One thing bothers me about the upcoming game (vague spoilers for the books)

[nocny.945]

(Google Translator)

Ciri is the axis of the Saga. Reading the Saga without understanding this fact has to be a difficult experience.

Sapkowski has always reached for the trivial solution and mix them in an original way.

I appreciated Ciri, when I read the second time. Ciri make Saga as unique. This causes an unpleasant screeching in my head. Other fantasy stories always feature characters that are liked by all. That's why are boring.

Therefore, Ciri is such a great character.

 

[StaGiors]

How are we even characterizing Ciri as a "Mary Sue" character by the way?

How is Ciri a "too perfect" character?

Let's start at the beginning. Ciri is a princess. If there is such thing as being a perfect princess, then Ciri is far from it.

Ciri is a witcheress. She is not a full witcher. She did not mutate. Thus she is not as fast, or as strong as a witcher. She simply has developed muscle memory regarding swordfighting, and it's clear that she can improvise as well. That's not perfection. Any witcher could fence Ciri easily. She is not as experienced as a real witcher either. She does not know much about monsters. Only what she has read in books.

Ciri is a Sorceress. Is she a perfect Sorceress though? Was she the best student Yennefer could have hoped for? I doubt that. It's not only her skills in magic, it's also her psychological condition, during her learning process. She became an ok student by the end. She did not come close to ever becoming a real Sorceress, much less a perfect one.

Ciri is a Bandit. Sure she became a good bandit. But whatever. Her gang was notorious.

Anyway I could go on with this but it really is of no use. Ciri is a girl going though very rough experiences in her life. She is special in only one way. Her ancestor was Lara Dorren. Thus Ciri has some special powers nobody else has. She has no full control over them. And she is not perfect in any way.

She is not ethically perfect, if such a thing exists. She is not the smartest, nor the most beautiful. She is not a perfect Witcher, or a perfect Sorceress or nothing. She is just a girl with a very special power.

Does Ciri act as a wish fulfillment tool for Sapkowski? I think she does. Because I don't think Sapkowski wanted to ever end his story. And Ciri helped him say that, in the final parts of the last book. Anyway though.

Geralt I would say is closer to a "Mary Sue" character. Though he is not close enough. Not at all. But Ciri? Come on guys.

 

[Sephira]

How are we even characterizing Ciri as a "Mary Sue" character by the way?

How is Ciri a "too perfect" character?

Let's start at the beginning. Ciri is a princess. If there is such thing as being a perfect princess, then Ciri is far from it.

Ciri is a witcheress. She is not a full witcher. She did not mutate. Thus she is not as fast, or as strong as a witcher. She simply has developed muscle memory regarding swordfighting, and it's clear that she can improvise as well. That's not perfection. Any witcher could fence Ciri easily. She is not as experienced as a real witcher either. She does not know much about monsters. Only what she has read in books.

Ciri is a Sorceress. Is she a perfect Sorceress though? Was she the best student Yennefer could have hoped for? I doubt that. It's not only her skills in magic, it's also her psychological condition, during her learning process. She became an ok student by the end. She did not come close to ever becoming a real Sorceress, much less a perfect one.

Ciri is a Bandit. Sure she became a good bandit. But whatever. Her gang was notorious.

Anyway I could go on with this but it really is of no use. Ciri is a girl going though very rough experiences in her life. She is special in only one way. Her ancestor was Lara Dorren. Thus Ciri has some special powers nobody else has. She has no full control over them. And she is not perfect in any way.

She is not ethically perfect, if such a thing exists. She is not the smartest, nor the most beautiful. She is not a perfect Witcher, or a perfect Sorceress or nothing. She is just a girl with a very special power.

Does Ciri act as a wish fulfillment tool for Sapkowski? I think she does. Because I don't think Sapkowski wanted to ever end his story. And Ciri helped him say that, in the final parts of the last book. Anyway though.

Geralt I would say is closer to a "Mary Sue" character. Though he is not close enough. Not at all.But Ciri? Come on guys.

 

[mitasova]

You mean stepdaughter right? I can't think of what would she be a substitute for. I'm sad to see you think that. I do disagree with your opinion and let me allow to outline some reasons. I wish you had outlined yours. Ciri is a crucial character to the the WItcher saga narrative because she ties together many different plots Sapkowski wanted to develop: 1) Emhyr's pursue of her for political purposes that tie together the whole plot of Nilfgaardian war with Northern kingdoms (politics, power, economics). 2) Vilgefortz's and Elfs desire to seize her offspring that reflects struggle to survive in a world that approaches a disaster (Lore of the world and its races). 3) Geralt's struggle to surpass destiny by sacrifice; Yennefer put it in the lines sth of the sort (altough in context of their relationship): "destiny is not enough, sometimes one needs a little bit of sacrifice". Once Geralt comes to accept destiny he still doubts whether he should be neutral towards the fate of others: both Yennefer and Ciri as well as simple stangers (Sapkowski explores here what a moral code of a person should consist in). By vitnessing Ciris struggle we see how Gerlats motives are also heroic.

Well, damn English is my 3rd language so excuse the hell outta me. Actually, the word I was aiming for was "surrogate", I don't remember Geralt ever officially adopting Ciri. But whatever, moving on.

Actually, I'm not sure what exactly we're moving on to, because in the context of this discussion Cirilla's relationship to plot and themes of the entire saga don't matter. Making her into a major character was a mistake because she's a poorly written, boring character (I've stated the reasons for this point of view multiple times, so I won't repeat them again here). I couldn't care less what plot threads she was tying while gallivating pointlessly across Temeria, if a mere mention of her was making me skip pages. I am worried that she will be making me skip chapters in the game as well, if CDPR writers don't reign her in.

Nothing bad happens to her? Like when her closest (and first ever) firends where buchered and beheaded, she kept alive just to see their death, then made to fight on a arena for survival as a feast to the masses, next to be mocked and humiliated by a monster obsessed by idea of her suffering, leter to escape and be hunted like an animal? Oh and do you remember the time when she had to surive on a desert complately alone, desperate and almost certain to die? I dont think so.

This is actually an interesting moment. I admit that "nothing bad ever happens" was typed rushly. Plenty of bad shit has happened to her. I apologize. But you know what, when Bonhart strung up the rats, I actually cheered him on because they were disgusting scum. When Ciri was doing her desert hike I was bored, because let's be honest, she was in no danger of actually dying. It was all pointless. Only after the Fabulous Bonhart Tour did she acquire some kind of purpose to her wandering. Too late.

I actually have a few more thoughts in development of this matter, but this is going deeply off topic.

In a way you do not realise that the Witcher saga is not about Geralt, his adventures and killing monsters at all, but it is a series about growing up, youth's first experiences, as well as how perverse intolerance and brutality of this world and what attitude to form towards them.

I. Don't. Care. My issue is not with what Ciri symbolized in the greater context of the entire saga, but purely with the shoddy writing all around her.

 

[KingHochmeister]

Geralt I would say is closer to a "Mary Sue" character. Though he is not close enough. Not at all. But Ciri? Come on guys.

Geralt always gets injured, Ciri only got a few, from what I remember of the books, and sure, she lost a lot of her loved ones on her journey, but she managed to get out of impossible odds, whether it is Destiny or Sapkowski, she did, in a Mary Sue way.

Does that mean I hate the character? No, I love her character (even though she is very much on the edgy side of things, which is understandable considering what happened to those close to her at that young age), but come on ... hahahahah

 

[StaGiors]

Geralt always gets injured, Ciri only got a few, from what I remember of the books, and sure, she lost a lot of her loved ones on her journey, but she managed to get out of impossible odds, whether it is Destiny or Sapkowski, she did, in a Mary Sue way.

Does that mean I hate the character? No, I love her character (even though she is very much on the edgy side of things, which is understandable considering what happened to those close to her at that young age), but come on ... hahahahah

I think that the whole "Mary Sue" thing happens because Ciri is a character that people can sympathize with, maybe a bit too easily. And this is also the reason why many people think that she is perfect in some way. She is not perfect, just easy to relate to, because every single one of us thinks that they have been through hardships in their life and managed to get out.

She did manage to get out of impossible situations, but not because she did so herself. She was helped along every step of her way. She did not do anything other than exist in the story really. Whatever decision that she made that changed her fate and got her out of impossible odds, was guided by other characters.

Anyway though calling a character a "Mary Sue" is a technicality it does not matter. What matters is if the character is interesting. Even if a character is a Mary Sue character, it does not mean that he/she is not interesting.

Now I will agree, the first time I read the books, the Ciri parts were a little bit tiring. That was because of all the crazy Hocus Pocus Magic, something that I was not used to in the previous books. I will say the transition in the themes of the book was a bit rough. But after a second read and so on, I discovered that Ciri is actually an interesting character.

Anybody of course can have their on opinion on the character.

Spoiler

Also. Why you hate Ciri, bro?

 

[Sephira]

Spoiler

Also. Why you hate Ciri, bro?

I think because some characters act towards her like

 

[KingHochmeister]

Anybody of course can have their on opinion on the character.

Precisely, hahahahaha

Spoiler

Also. Why you hate Ciri, bro?

Spoiler

I don't hate her brah, I am just stating what I feel about her character as a whole, even though I love her character, don't be angry, brah, It's all cool ..... Hahahahahah

 

[Baptista]

My issue is not with what Ciri symbolized in the greater context of the entire saga, but purely with the shoddy writing all around her.

Funny thing, I can not think of better character writing than her confessions to Vysogota in the Swallow's Tower.

 

[Shavod]

From my experience I know that Ciri is certainly a controversial character and among Saga fans you can easily find both people fond and not fond of her, if not downright hating on her. I can assure you that this kind of thing will carry on to the game and for sure she will get as much new fans as a new detractors. Major reason for that is not if Ciri is MS or not, but if The Witcher 3 story will be swallowed (heh heh) by her. The answer to that is yes, it will be. Why? Well, the posts praising Ciri above explained that really well, but instead of easing up some of the critical arguments, they ironically somewhat provided even more credence to them. Ciri became a fabric of entire Saga, she became main female protagonist, all Geralt's goals revolved around her, she plays a key role in plans of almost every villain and major political player, gains a new powers as plot demands. She basically turn it into Ciri Saga, while Geralt ends up as a supporting protagonist. After all of that do you even have any doubts that the main storyline will strongly focus on her?

Just like Raiden in Metal Gear Solid 2 was hated for replacing Snake, Ciri gained a mixed responses because she took a lot of pagetime from Geralt. Let's face it, we got into this story while reading about Geralt's various adventures, so when the novels started more and more focus on this one girl who previously appeared only in two last short stories, you can see why many didn't find her to be a good alternative. Now people are worried that the same thing will happen in a game, even if you going to play as Geralt. The fear increases even further, as it was promised to us as end of Geralt's Saga, so some people are naturally afraid that focus on Ciri will overshadow conclusion of Geralt's own story. While I'm sure that Ciri will be a huge part of The Wild Hunt storyline, I believe that CDPRed will deliver what they promised and we all will at least shed a tear after watching final scene with Geralt.

Now as I said before, Ciri will get a new fans and detractors who will judge her without knowing the original novels. It will be a pretty crucial moment, as overall reception will decide if she's able to carry the franchise further on her own. I think she has her chance, as now stories about father/daughter type of relationship are really popular in video games. Clementine, Ellie and Elizabeth were not only a hearts of their respective games, but even manage to beat in terms of popularity their "fathers". If Geralt/Ciri relationship will be done equally as good I think that people will warm up to her pretty quickly.

 

[sfinx]

Ciri is a great character, but Pan Andrzej made

Sorry for OT, but which language did you use in case of "Pan"? I just wonder if you started with Czech..

 

[mitasova]

This is actually very good and well reasoned POV. I more or less agree. I don't like it, but yeah, here you go.

Just one thing tho: I don't think Raiden was hated because he replaced Snake, per se. He was hated, because he... wasn't a very good character. The same way Alex Denton wasn't just because he/she replaced the man in your avatar. I think you sell people short here, most of the time they are smart enough to see the difference between a good, or at least acceptably solid character (Adam Jensen didn't get any hate) and well, something not entirely ept.

 

[EliHarel]

@Shavod I want to echo mitasova here:

Just one thing tho: I don't think Raiden was hated because he replaced Snake, per se. He was hated, because he... wasn't a very good character. The same way Alex Denton wasn't just because he/she replaced the man in your avatar. I think you sell people short here, most of the time they are smart enough to see the difference between a good, or at least acceptably solid character (Adam Jensen didn't get any hate) and well, something not entirely ept.

I don't know about Raiden, and I don't know about other people who aren't fans of Ciri - my personal dislike\worry isn't the thought that she'll replace Geralt. I dislike that she feels like an overpowered character that encompasses far too many important things than any one character should. There are several reasons I was attracted to the series at first. One is the initial feeling of characters limited in their capabilities, another is how magic (again, at first) didn't feel over-the-top. Most of the time, anyway. Ciri's tale brought imbalance to the Force.

I remember when I played the first game, in chapter 4 an innkeeper tells Geralt about Ciri. And he goes on describing a princess who was also a witcheress who was also a sorceress (and that's even without knowing about her lineage, or the true legacy awaiting her). This was before I read the books, I had no idea what he was talking about, and I remember thinking: "What the hell is this crap? This is like a kid piling Cool Factor after Cool Factor on one character." It felt so out of place from what I experienced up until that point that I thought he was making stuff up.

Some posts here argued that Ciri is an important character, essential to the plot. I don't disagree. We're in agreement about the facts, just not about their merit. I dislike that she is such an essential and unique character in so many ways.

For some reason I'm recalling Fitz from the Farseer trilogy. I read it a long time ago so bear with me, I may be remembering things inaccurately. My impression is that while Fitz was also a character with many unique traits, he never felt overpowered to me and I didn't feel as if the whole plot revolved around him. In fact, if I remember correctly he was kind of like Geralt - a main character who was mostly on the sidelines. A catalyst who moved things, but he wasn't the trump card for multiple crucial plots.

I agree with you on the father-daughter relationship. That's what I hope the focus is (even though I suspect it isn't). It can be a touching story, and it's something I didn't get even half as much as I wanted in the books.

 

[mitasova]

I don't know about Raiden, and I don't know about other people who aren't fans of Ciri - my personal dislike\worry isn't the thought that she'll replace Geralt. I dislike that she feels like an overpowered character that encompasses far too many important things than any one character should. There are several reasons I was attracted to the series at first. One is the initial feeling of characters limited in their capabilities, another is how magic (again, at first) didn't feel over-the-top. Most of the time, anyway. Ciri's tale brought imbalance to the Force.

*nods along* Pretty much in perfect agreement here.

This is the thing that's called "scope creep" and it's a trap that many creators fall into. You start with something small, and kind of get carried away. Saving one princess or one shitty burg suddenly starts feeling like small potatoes, we move on to entire cities, then countries, worlds, civilizations, DIMENSIONS. It's a sneaky thing that just... happens. And it happened to Sapkowski, and Cirilla is in the heart of it.

Personally, I think I wouldn't so much mind Geralt losing (some) of the spotlight, if he lost it to someone worthwile. To someone who's not pulling miracles out of their rear end everytime they are in a tough spot. Ciri is such a disaster of a character though, it feels like a terrible waste.

I remember when I played the first game, in chapter 4 an innkeeper tells Geralt about Ciri. And he goes on describing a princess who was also a witcheress who was also a sorceress (and that's even without knowing about her lineage, or the true legacy awaiting her). This was before I read the books, I had no idea what he was talking about, and I remember thinking: "What the hell is this crap? This is like a kid piling Cool Factor after Cool Factor on one character." It felt so out of place from what I experienced up until that point that I thought he was making stuff up.

Yep, that was the episode that I mentioned when I thought the devs were poking fun at Ciri's awesome overload. That gives me hope more than anything.

Some posts here argued that Ciri is an important character, essential to the plot. I don't disagree. We're in agreement about the facts, just not about their merit. I dislike that she is such an essential and unique character in so many ways.

Exactly.

ETA: Don't think it deserves its own post, but I made a thing:

 

[Shavod]

This is actually very good and well reasoned POV. I more or less agree. I don't like it, but yeah, here you go.

Just one thing tho: I don't think Raiden was hated because he replaced Snake, per se. He was hated, because he... wasn't a very good character. The same way Alex Denton wasn't just because he/she replaced the man in your avatar. I think you sell people short here, most of the time they are smart enough to see the difference between a good, or at least acceptably solid character (Adam Jensen didn't get any hate) and well, something not entirely ept.

I'm going a little offtop here, but Kojima intentionally made Raiden this way to piss his fans off. He was pretty much parody of your average Metal Gear fan and deconstruction of blank slate protagonists. Personally I think that's why he worked really well within Metal Gear Solid 2, as it was already a huge deconstruction of entire franchise, sequels and many video games tropes. And his final moment with the dog tags is definitely one of the greatest in video game history. However after that Kojima turned him into total badass in Metal Gear Solid 4, which was made only after pressure from his fanbase (including death threats), so Hideo kinda gave up and decided to give fans everything they wanted, but not what he wanted.

So main difference between Raiden and Ciri is that one was created as a parody of fans expectations and the other played completely straight. You decide if it's good or bad. But maybe we shouldn't compare The Witcher to such a silly series as Metal Gear. After all in MGS 2 we have a guy who fights Raiden while moving on rollerblades. I mean it's really stupid when you compare it to the awesome moments in the Saga, like Ciri taking down whole bunch of bad guys... while... ice... skating.

...

You know what? I just got an idea for The Witcher Top 10 that will inevitably piss some people off. Stay tuned!

 

[eLeF1]

I'm super glad CDPR decided to introduce more characters from the books (mainly the Emperor of Nilfgaard ) But I would prefer Ciri to be similar to Phillipa in TW2 where if you make certain choices you never even meet her. The books were way too much focused on Ciri as it is. For me finding Yennefer would be the priority since her appearence in the series is long overdue.

And please don't make Ciri playable, it would be basically impossible for me to relate to her.

 

[randyrhoads]

With TW3 I have no worries Ciri might usurp Geralt's role but I'm not so sure about a possible TW4 (which wont include Geralt).

 

[Cake_Eater]

I too didn't enjoy Ciri's drug-fueled lesbian trip, thank god for Leo Bonhart. That character redeemed that whole arc, what a bullshit way to day btw.

But then, dimensions. I lost chunks of respect for the Saga after that (still like it though). But yeah, it cheapened the whole thing. Until that point, magic was really toned down and I liked it that way.

We already know Ciri teleports in out of nowhere just to stumble upon the Ladies, so let it be the only time she teleports in the whole game.

 

[Nars]

@Shavod

Even Sapkowski himself referred to Ciri (at the end of saga) as tabula rasa (blank page). Story section can push her character in any direction they want. I'm not sure if CDPR already agreed on sequel with Ciri as main protagonist, but I'm pretty sure that they will at least consider it based on character reception by fans of course. Afterall Swallow in TWIII will be entirely Red's creation, so we may expect some fresh look and take on the character.

 

[Tuchi]

Hello everyone

I'm a Witcher fan of long standing, if i do say so myself, in fact, I started following Sapkovski's universe when there were no games in existence. I first read the Russian translation of the Sword of destiny in... God, I don't even remember anymore. I was reading this forum from time to time for the last few years, but this... issue finally compelled me to post.

See, one thing that i'm extremely uneasy about in the upcoming game is Ciri. As a fan of books first (I'm also an avid gamer, but for me the Witcher universe is books first, all else second) she was almost single handedly responsible for the decline in Sapkovsky’s books. I liked her well enough when she was a substitute daughter for Geralt (in the earlier books), but making her into a major character was a terrible mistake. Such a blatantly obvious Mary Sue, I really couldn’t believe Sapkovsky would stoop so low, was really fucking disappointed when he started dedicating half of each new book to Cirilla and her incredible lesbian adventures where nothing bad ever happens to her because duh. Alas.

I mean, I'm worried that they wouldn't be able to contain her storyline to more or less a side story. Her taking over the main narrative would be, in my opinion, a disaster. Of course, the games are only tangentially related to the books, and I like to think folks at CDPR are well aware that she was an all around terrible fucking character, seeing that they were making cracks about her incredible mary sueness as far back as the 1st game. But still. I feel apprehensive.

wait wat? Ciri is lesbian?? wat!?

- - - Update - - -

This is actually very good and well reasoned POV. I more or less agree. I don't like it, but yeah, here you go.

Just one thing tho: I don't think Raiden was hated because he replaced Snake, per se. He was hated, because he... wasn't a very good character. The same way Alex Denton wasn't just because he/she replaced the man in your avatar. I think you sell people short here, most of the time they are smart enough to see the difference between a good, or at least acceptably solid character (Adam Jensen didn't get any hate) and well, something not entirely ept.

uahhuahua no dude, people hated raiden becouse was stealing snake spot after a shitton of time and people wanted to se the non pixellated ps1ish version of solid snake and they felt cheated when he was advertised in the trailers and than you find out it's only in the prologue. proof? metal gear rising: protagonist is raiden, there's no even mention of snake in the entire game people love it.
dons of liberty? to this day the general consensus amongst metal gear fan's is that's the worst chapter of the saga,and thati nlucdes the portable episodes...and the nes and snes games.