigold and Zoltan in pub Marigold asked Geralt, if he ever wanted to have a family. From various answers I picked up this: "You don´t know how much I would like to." And after some talk, Marigold proposes:"Let´s go to brothel! Brothel Mamma owes me something"- he apparently meant there would be discount My point is, that by that time when Marigold says this, Brothel Mamma is dead long ago (at least few days)- I choose to kill her, when I find out she´s a vampire!This is obvious "bug" in game, since authors presumably forgot to make a special Marigold line, accpeting that Borthel Mamma could be killed!So the result- All that stuff in game, when Alvin and Aldersberg, should be existing in one place at the same time , could be similar "bug" - I don´t know how to call it more properly. Improper lines?
Marigold asked Geralt, if he ever wanted to have a family. From various answers I picked up this: "You don´t know how much I would like to." And after some talk, Marigold proposes:"Let´s go to brothel! Brothel Mamma owes me something"- he apparently meant there would be discount My point is, that by that time when Marigold says this, Brothel Mamma is dead long ago (at least few days)- I choose to kill her, when I find out she´s a vampire!This is obvious "bug" in game, since authors presumably forgot to make a special Marigold line, accpeting that Borthel Mamma could be killed!So the result- All that stuff in game, when Alvin and Aldersberg, should be existing in one place at the same time , could be similar "bug" - I don´t know how to call it more properly. Improper lines?Having just played the game for 2nd time (after several months), and also having read some of the discussion above, I just felt the urge to post a certain anectode here...A few years ago a couple of friends and I went to see a sci-fi movie (I can't actually even remember what the movie was about any longer). After the movie we had a couple of beers in a pub, and were discussing the plot, analyzing all the details, basically trying to figure out and make sense of what we just saw... the discussion was getting pretty heated when, finally, one of the guys - who'd actually been quiet all the time - suddenly chimed in: "I can't believe you guys are trying so hard to make sense of a movie about... fricken MONSTERS FROM OUTER SPACE!!!".Needless to say, that had us ROFLing for a while, but it actually stopped any further discussion immediately, and for good.The point I am trying to make is this: The Witcher is just entertainment, and it's quality entertainment too (I love the game). But there's no point in analyzing every tiny detail of the plot and its execution, because all these details are just a backdrop - of secondary importance - for telling, and trying to immerse the gamer, in an interesting story.In my mind, the intention of the authors has been clear: Alvin *is* the GM, and travels back in time in Act IV. Like someoene has posted, the game literally rubs it in your face (although, personally, it took me a while, after finishing the game for the first time, for this to sink in)The fact that they might have overlooked some details (that now cause people to question this plot line), or have been imperfect in the delivery of some of the elements of the story, is pretty much to be expected with a complex project like this . Example: the grandmaster doesn't look anything like Alvin... well, the making of 3D models had been outsourced to a third party company, so it's possible that CDPR have overlooked the inconsistency. Or they thought it not important . Or just didn't have enough time to make the correction. A "bug" of sorts, yes (as Tarhiel above has put it) - and there are more of those in the Witcher. Becaue there are literally thousands of little details of various nature involved in creating a game like this, and it's nearly impossible to get them all right (in time for release, anyway ). I mean, the the staff at CDPR are more likely just normal people, rather than mutant game developers trained for the job form an erly age in some secluded stronghold akin to Kaer Morhen, conscious of the fact that any single mistake they make may cost them their life .Trying to scrutinize every tiny detail and building complex theories based one or two of these is akin to "mistaking the reflection of the stars in a lake for the stars themselves" (the quote is actually one of the most memorable ones from the witcher Saga). Of course, the fact that people are willing to spend their time doing that, demonstrates that the game has actually succeeded admirably in it's major goal: creating a deep, immersive and entertaining story.Interesitingly enough, this kind of goes in line with Sapkowski's writing. He has been quoted saying that while he has made every effort to make the Witcher world consistent and believeable, down to a tiny detail, it doesn't bother him at all if he occasionally fails in this respect (small inconsistiencies in the books exist, and have been pointed out by the fans). And I tend to agree - the real point of the books is to tell an interesting, thought and emotion-provoking story, with a good narrative and cracking dialogues (and a ton of subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle references to real world history and literature etc. sprinkled in, but that's just Sapkowski's style). The world in which the story takes place , the details of some events etc. are just a backdrop, and if there are inconsistiencies - so be it. It shouldn't really detract from the entertainment provided. As to the final cut-scene with the assassin, personally I think that all that can be inferred from it is this: There's some person of organization with sufficient resources to be able to either create or hire a witcher-like assassin. And, that person/organization wants Foltest dead for some reason. Period.Clearly, a starting point for a possible sequel, in which Geralt is busy unraveling who that person/oirganization is, and what their goals, actions, and motives are (and obvioisly, laying some serious smack on tehm as well). Trying to figure out the plot in advance , before the sequel has actually seen the daylight, makes no sense IMO, even if it makes for an interesting and creative past-time . In fact, I am willing to bet a healthy amount of orens that CDProjekt themselves don't have all the details of the story worked out yet, there mayeven possibly exist severeal different "prototype" versions of the story, one of which will become "the one" by vritue of a decision on the part of the creative leadership at CDP (oh, the triviality of it all).All we can hope for is that it's at least as good, and hopefully even better than the original game,
). I mean, the the staff at CDPR are more likely just normal people, rather than mutant game developers trained for the job form an erly age in some secluded stronghold akin to Kaer Morhen, conscious of the fact that any single mistake they make may cost them their life .Trying to scrutinize every tiny detail and building complex theories based one or two of these is akin to "mistaking the reflection of the stars in a lake for the stars themselves" (the quote is actually one of the most memorable ones from the witcher Saga). Of course, the fact that people are willing to spend their time doing that, demonstrates that the game has actually succeeded admirably in it's major goal: creating a deep, immersive and entertaining story.Interesitingly enough, this kind of goes in line with Sapkowski's writing. He has been quoted saying that while he has made every effort to make the Witcher world consistent and believeable, down to a tiny detail, it doesn't bother him at all if he occasionally fails in this respect (small inconsistiencies in the books exist, and have been pointed out by the fans). And I tend to agree - the real point of the books is to tell an interesting, thought and emotion-provoking story, with a good narrative and cracking dialogues (and a ton of subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle references to real world history and literature etc. sprinkled in, but that's just Sapkowski's style). The world in which the story takes place , the details of some events etc. are just a backdrop, and if there are inconsistiencies - so be it. It shouldn't really detract from the entertainment provided. As to the final cut-scene with the assassin, personally I think that all that can be inferred from it is this: There's some person of organization with sufficient resources to be able to either create or hire a witcher-like assassin. And, that person/organization wants Foltest dead for some reason. Period.Clearly, a starting point for a possible sequel, in which Geralt is busy unraveling who that person/oirganization is, and what their goals, actions, and motives are (and obvioisly, laying some serious smack on tehm as well). Trying to figure out the plot in advance , before the sequel has actually seen the daylight, makes no sense IMO, even if it makes for an interesting and creative past-time . In fact, I am willing to bet a healthy amount of orens that CDProjekt themselves don't have all the details of the story worked out yet, there mayeven possibly exist severeal different "prototype" versions of the story, one of which will become "the one" by vritue of a decision on the part of the creative leadership at CDP (oh, the triviality of it all).All we can hope for is that it's at least as good, and hopefully even better than the original game,been cleaning up the post a bit, and I have actually removed the line where I apologised before reading your replygamewidow said:No need to apologise for rambling. Seems like a very nicely worded argument to me. One with which i wholeheartedly agree
anyways time for me to get some sleep ... I watched Star Treck before the reruns (OMG - I'm old!) and I remember that episode well. One thing about the Star Trek original is that Rodenberry focused so much on the "human condition" and all the characters had great depth... it wasn't just "scifi" (ie: Spock's solemn "he knows") I see a lot of that in the Witcher @ times - the choices you make will last a lifetime... you can just "feel" the tension right as you click a choice (@ least 1st playthrough) -Am I just "out there" or what?
I like to use "Back to the Future" rules for time travel instances and it's perfectly normal for there to be two of you in those rules.The Doc warns Marty not to talk to himself though. You don't want to mess with the space time continuum.SimonBrooke said: