Games with new MC's and settings (with Lady of the Lake discussion)

[algroshaw]

Games with new MC's and settings (with Lady of the Lake discussion)

I don't understand what is so wrong with continuing story? bioware refuses to re-use MCs in DA, and it kinda ruins the series.

I don't care one bit about the inquisitor, nor hawke. because they just disappear after one game. and they are underdeveloped because they are not going to continue with them.

With TW, I can't complain too too much, because at least we got a trilogy. but i don't see the need to finish with geralt- the whole IP is about geralt- not the witchers or the world, but THE witcher.
Is it just people's short attention spans and the need to start fresh so newcomers buy the game without having to play the previous installments? I think this way of thinking just ruins what games could be. it makes games more shallow because you can't build an emotional bond over a series- you get a 20 hour game and you're done.

I'm sure CDPR would make a good tw4 spinoff, but honestly, I'd rather just keep it in the Geralt area. I wouldn't mind a spinoff about Ciri, but I'd still just rather hacvve it continue Geralt's story. Just like I'd rather DA2 be about the warden.

The only time I would agree with the new protag is with ME4, because the me trilogy was good and it wrapped it up enough. But I would've been just as hapy with ME4 with Shepard

 

[Ravici]

I don't understand what is so wrong with continuing story? bioware refuses to re-use MCs in DA, and it kinda ruins the series.

I don't care one bit about the inquisitor, nor hawke. because they just disappear after one game. and they are underdeveloped because they are not going to continue with them.

With TW, I can't complain too too much, because at least we got a trilogy. but i don't see the need to finish with geralt- the whole IP is about geralt- not the witchers or the world, but THE witcher.
Is it just people's short attention spans and the need to start fresh so newcomers buy the game without having to play the previous installments? I think this way of thinking just ruins what games could be. it makes games more shallow because you can't build an emotional bond over a series- you get a 20 hour game and you're done.

I'm sure CDPR would make a good tw4 spinoff, but honestly, I'd rather just keep it in the Geralt area. I wouldn't mind a spinoff about Ciri, but I'd still just rather hacvve it continue Geralt's story. Just like I'd rather DA2 be about the warden.

The only time I would agree with the new protag is with ME4, because the me trilogy was good and it wrapped it up enough. But I would've been just as hapy with ME4 with Shepard

20hrs? I'm sorry, I'm sure that was a lovely post but everything stopped when I saw those words :/

 

[luc0s]

the whole IP is about geralt- not the witchers or the world, but THE witcher.

This is false. The Witcher has always been as much about Geralt's friends as it is about Geralt himself. In fact in the book series Geralt takes a back seat after the first 2 novels and Ciri becomes the main character.

Just because you play as Geralt in the games doesn't mean everything revolves around him. There is much more to The Witcher than just Geralt.

 

[algroshaw]

This is false. The Witcher has always been as much about Geralt's friends as it is about Geralt himself. In fact in the book series Geralt takes a back seat after the first 2 novels and Ciri becomes the main character.

Just because you play as Geralt in the games doesn't mean everything revolves around him. There is much more to The Witcher than just Geralt.

Geralt was the MC in every book- although the author did that thing authors do where segments jump from character to character, but I'm sure the asuthor would agree the saga was about geralt, "the witcher", and his adventures involving saving his daughter and whatnot.

@the guy calling me out on my 20 hour comment- good for you. I'm glad you stopped. you likely wouldn't be able to grasp the rest. Because clearly, I was not talking about the witcher trilogy being 20 hours- I was talking about average games being a 20 hour adventure with a character, then it's done.

 

[Ravici]

Geralt was the MC in every book- although the author did that thing authors do where segments jump from character to character, but I'm sure the asuthor would agree the saga was about geralt, "the witcher", and his adventures involving saving his daughter and whatnot.

@the guy calling me out on my 20 hour comment- good for you. I'm glad you stopped. you likely wouldn't be able to grasp the rest. Because clearly, I was not talking about the witcher trilogy being 20 hours- I was talking about average games being a 20 hour adventure with a character, then it's done.

I think your problem is assuming people don't make attachments to characters. There is a reason Comicon has crazy people who dress in such insane outfits (and I only say that out of sheer jealousy that I could never be creative enough to get these things so spot on), who devote hours if not weeks/months/years of their lives to their creations.

Lets think of some recent ones... Geralt (obviously), Shepherd, Booker, De Santa, Vault Boy, and lets not forget Lara.

I think what we need to remember is these need to have a cut off. We need to move on to the next generation before we become bored of them. (saying that I did see a bit suggesting Sabre Man may come back some time and I last played that sucker back in Knightlore, a true classic).

We need to cycle them, have new ones come along to refresh what's going on in games and such. Let's face it, you are actually suffering the same condition as many of the rest of us... getting old lol

 

[luc0s]

Geralt was the MC in every book- although the author did that thing authors do where segments jump from character to character, but I'm sure the asuthor would agree the saga was about geralt, "the witcher", and his adventures involving saving his daughter and whatnot.
\

How can Geralt be the main character if 80% of the books are written from Ciri's point of view? If Ciri and Geralt were together all the time like Sherlock and Watson then you might have a point (Sherlock is the main character in Sherlock Holmes, but the books are written from Watson's point of view), but Geralt isn't even there with Ciri most of the time.

Not to mention that the entire main plot of The Witcher saga revolves around Ciri.

 

[VegitoReborn]

How can Geralt be the main character if 80% of the books are written from Ciri's point of view? If Ciri and Geralt were together all the time like Sherlock and Watson then you might have a point (Sherlock is the main character in Sherlock Holmes, but the books are written from Watson's point of view), but Geralt isn't even there with Ciri most of the time.

Not to mention that the entire main plot of The Witcher saga revolves around Ciri.

I agree, however (And I know the creator of the saga doesn't believe or feel that the games are cannon and believes they are heaps of dog shit) like a different post I made, why is Alvin even introduced into the game series? Was their original goal to make Alvin take Ciri's place in the games? But last minute they decided not to? His whole character arc in the first game and then appearing to be the grand master at the end seemed very sudden and yet completely not even apart of the story. Heck In TW3 we have several mentions to TW2 and only a few mentions of TW1 but no mention of Alvin and or the Grand Master and what he did and what the King of the Wild Hunt wanted from Geralt back than, Hell they had a Memory Amnesia Geralt beat the King of the Wild Hunt in that game in his specter form, so why the hell a full memory Geralt would have to use 4-5 sorceresses in order to battle The King of the Wild Hunt in his true form? I understand they were holding the ship and the military at bay but it really didn't work in the end.

 

[luc0s]

I agree, however (And I know the creator of the saga doesn't believe or feel that the games are cannon and believes they are heaps of dog shit) like a different post I made, why is Alvin even introduced into the game series? Was their original goal to make Alvin take Ciri's place in the games? But last minute they decided not to? His whole character arc in the first game and then appearing to be the grand master at the end seemed very sudden and yet completely not even apart of the story. Heck In TW3 we have several mentions to TW2 and only a few mentions of TW1 but no mention of Alvin and or the Grand Master and what he did and what the King of the Wild Hunt wanted from Geralt back than, Hell they had a Memory Amnesia Geralt beat the King of the Wild Hunt in that game in his specter form, so why the hell a full memory Geralt would have to use 4-5 sorceresses in order to battle The King of the Wild Hunt in his true form? I understand they were holding the ship and the military at bay but it really didn't work in the end.

I agree. The Witcher 1's plot and story is a mess if you take into account the books and the grand overarching plot.

I think CDPR didn't quite know what they wanted to do with The Witcher game series when they developed TW1. I remember them saying the originally wanted to make TW1 more like Dragon Age, were you can create your own witcher protagonist and play as yourself. Only later during the development cycle of TW1 did they decide to scrap that idea and make Geralt the protagonist of the game, which meant they had to resurrect Geralt as he died in the books.

I feel that TW1 has very few ties to the books. TW2 doesn't really have many ties to the books either. Only The Witcher 3 is really heavily tied to the book series.

 

[VegitoReborn]

I agree. The Witcher 1's plot and story is a mess if you take into account the books and the grand overarching plot.

I think CDPR didn't quite know what they wanted to do with The Witcher game series when they developed TW1. I remember them saying the originally wanted to make TW1 more like Dragon Age, were you can create your own witcher protagonist and play as yourself. Only later during the development cycle of TW1 did they decide to scrap that idea and make Geralt the protagonist of the game, which meant they had to resurrect Geralt as he died in the books.

I feel that TW1 has very few ties to the books. TW2 doesn't really have many ties to the books either. Only The Witcher 3 is really heavily tied to the book series.

You do know that in TW2 and even more so in TW3 Geralt states that he didn't die right? He says that as Yennifer had healed his wound he fell unconscious and Yennifer lay dying because of the amount of energy she had used before the death blow with the pitchfork and then to heal him it was too much for her. And Then Ciri teleported them to the isle of apples or whatever where they started to make a recovery. Which completely contradicts the story of TW1 statements where Zoltan and Dandelion and Shani all say that he was dead and that a day or so later they pushed him off in a barge and that was that as they say good bye, Yennifer was dead as well. Ciri never was in that story according to the first game, then Geralt in TW2 states during talking to Letho the last time that he saw everything and that it was at his death Ciri teleported him and Yennifer to the Isles where they actually didn't die. Complete contradiction.

 

[luc0s]

You do know that in TW2 and even more so in TW3 Geralt states that he didn't die right? He says that as Yennifer had healed his wound he fell unconscious and Yennifer lay dying because of the amount of energy she had used before the death blow with the pitchfork and then to heal him it was too much for her. And Then Ciri teleported them to the isle of apples or whatever where they started to make a recovery. Which completely contradicts the story of TW1 statements where Zoltan and Dandelion and Shani all say that he was dead and that a day or so later they pushed him off in a barge and that was that as they say good bye, Yennifer was dead as well. Ciri never was in that story according to the first game, then Geralt in TW2 states during talking to Letho the last time that he saw everything and that it was at his death Ciri teleported him and Yennifer to the Isles where they actually didn't die. Complete contradiction.

And you do know that in the books Geralt DID die right? CDPR changed the story a bit in order to be able to bring back Geralt.

In TW1 they went with the book's story of Geralt being death after he got stabbed. In TW1 they suggested he somehow got resurrected. In TW2 and TW3 they slightly retconned this by saying Geralt never died and got saved by Ciri.

 

[VegitoReborn]

And you do know that in the books Geralt DID die right? CDPR changed the story a bit in order to be able to bring back Geralt.

In TW1 they went with the book's story of Geralt being death after he got stabbed. In TW1 they suggested he somehow got resurrected. In TW2 and TW3 they slightly retconned this by saying Geralt never died and got saved by Ciri.

Yeah I knew that, however didn't Yennifer die too?

 

[algroshaw]

And you do know that in the books Geralt DID die right? CDPR changed the story a bit in order to be able to bring back Geralt.

In TW1 they went with the book's story of Geralt being death after he got stabbed. In TW1 they suggested he somehow got resurrected. In TW2 and TW3 they slightly retconned this by saying Geralt never died and got saved by Ciri.

Isn't it semantics? he got stabbed then died and got resurrected, or he got stabbed and got healed.. either way is there really a difference? I was under the impression that he did die and ciri and the unicorn resurrected him, kind of like using electricity paddles on a person who has been dead for a few minutes.

 

[GuyNwah]

Geralt and Yennefer did die, and Ciri transported them to a place of the dead. Interpretations that they were not really dead cheapen the story, and (I believe) falsify it. Doing so sucks the meaning out of Yennefer's inability to revive Geralt, and Ciri's grief at leaving them.

They awakened, by some means not stated, in that place of the dead. Their return to the world of the living is a story that Sapkowski did not tell, but CDPR has done.

 

[VegitoReborn]

Geralt and Yennefer did die, and Ciri transported them to a place of the dead. Interpretations that they were not really dead cheapen the story, and (I believe) falsify it. Doing so sucks the meaning out of Yennefer's inability to revive Geralt, and Ciri's grief at leaving them.

They awakened, by some means not stated, in that place of the dead. Their return to the world of the living is a story that Sapkowski did not tell, but CDPR has done.

No there is video proof where geralt says that they didn't die.

---------- Updated at 07:18 PM ----------

Isn't it semantics? he got stabbed then died and got resurrected, or he got stabbed and got healed.. either way is there really a difference? I was under the impression that he did die and ciri and the unicorn resurrected him, kind of like using electricity paddles on a person who has been dead for a few minutes.

Yes there is a difference, and the reason it's important is because it's a story, and every part of a story has important parts. However if you are one who doesn't care to say "isn't it semantics" is the same as saying "pfft whatever doesn't matter just shut up and play the game." means you don't care about story and the question for you begs why are you responding this way to people who care about story like me and others? Go with your own people you're not going to convince anyone. These posts are for people who care not for people who will interrupt and say "it doesn't matter shut up and play the game."

---------- Updated at 07:20 PM ----------

Geralt and Yennefer did die, and Ciri transported them to a place of the dead. Interpretations that they were not really dead cheapen the story, and (I believe) falsify it. Doing so sucks the meaning out of Yennefer's inability to revive Geralt, and Ciri's grief at leaving them.

They awakened, by some means not stated, in that place of the dead. Their return to the world of the living is a story that Sapkowski did not tell, but CDPR has done.

Also Sapkowski said that the story of the games is trash, that he doesn't agree with them and doesn't like them and would never have continued the story in this fashion. What's dead should stay dead. There are thousands of quotes and videos of him displaying his displeasure over CDPRs story of the Witcher. And he even regrets giving the license permission to them.

 

[GuyNwah]

That is not so. Sapkowski has not said the story of the games is trash. He has only said that the story told in the games is not his story. He has not regretted licensing it to them; he has commended them for making a success of it.

A certain amount of retconning is always to be expected in adapting a story to another medium. You have to merge characters, telescope plot, rebalance multiple story arcs, and so on. You can even have inconsistencies of matters of fact left unreconciled, like the dates.

But basic thematic elements: Yennefer cannot save Geralt because she gave up her fertility, Ciri cannot save Geralt because she forswore the use of magic, cannot so readily be retconned. They demand satisfactory explanation.

 

[algroshaw]

No there is video proof where geralt says that they didn't die.

---------- Updated at 07:18 PM ----------



Yes there is a difference, and the reason it's important is because it's a story, and every part of a story has important parts. However if you are one who doesn't care to say "isn't it semantics" is the same as saying "pfft whatever doesn't matter just shut up and play the game." means you don't care about story and the question for you begs why are you responding this way to people who care about story like me and others? Go with your own people you're not going to convince anyone. These posts are for people who care not for people who will interrupt and say "it doesn't matter shut up and play the game."

---------- Updated at 07:20 PM ----------



Also Sapkowski said that the story of the games is trash, that he doesn't agree with them and doesn't like them and would never have continued the story in this fashion. What's dead should stay dead. There are thousands of quotes and videos of him displaying his displeasure over CDPRs story of the Witcher. And he even regrets giving the license permission to them.

i don't know if you noticed, but this is my thread that you're derailing, so don't get all huffy and rude with me. thanks.

I don't know what you're on about. "the dead should stay dead".. the author HIMSELF resurrected them. in the last book, ciri grabbed the unicorns horn and revived them and they went on a boat. I am no tsure where this land of the dead or dead should stay dead stuff came from.

 

[GuyNwah]

The end of Lady of the Lake is a direct lift from Morte d'Arthur. It does not offer an alternative interpretation that Ciri somehow revived them on the boat. Ciri took them to Avallach, a place of the dead, not different in any significant way from what Morgan did for Arthur. Their revival is a new thing, "something ends, something begins".

 

[Gothfather]

I don't understand what is so wrong with continuing story? bioware refuses to re-use MCs in DA, and it kinda ruins the series.

I don't care one bit about the inquisitor, nor hawke. because they just disappear after one game. and they are underdeveloped because they are not going to continue with them.

With TW, I can't complain too too much, because at least we got a trilogy. but i don't see the need to finish with geralt- the whole IP is about geralt- not the witchers or the world, but THE witcher.
Is it just people's short attention spans and the need to start fresh so newcomers buy the game without having to play the previous installments? I think this way of thinking just ruins what games could be. it makes games more shallow because you can't build an emotional bond over a series- you get a 20 hour game and you're done.

I'm sure CDPR would make a good tw4 spinoff, but honestly, I'd rather just keep it in the Geralt area. I wouldn't mind a spinoff about Ciri, but I'd still just rather hacvve it continue Geralt's story. Just like I'd rather DA2 be about the warden.

The only time I would agree with the new protag is with ME4, because the me trilogy was good and it wrapped it up enough. But I would've been just as hapy with ME4 with Shepard

Just got a BSN flashback, about the countless and pointless, 'Mah Warden' threads. Do we really need to start hundreds of 'mah Geralt' threads? in my opinion the strength of the Dragon age series was that it told a story about an AGE of a world, not a story about a single individual. Not all series have to be tied to the hip with a protagonist. Also...

The witcher IP is NOT owned by CDPR this means they can lose the licence so it is actually in their best interest to develop their own IP. Star Wars Galaxy lost its licensing and was scrapped even though it had a 100,000 customers and was a profitable if smaller mmo. There is nothing that is preventing CDPR from losing their licence as you don't rent these IPs for life they have a fix time limit and the owner isn't obligated to renew the contract. When you OWN the IP you don't have to deal with this. CDPR has proven they can deliver the RPG experience. They don't need to be tied to Geralt forever.

 

[algroshaw]

The end of Lady of the Lake is a direct lift from Morte d'Arthur. It does not offer an alternative interpretation that Ciri somehow revived them on the boat. Ciri took them to Avallach, a place of the dead, not different in any significant way from what Morgan did for Arthur. Their revival is a new thing, "something ends, something begins".

well holy crap. I'm glad i made this thread, because the ending completely escaped me/. I had not considered that Ciri was lying bout the marriage and whatnot and they are both just in the afterlife together.

I think it is up to interpretation though. I don't understand the unicorn horn part and how geralt knew he was on a boat- that's why I thought they lived.

although, I think at the end of the arthur fables, merlin tries to save him with the dragon's magic- maybe the unicorn was ciri's dragon- but the book gave no indication that the magic failed :S

---------- Updated at 08:28 PM ----------

the ending makes sense now. especially now that I made the connection with the unicorn. Now I'm just depressed .

 

[Eldanon]

How can Geralt be the main character if 80% of the books are written from Ciri's point of view? If Ciri and Geralt were together all the time like Sherlock and Watson then you might have a point (Sherlock is the main character in Sherlock Holmes, but the books are written from Watson's point of view), but Geralt isn't even there with Ciri most of the time.

Not to mention that the entire main plot of The Witcher saga revolves around Ciri.

What? I've read all the Witcher books (and I don't mean just the ones that are translated to English) and sure as heck the vast vast majority of it is told from Geralt's point of view. Where in the world you got the 80% is told from Ciri's view point I have no idea. Lost all credibility right there.