I consider w3 an all-time great game, but I have a few complaints

+
Deemonef;n10013581 said:
I meant what eloise said in the Spoiler Box ;)
The fact with Avallac'h is so damn true, and I also see it not "daughterlike" to not tell your mother, that you will go now and rule Nilfgaard. This is really bad in the making.

I do not agree with those either, and already explained why. Regarding Ciri not being "daughterlike" in the empress epilogue, the scene is not about that, but rather that she wants to make her own choices without others (even Geralt or Yennefer) deciding what is good for her, just like she does not want to interfere with Geralt's decisions either (which does not have to mean she likes all of them equally), she wants to be independent and go her own way.

This is very important about her character in the game, to emphasize that she is growing up and not a child anymore (although not quite mature yet either), but it has nothing to do with her not respecting Geralt or Yennefer, or anything like that. Real people often go through a similar phase at her age. It should be apparent enough from the interviews and the game itself (when looking at the overall picture, rather than details taken out of context), even if I know I cannot change the opinion of anyone already convinced that CDPR had some sort of evil agenda with Ciri's portrayal or that she was dumbed down to appeal to the casual masses, so I leave it at that.

So yes, a Character can change it's point of view and being over 7 years, but you cannot change historical facts and stuff.

The game does not change historical facts in any of those cases. It would be a change of facts if it claimed that Ciri liked Avallac'h in the books, but it is not if she does so in the game, for whatever reasons. The same applies to Yennefer or anyone else.

PS: Cyberpunk 2077 is not an own idea by CDPR It's based on the table top Cyberpunk 2020, and this is heavily inspired by the Sprawl Trilog by William Gibson

I know that, but the characters, including the protagonist, will be CDPR's this time.
 
Last edited:
sv3672;n10013961 said:
I do not agree with those either, and already explained why. Regarding Ciri not being "daughterlike" in the empress epilogue, the scene is not about that, but rather that she wants to make her own choices without others (even Geralt or Yennefer) deciding what is good for her, just like she does not want to interfere with Geralt's decisions either (which does not have to mean she likes all of them equally), she wants to be independent and go her own way.

This is very important about her character in the game, to emphasize that she is growing up and not a child anymore (although not quite mature yet either), but it has nothing to do with her not respecting Geralt or Yennefer, or anything like that. Real people often go through a similar phase at her age. It should be apparent enough from the interviews and the game itself (when looking at the overall picture, rather than details taken out of context), even if I know I cannot change the opinion of anyone already convinced that CDPR had some sort of evil agenda with Ciri's portrayal or that she was dumbed down to appeal to the casual masses, so I leave it at that.



The game does not change historical facts in any of those cases. It would be a change of facts if it claimed that Ciri liked Avallac'h in the books, but it is not if she does so in the game, for whatever reasons. The same applies to Yennefer or anyone else.



I know that, but the characters, including the protagonist, will be CDPR's this time.

Well is in this case Ciri is mature when CDPR want her to be. "Mature" when it comes to not say good bye to her beloved mommy, and not mature when she askes Geralt everytime what he would do, or wait what he will do after he found her (stealing horses, go to the lodge meeting, visit Emhyr etc.);)

I see no evil agenda here or a cospiracy, I just don't get why Ciri and Yennfer run in each other arms, Yennefer calls her daughter when she met each other again on Kaer Morhen and than Ciri have not a single word for leaving her in White Ochard... this is nothing like "mature" this is just...rude. And it would be more mature to speak to a person an listen to what s/he says about your descisions ;)

And no historical changes in any of those cases? This is a joke right? There are many historical changes. Start with the fact that the Battle of Brenna was in 1268 and in the games it was in 1265, the Emperor is no more married in The Witcher 3, Avallac'h's intentions with Ciri, the historical fact of the white frost is completely changed etc. etc. ... next to the fact that Ciri, Geralt and Yennfer never came back to the world/dimension where they were born (expect Ciri for some minutes ;) )

Well Ciri doesn't like Avallac'h in the books and now he is her hero... I see this as a drastical change XD
 
Last edited:
Deemonef;n10014061 said:
Well is in this case Ciri is mature when CDPR want her to be. "Mature" when it comes to not say good bye to her beloved mommy, and not mature when she askes Geralt everytime what he would do, or wait what he will do after he found her (stealing horses, go to the lodge meeting, visit Emhyr etc.);)

Yes, you can make decisions in how you (as Geralt) interact with Ciri, but if you make choices that are against what I explained above, you are going to get this:
By the way, I did not say Ciri is "mature" in the game, she is not really yet, but she wants to be independent and does not want people to treat her like a child. That is not the same. She is sometimes even reckless, which is the opposite of maturity, but it is normal for a ~20 years old.

I see no evil agenda here or a cospiracy, I just don't get why Ciri and Yennfer run in each other arms, Yennefer calls her daughter when she met each other again on Kaer Morhen and than Ciri have not a single word for leaving her in White Ochard... this is nothing like "mature" this is just...rude. And it would be more mature to speak to a person an listen to what s/he says about your descisions ;)

See above regarding maturity. If you are not looking for an agenda, then why not just accept the obvious explanation (which was given even by developers) that you do not see Ciri and Yennefer interacting much simply because the story is not told from their point of view, so it is usually Geralt talking to one of them?

Start with the fact that the Battle of Brenna was in 1268 and in the games it was in 1265
This is a minor change, inconsistencies like that occur even between different languages of the game (typos do happen), even the books are not always consistent about the timeline. Unless it serves some purpose to move the dates around (novels based on real history often do that, too), it was probably simply an error.
the Emperor is no more married in The Witcher 3
Avallac'h's intentions with Ciri
Marriages do not have to last forever, nor do people's intentions.
the historical fact of the white frost is completely changed etc. etc.
That is one valid point I already acknowledged.
next to the fact that Ciri, Geralt and Yennfer never came back to the world/dimension where they were born (expect Ciri for some minutes ;) )
Their fates are left open to interpretation in the books, maybe Geralt and Yennefer really just die in 1268 and never come back (I have seen people debating this back and forth), that is obviously not what the games assume. As far as I know, Sapkowski himself did not mind Geralt's "resurrection" back when Witcher 1 was made, even if he does not treat the games as canon to the books. By the way, I do not see it as an error if the games change something that would happen after Geralt's "death" (e.g. if someone is known to die/live in the books but is saved/killed due to game Geralt's actions), they are their own non-canon story branch(es) from that point on.
 
Last edited:
sv3672;n10014131 said:
Yes, you can make decisions in how you (as Geralt) interact with Ciri, but if you make choices that are against what I explained above, you are going to get this:

But you will tell me it is mature that you do what a other person advice you, even if you know it is not good for you and you do so?
And after that you say: "Good! I won't go back to this person after I did all he ill-adviced me", instead fo tell the person that this descicion is not good for you?

This is not mature at all. This is childish.
 
Deemonef;n10014191 said:
This is not mature at all. This is childish.

Quoting from my own post:
she is growing up and not a child anymore (although not quite mature yet either)
Since I did not claim that Ciri is mature, I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. Anyway, I do not think there is much more I could do to explain what I already tried to. (*abandons thread*)
 
Last edited:
sv3672;n10014631 said:
Quoting from my own post:

Since I did not claim that Ciri is mature, I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. Anyway, I do not think there is much more I could do to explain what I already tried to. (*abandons thread*)

They I go with the word independent you used, or growing, no child anymore etc. The things you used in your post 21. I just wanted to say, many, maybe all things show Ciri is not independent, grown up etc. I used the phrase "mature" to mix it all up ;)
And again, it's not daughterlike to not say good bye to your mom. And it is not independent. Just rude... or/and a failure of CDPR ;)
 
sv3672;n10014131 said:
maybe Geralt and Yennefer really just die in 1268 and never come back

They did not die. We can say that the scene where Geralt and Yennefer are alive, sit under a tree and talk - a dream or an illusion, but then why Geralt was bandaged after being wounded? He was weakened, spoke with difficulty, as if he only came to life after a fatal wound. Yennefer was also weakened after her spell, which did not kill her, but only deprived her of consciousness. I believe that if all of this were a dream or an illusion, they would both be absolutely safe and sound.
 
Triss_One_Love;n10014751 said:
They did not die. We can say that the scene where Geralt and Yennefer are alive, sit under a tree and talk - a dream or an illusion, but then why Geralt was bandaged after being wounded? He was weakened, spoke with difficulty, as if he only came to life after a fatal wound. Yennefer was also weakened after her spell, which did not kill her, but only deprived her of consciousness. I believe that if all of this were a dream or an illusion, they would both be absolutely safe and sound.

Well for the autor they are dead ;)
Sapkowski made some conntections to the Tristan and Iseult saga were both lovers died at the end, too. And for him Yennefer and Geralt are not longer in our world (maybe the definition of dead).
But as a reader you can see it as you want, but you cannot say for all that what you say is the lore ;)

For many people Yennefer and Geralt really died. And I only read the polish and the german version of the books, but even in the german translation were some mistakes, dunno how it is in english, but In german you can read "reglos" [motionless] insteat of the polish "nieżywy" [lifeless/dead] when it comes to how Geralt and Yennfer lying in Rivii.
So you can say they died, and this was it. You also can say they died and were resurrected by unicorn-magic. Could both be true. Or they were just badly wounded and the unicorn-magic healed them.

Many see it the way, that they died. That's why the friends there see and feel people who died a time ago when they carry Yennefer and Geralt to the boat. They put Geralt and Yennefer on a boat on the way in the afterlife (like Charon in the greek mythology). Many people think they could be alive, cause Geralt feels pain when he wakes up, but again: We are not in a world/our wolrd with e.g Christendom, where you go to heaven undamaged etc. In older religions and paganism you went to the afterlive the way you died (With your armor on, an arrow in the chest etc.)

So, you can see it the way you like, but cannot say that they died/didn't died is lore.
For Sapkwoski there are dead/away, and the rest is up to evyery singel reader ;)
 
Last edited:
Deemonef;n10016181 said:
Well for the autor they are dead

Sapkovsky never claimed that they were dead.

Deemonef;n10016181 said:
Sapkowski made some conntections to the Tristan and Iseult saga were both lovers died at the end, too. And for him Yennefer and Geralt are not longer in our world (maybe the definition of dead). But as a reader you can see it as you want, but you cannot say for all that what you say is the lore

Sapkovsky could make some connections, but this does not make them true.


Deemonef;n10016181 said:
For many people Yennefer and Geralt really died. And I only read the polish and the german version of the books, but even in the german translation were some mistakes, dunno how it is in english, but In german you can read "reglos" [motionless] insteat of the polish "nieżywy" [lifeless/dead] when it comes to how Geralt and Yennfer lying in Rivii. So you can say they died, and this was it. You also can say they died and were resurrected by unicorn-magic. Could both be true. Or they were just badly wounded and the unicorn-magic healed them.

95% of people are idiots. I judge only by what I read. It was written in the book that Geralt and Yennefer are alive on the island. Why should I assume that they are in fact not alive, but in another dimension / in paradise?

Deemonef;n10016181 said:
So you can say they died, and this was it. You also can say they died and were resurrected by unicorn-magic. Could both be true. Or they were just badly wounded and the unicorn-magic healed them.

Yennefer did not exactly die. Geralt was at death, and Ciri saved him, I read it in the book. I'm not going to read between the lines and try to see what's not there.

Deemonef;n10016181 said:
So, you can see it the way you like, but cannot say that they died/didn't died is lore. For Sapkwoski there are dead/away, and the rest is up to evyery singel reader

By the Lore, they are not dead, it is written in the book and you do not need to add other literature or religions here, or anything else, we are talking about The Witcher world and they havent died in this world.
 
Triss_One_Love;n10016831 said:
Sapkovsky never claimed that they were dead.



Sapkovsky could make some connections, but this does not make them true.




95% of people are idiots. I judge only by what I read. It was written in the book that Geralt and Yennefer are alive on the island. Why should I assume that they are in fact not alive, but in another dimension / in paradise?



Yennefer did not exactly die. Geralt was at death, and Ciri saved him, I read it in the book. I'm not going to read between the lines and try to see what's not there.



By the Lore, they are not dead, it is written in the book and you do not need to add other literature or religions here, or anything else, we are talking about The Witcher world and they havent died in this world.

As I said I only read the german and the polish version of the books, but there is not a single word written, that Yennefer and Geralt are alive on an island. It's written that Geralt woke up under a tree with apples and Yennefer was with him. Not a word that they are alive or dead. They never ever came back within 105/120/or more years, never appeared again in the world where they are born.
It is a biiiiiit possible that they live on some island, but it's more possible that they are in another world/dimension and it could also be the afterlive, cause no one ever found em again.
And again. it was not Ciri who "saved" them. Ihuarraquax lent her the power to do something, Ciri is no more able to do such magical tricks.

I also don't read between the lines. I read words like "dead", read that they were put on a boat were you meet people that died a long time ago, read that Yennefer and Geralt never came back.
But well, I have to bring up other literature and religions, cause Sapkowski's Geralt-verse is inspired by many other works, which influenced the story. But as you want, I use the facts I have from the books of the Geralt saga in this comment.

And I don't htink that 95% of the people are idiots. That's a bit rude ;)
 
Last edited:
First you say this.

Deemonef;n10017171 said:
but there is not a single word written, that Yennefer and Geralt are alive on an island.

And then you say this

Deemonef;n10017171 said:
It's written that Geralt woke up under a tree with apples and Yennefer was with him.

Do not you see any contradictions? The fact that they woke up and talk isnt the proof that they are alive?

Deemonef;n10017171 said:
They never ever came back withn 105/120/or more years, never appeared again in the world where they are born.

Probably because on this scene the story was over? The author did not write the continuations, but in the "Season of Storms" there was a witcher, who was too similar to Geralt.

Deemonef;n10017171 said:
It is a biiiiiit possible that they live on some island, but it's more possible that they are in another world/dimension and it could also be the afterlive, cause no one ever found em again.

The author decided to finish the story, but that does not mean that they are dead.

Deemonef;n10017171 said:
And again. it was not Ciri who saved them. Ihuarraquax lend her the power to do something, Ciri is no more able to do such magical tricks.

"Jedną ręką wciąż trzymała róg jednorożca, drugą skierowała w stronę nieruchomego wiedźmina. Z jej palców popłynęła wstęga migotliwej i żarzącej się jak lawa jasności."

Ciri was able to do something.

Deemonef;n10017171 said:
I also don't read between the lines. I read words like "dead", read that they were put on a boat were you meet people that died a long time ago, read that Yennefer and Geralt never came back.

They were dead to others, this ghosts did not come to them, they come to Triss, Dandelion, Yarpen, Zoltan.
 
Last edited:
Triss_One_Love;n10017421 said:
First you say this.
And then you say this

Do not you see any contradictions? The fact that they woke up and talk isnt the proof that they are alive?

Probably because on this scene the story was over? The author did not write the continuations, but in the "Season of Storms" there was a witcher, who was too similar to Geralt.

The author decided to finish the story, but that does not mean that they are dead.

"Jedną ręką wciąż trzymała róg jednorożca, drugą skierowała w stronę nieruchomego wiedźmina. Z jej palców popłynęła wstęga migotliwej i żarzącej się jak lawa jasności."

Ciri was able to do something.

They were dead to others, this ghosts did not come to them, they come to Triss, Dandelion, Yarpen, Zoltan.

This is a magical world where you can meet ghosts, vampires, shapeshifting dragons, do worldtravel, use magic, speak to persons who died a long time ago etc. and than it is weird, that two possible dead people wake up in the afterlive? ;)

First of all, Nimue and Condwiramurs tried to find everything out about Ciri and Geralt. They say in an explicit way, that after the Progrom of Rivii no one ever saw Geralt and Ciri again. And the two didn't only used spy letters and something like this, they used magic and saw "events" that only the people knew who lived while those "events". Nimue started her live as an sorceress 105 years after the progrom of Rivii. And when it comes that she met Condwiramurs it was problably 120/130... or maby 200 and more years after the progrom and no one ever saw the two(three) again. Only Nimue saw Ciri one time while her world travel. So Yennefer, Geralt and Ciri never ever came back to their world (only Ciri for a few minutes while her travel). And the witcher Nimue saw was a dream/vision/illusion. Sapkowski played with the reader, cause only Nimue called him Geralt and the horse Płotka, the autor and the witcher never used this name.
I bet the woman who took Nimue out of the forrest had asked Nimue what that giant monster is that lay there killed a few meters away from her, but there was no giant corpse, so it was just a dream.

Maybe true. maybe they don't "live" in the afterlive, but they are at a place which they never left for her fomer home. As I said, you can see this place as afterlive or as a place in another world/dimension in a this-world. But no matter if they are alive or dead, they never came back to make it clear ;)

As I said again ( ;) ) Ihuarraquax lent Ciri this power, without him it wouldn't be possible for Ciri to do something. Ciri was at this moment some kind of catalyser who guided the power of the unicorn to Yennefer and Geralt. Ciri simply doesn't have such powers anymore since the events in Korath. Without Ihuarraquax nothing had happened. Maybe only Ciri was able to guide this magic and no other magican, but even that is not mentioned in an explicit way.

True. The friends saw their dead friends in the fog where the boat waited for Yennefer and Geralt. And this "could" be a sign that this fog guids to the afterlive.
 
Last edited:
I don't think a single Dev in the history of video games could have done as good a job as portraying the characters from books to games as CDPR, not even bioware or black isles studio in their prime could have done this good a job. Yennefer is exactly like how I would imagine her, so is Geralt (minus the whining he does in the books), dandelion, zoltan, djistrka, ivoreth's adapation from that other elf, emhyr, phillipa especially, triss, ect.

I read the books and I don't even think the wild hunt people were done well at all. We barely see them in the lady of the lake and I don't blame CDPR if they weren't done well in the third game.

Any issues with the witcher 3, to me, have to do with the open world aspect. They proved with HOS that they can make a linear story as good as anyone. I just think open world = your story will have issues.
 
Deemonef;n10018161 said:
This is a magical world where you can meet ghosts, vampires, shapeshifting dragons, do worldtravel, use magic, speak to persons who died a long time ago etc. and than it is weird, that two possible dead people wake up in the afterlive?

I repeat - do not try to read between the lines or look for a hidden meaning where there is none. It is written that they woke up and talked to each other, why should I think that these are ghosts / illusions / visions / dreams? Sometimes the truth lies on the surface.


Deemonef;n10018161 said:
First of all, Nimue and Condwiramurs tried to find everything out about Ciri and Geralt. They say in an explicit way, that after the Progrom of Rivii no one ever saw Geralt and Ciri again. And the two didn't only used spy letters and something like this, they used magic and saw "events" that only the people knew who lived while those "events".

I'm sure that with the help of magic you can erase some events and prevent them from seeing. The spy of Nilfgaard and Kovir could help them to hide all traces.
And you're wrong.They saw only those visions to which they had access through books or pictures. They could not see the events if they did not have data about them.

Deemonef;n10018161 said:
And the witcher Nimue saw was a dream/vision/illusion. Sapkowski played with the reader, cause only Nimue called him Geralt and the horse Płotka, the autor and the witcher never used this name.

Sapkovsky told you personally that he played with the reader and it was not Geralt or it was an illusion/dream?

Deemonef;n10018161 said:
I bet the woman who took Nimue out of the forrest had asked Nimue what that giant monster is that lay there killed a few meters away from her, but there was no giant corpse, so it was just a dream.

Because they walked together and walked far from the place where Geralt killed the monster?

Deemonef;n10018161 said:
Maybe true. maybe they don't "live" in the afterlive, but they are at a place which they never left for her fomer home. As I said, you can see this place as afterlive or as a place in another world/dimension in a this-world. But no matter if they are alive or dead, they never came back to make it clear

When the Wild Hunt arrived, I saw for sure that Geralt had returned.

Deemonef;n10018161 said:
True. The friends saw their dead friends in the fog where the boat waited for Yennefer and Geralt. And this "could" be a sign that this fog guids to the afterlive.

Why afterlife? Ciri is the lady of time and space not some reaper or shinigami, she teleported them to another peaceful world, not to the afterlife.
 
Last edited:
Triss_One_Love;n10019921 said:
I repeat - do not try to read between the lines or look for a hidden meaning where there is none. It is written that they woke up and talked to each other, why should I think that these are ghosts / illusions / visions / dreams? Sometimes the truth lies on the surface.

I'm sure that with the help of magic you can erase some events and prevent them from seeing. The spy of Nilfgaard and Kovir could help them to hide all traces.
And you're wrong.They saw only those visions to which they had access through books or pictures. They could not see the events if they did not have data about them.

Sapkovsky told you personally that he played with the reader and it was not Geralt or it was an illusion/dream?

Because they walked together and walked far from the place where Geralt killed the monster?

When the Wild Hunt arrived, I saw for sure that Geralt had returned.

Why afterlife? Ciri is the lady of time and space not some reaper or shinigami, she teleported them to another peaceful world, not to the afterlife.

Okay, Triss blinded Geralt from seeing some things and you can hide things with an illusion, or destroy a castle but: There was an art of the castle so you can dream about it, there where other people who saw the event and you can dream about it, an illusion was built, but other could see through this illusion.
As you said, they had excess to pictures books etc. but after the progrom of Rivii nothing "new" happend with Geralt and Ciri and that means they never came back. In no way that was wirtten down and remembered in history. No white haired witcher who was seen at some kings castle. No ashen haired girl who fight here and there for the poor. No raven haired Sorceress who was seen with the white haired Witcher. If such things happend, Nimue would have that.
And remember Condwiramurs was able to dream more than just a artwork she saw from an event and she saw exactly this event. She saw a picture of the lodge and while she saw Fringila she dreamd about a part of the time Geralt and Fringila had in Beaculaire. They don't need a "direct" event in form of an book or artwork. Just a "hint".

He did not, but read it again, only Nimue "thinks" it was Geralt, but she just wish it is Geralt, Sapkowski never wrote the name down, and this Witcher nevere said for himself, he is Geralt. Yepp they walked away, but the woman came from the direction where Nimue was, she had to see the corpse.

The last time you saw the wild hunt was when they followed Ciri, Ihuarraquax and Kelpie. After that event you never saw 'em again and Geralt was not there when this happeend.

Yepp. This is true. It could be the afterlive but it is also possible that this is just another world/place/dimension. Some place where Geralt and Yennefer together and free from the problems of their former home.
 
Last edited:
Deemonef;n10021631 said:
after the progrom of Rivii nothing "new" happend with Geralt and Ciri and that means they never came back.

Nothing "new" happend with Geralt and Ciri because Dandelion didnt release a new book about them or a new song. Geralt is not an idol or a super star, he is not recognized on the streets, so if some white-haired man goes somewhere, no one will guess that this is Geralt. Books and songs of Dandelion were the only mention of the life of Geralt.

Deemonef;n10021631 said:
And remember Condwiramurs was able to dream more than just a artwork she saw from an event and she saw exactly this event. She saw a picture of the lodge and while she saw Fringila she dreamd about a part of the time Geralt and Fringila had in Beaculaire. They don't need a "direct" event in form of an book or artwork. Just a "hint".

They had nothing from the period when Geralt returned from the island, so they could not see anything.

Deemonef;n10021631 said:
He did not, but read it again, only Nimue "thinks" it was Geralt, but she just wish it is Geralt, Sapkowski never wrote the name down, and this Witcher nevere said for himself, he is Geralt. Yepp they walked away, but the woman came from the direction where Nimue was, she had to see the corpse.

And the witcher did not deny that he was not Geralt and did not introduce himself by another name. I do not know of any other white-haired witcher who knows about monsters from that lab. Nimue did not know about such details either about the numbers.

Deemonef;n10021631 said:
Yepp. This is true. It could be the afterlive but it is also possible that this is just another world/place/dimension. Some place where Geralt and Yennefer together and free from the problems of their former home.

This could not be the afterlife. Ciri can not send souls to the afterlife, she can only teleport in time and space. And I cant agree that Geralt can be happy with the woman who twice put his life to the edge. When he almost committed suicide, and when he decided that he would kill her, if necessary, and along with everyone on his way. Yennefer never needed Geralt, without something more, he was an empty place for her. Geralt was blinded by his artificial love and did not notice the woman who loved him no matter what, who did not need something more, who only wanted to be with him, anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Triss_One_Love;n10022301 said:
Nothing "new" happend with Geralt and Ciri because Dandelion didnt release a new book about them or a new song. Geralt is not an idol or a super star, he is not recognized on the streets, so if some white-haired man goes somewhere, no one will guess that this is Geralt. Books and songs of Dandelion were the only mention of the life of Geralt.

They had nothing from the period when Geralt returned from the island, so they could not see anything.

And the witcher did not deny that he was not Geralt and did not introduce himself by another name. I do not know of any other white-haired witcher who knows about monsters from that lab. Nimue did not know about such details either about the numbers.

This could not be the afterlife. Ciri can not send souls to the afterlife, she can only teleport in time and space. And I cant agree that Geralt can be happy with the woman who twice put his life to the edge. When he almost committed suicide, and when he decided that he would kill her, if necessary, and along with everyone on his way. Yennefer never needed Geralt, without something more, he was an empty place for her. Geralt was blinded by his artificial love and did not notice the woman who loved him no matter what, who did not need something more, who only wanted to be with him, anywhere.

Well in the short stories and novels many persons saw Geralt and knew it was Geralt, so he is some "kind" of idol and was recognized. Sentence like "you are the white wolf" "I know you, you helped "this guy"" etc. You find many of thoses sentence in the books, and that means, that the people know him. And yeah, many know him cause of Jaskier's ballads and other people know him cause of the things he did. And Jaskier did realesed a knew book after the progrom of rivii. His first layout of his masterpiece "half a century of Poetry" was left in Beauclair, so he had to write it again, and this was after the Progrom.

But Geralt never returend from this "island" in the book lore. And as I said, it was no island ;)

After Nimue called the white haired witcher Geralt, he said in an explicit way, that Geralt died 105 years ago, instead of saying "Yeah that's me". I mean... you were the one who said I should not read between the lines ;)

As I said, it could be afterlive or a world/place for living people in another place. If you can travel through time and space maybe... just maybe, you can travel to the place where the dead exist. But this is only a guess as I said. Yennefer and Geralt were at a place where they never came back, could be death or alive. Schrödinger's Witcher ;)
And Geralt was very happy with Yennefer. Right after they met each other again in Stygga and even at this place with the apple trees. This was explicit written. Both made her love clear in the second novel, after this they lost contact cause of the events of Thanedd and when they came back together they were very happy. There was only true love between them and in the end of the books both get what they wanted and needed :)

PS: I have to say I really enjoy this conversation. Long time ago that I could talk with someone so much about the Geralt-Saga/Witcher. Was very quite in this forum for a while :)
 
Last edited:
Deemonef;n10029591 said:
Well in the short stories and novels many persons saw Geralt and knew it was Geralt, so he is some "kind" of idol and was recognized. Sentence like "you are the white wolf" "I know you, you helped "this guy"" etc. You find many of thoses sentence in the books, and that means, that the people know him.

Nope, you are wrong. There were no such things in the books. For example, Geralt was invited to the banquet and was represented as Ravix and none of the guests recognized him as Geralt, why? When Geralt arrived in Vizima to accept the job for the striga, he went to the inn, where nobody recognized him again.

Deemonef;n10029591 said:
And Jaskier did realesed a knew book after the progrom of rivii.

There was written only what happened before the pogrom, not after. He didnt publish new books about adventures of Geralt after his return.

Deemonef;n10029591 said:
But Geralt never returend from this "island" in the book lore. And as I said, it was no island

Do you think that the story ends on the book? The fact that the author did not write his continuation does not mean that the world has stopped and does not move forward. Fortunately, the Projekt bought rights and wrote a sequel.

Deemonef;n10029591 said:
After Nimue called the white haired witcher Geralt, he said in an explicit way, that Geralt died 105 years ago, instead of saying "Yeah that's me". I mean... you were the one who said I should not read between the lines

I do not read between the lines. But tell me, do you know another witcher with white hair who would have known all about that monster? Nimue could not know this too, so that she could have a dream about it.

Deemonef;n10029591 said:
As I said, it could be afterlive or a world/place for living people in another place. If you can travel through time and space maybe... just maybe, you can travel to the place where the dead exist.

Nobody can, even Ciri cant.

Deemonef;n10029591 said:
And Geralt was very happy with Yennefer. Right after they met each other again in Stygga and even at this place with the apple trees. This was explicit written. Both made her love clear in the second novel, after this they lost contact cause of the events of Thanedd and when they came back together they were very happy. There was only true love between them and in the end of the books both get what they wanted and needed

Of course he was happy, because he was blinded, his mind was clouded by the magic of djinn. I will remind you that after Yennefer cheated on him several times, and then ran away, they met again, then Yennifer said,that without something more, she did not need him and they broke up again. Time passed, Geralt found Ciri. And suddenly, for Yennefer everything changed, she suddenly felt that she needed Geralt, why? Yennefer with him because of Ciri and only because of Ciri. Without Ciri, they would never be together. So I can not see the true love here, only magic, cheating and conditions. Triss, on the other hand, did not need Ciri, she only needed Geralt. Even when he said that he loved another, she could not forget him, did not stop thinking about him and love him, take care of him and cry about him. Unlike Yennefer for which he was last year's snow, whom she drove away and insulted, I'm talking about the dragon hunt.
 
Last edited:
Triss_One_Love;n10031591 said:
Nope, you are wrong. There were no such things in the books. For example, Geralt was invited to the banquet and was represented as Ravix and none of the guests recognized him as Geralt, why? When Geralt arrived in Vizima to accept the job for the striga, he went to the inn, where nobody recognized him again.

There was written only what happened before the pogrom, not after. He didnt publish new books about adventures of Geralt after his return.

Do you think that the story ends on the book? The fact that the author did not write his continuation does not mean that the world has stopped and does not move forward. Fortunately, the Projekt bought rights and wrote a sequel.

I do not read between the lines. But tell me, do you know another witcher with white hair who would have known all about that monster? Nimue could not know this too, so that she could have a dream about it.

Nobody can, even Ciri cant.

Of course he was happy, because he was blinded, his mind was clouded by the magic of djinn. I will remind you that after Yennefer cheated on him several times, and then ran away, they met again, then Yennifer said,that without something more, she did not need him and they broke up again. Time passed, Geralt found Ciri. And suddenly, for Yennefer everything changed, she suddenly felt that she needed Geralt, why? Yennefer with him because of Ciri and only because of Ciri. Without Ciri, they would never be together. So I can not see the true love here, only magic, cheating and conditions. Triss, on the other hand, did not need Ciri, she only needed Geralt. Even when he said that he loved another, she could not forget him, did not stop thinking about him and love him, take care of him and cry about him. Unlike Yennefer for which he was last year's snow, whom she drove away and insulted, I'm talking about the dragon hunt.

I never said "everybody" knows Geralt, but many people recognize him. The guard in the Brokilon, the people around Kerack, the people in Beauclaire, many magicans. The contract with the strzyga was surly one thing that made him quite popular :)

I said it before, the new version of Jaskier's book was published "after" the Progrom of Rivii. The moment Geralt disappeared forever. And this was a new book ;)

Well sure a story stops when the author do not write any more things about it. I know, as a reader you can make up your own ideas how it will go on. But the author "stopped" there and so the canon ends, till he descided to write new stuff :)

This moment plays 105 years after the dead/disappearance of Geralt. Much time that there is a new Witcher with white hair ;)

Well for Geralt and Yennefer it is true love. The d'jinni's wish was nothing about, that Yennefer have to love Geralt. The love was already there. I know this is not the "normal" relationship many people "need" but it's the relationship that works for Geralt and Yennefer. Both went through rough times, but finally they came together.
Geralt and Yennefer both said, that without Ciri they won't be together again, in the 2nd novel, but this is okay for 'em. Ciri was the "catalyst" to finally bring the two together. Yennefer with her wish for a child and Geralt for the wish to be with his loved ones.
Yennefer and Geralt startet with true love, while Triss used magic to get Geralt in bed when she wanted him. And after Geralt found out, she want more than just sex, he ended it, and after this nothing happend between Geralt and Triss again, even if Triss wanted too. I feel sorry for her that she is so in love with him and nothing comes back from him. But this is not Geralt's fault.

And for "last year's snow" you don't use so much magic to save him that you nearly die ;)
And for the dragon hunt: many people seem to forget, that Geralt was the first to turn the relationship on a bad course. If mine, or your lover would leave you in the middle of the night without saying something, just a letter leaving, and everything was fine before, me and you would be angry, too. It's just normal that you don't fall in his arms and be happy ever after and act like this person you really loved did not dumped you some time ago ;)
 
Last edited:
Deemonef;n10029591 said:
PS: I have to say I really enjoy this conversation. Long time ago that I could talk with someone so much about the Geralt-Saga/Witcher. Was very quite in this forum for a while

It is an almost 3 years old game, so there is no surprise about that. Besides, story related conversations about Witcher are usually not fun, they turn into arguments that endlessly repeat themselves, or being fought by a vocal minority of book fans that will never tolerate the opinions of others. As far as I am concerned, it is bad enough that I no longer want to see more Witcher games in the future.

Geralt and Yennefer both said, that without Ciri they won't be together again, in the 2nd novel, but this is okay for 'em. Ciri was the "catalyst" to finally bring the two together. Yennefer with her wish for a child and Geralt for the wish to be with his loved ones.

While this seems to have turned into an off-topic conversation, the bit I quoted may be relevant to the "complaints" from the previous posts. Because if Ciri really is so important to their relationship, it raises the question what happens when she eventually leaves them. This topic is not explored in detail by the books, the story ends with their "death" and fairy tale afterlife on the island of Avalon. But it becomes relevant in the game. Of course, some will say that it would make no difference, but it is not that uncommon for a real relationship to end when the child grows up and leaves, and it is put to test by other factors at the same time.

And after Geralt found out, she want more than just sex, he ended it, and after this nothing happend between Geralt and Triss again, even if Triss wanted too. I feel sorry for her that she is so in love with himand nothing comes back from him. But this is not Geralt's fault.

The question is, is he just unable to love her (because she is not attractive to him at all), or does he refuse because he knows (rationally) that it would be "wrong", he wants to protect and keep together his family? You said it yourself that he ends it because she wants more than just sex. In the books it may not matter much why he rejects her, but it is important in the context of the game. The prequels to Wild Hunt, notably the prologue of Assassins of Kings where you do not have a choice, kind of already took the latter interpretation. That is, Geralt can actually love Triss under the right circumstances, when it does not conflict with responsibility towards his family, because he cannot have (or broke up with) Yennefer for some reason, and the tight relationship with child Ciri is no longer there.

I am not saying one answer or the other is objectively right to these questions, but to anyone who accepts them at least as possibilities, the choices and their outcomes in the game make sense, they do not only serve the purpose of "revolting fan service".

------------------------

Regarding the Church of the Eternal Fire and Radovid, I do not see a real "issue" with their portrayal, religious (and other) bigotry, racism and witch hunts are things that really existed in history, and still do in some forms. The witch hunts also happen from 1272 in the books. It is not a problem that not all characters are morally "grey" or ambiguous, it would be unrealistic if the game artificially made it so. It shows the whole range, people like the Bloody Baron exist as much as Menges and Whoreson Juniors do. Also, not all religion is shown to be bad, Freya's priestesses on Skellige are religious, too, for example, but they were not made "evil".

Radovid's madness may be explained better, but I think there are enough clues to understand it more or less.

Mages not all teleporting out of Novigrad, they are not all experienced or have the talent of Lodge sorceresses. As far as I know, teleportation is one of the more difficult spells to master, it is exhausting to teleport to a great distance, and the unskilled may not always arrive in one piece. Those who just teleport somewhere near Novigrad may end up running into Radovid's soldiers anyway. It is not that easy for all of them to escape without an organized effort. Otherwise, the witch hunts would not have been able to achieve much in the books, either.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom