Poll: Who Would You Like to See as the Protagonist for "The Witcher 4"?

+

Poll: Who Would You Like to See as the Protagonist for The Witcher 4?


  • Total voters
    298
If there does happen to be another Witcher game after TW3, I'll bet my money on it being about Ciri. I love Eskel and Lambert, but I don't see them as protagonist material. If we could get a fully-fledged game about Ciri 3-8 years after the plot of TW3, with all of the same features of TW3 and more, then it would be my dream come true.

And I think it could work with the multiple endings of TW3. The game could begin differently depending on TW3 save data but still follow the same storyline.

For example:
  • The Empress ending could start with Ciri disgraced from the royal court, never having taken up the title of Nilfgaardian Imperator. Perhaps Emhyr died and she lost influence. Instead Voorhis claimed the throne. Maybe she gave it up willingly, maybe not. Either way, she's on the Path now.
  • The 'Dead Ciri' ending could start with her estranged from Geralt (and by extension Yennefer, Triss, et cetera) but still following the Path of her own volition.
The Witcheress ending is by default. So no matter what, you're jump-started to the main events of the game, with the same basic outcomes regardless of your TW3 ending: Voorhis is Emperor, Geralt is retired, Ciri is on the Path. Just an idea.

Still, Geralt's been such a mainstay of the series that it's hard to imagine it without him. But I think TW3 laid the perfect foundation for a potential Ciri game.

So, all of our original trilogy decisions would be rendered meaningless? Regardless of whether or not she becomes a Witcheress, she becomes the Empress of Nilfgaard, or presumably dies, she'll end up going through the plot of TW4? That sounds like a super weak plot device.

---------- Updated at 01:01 AM ----------


Some very good points, there.

Regarding female Witchers:

The Witcher mutagens/trials were developed many hundreds of years ago by two sorcerers (Cosimo Malaspina and his apprentice, Alzur.). Knowing that men are [physically] the superior sex, they created those potions and elexirs to target a man's body. Doing so for women would have led to Witcheresses who couldn't ever compete with their male counter-parts [physically], and would have taken time away from their work on establishing the Witcher order(s), so they never did it. Now that the formula for the males is lost, and there's nobody left to recreate those, there's also nobody left to create the process for women (Besides the fact that there's also no upside in doing so.).

It's also mentioned that there are only male Witchers (Both in the books, and in the games, on many occasions.).

I mean, C.D.P.R. COULD force female protagonist into the game, and have part of TW4's updated lore include something like "Oh, we found a way to make Witcheresses.", but that's what you'd call "pandering", which, in this instance, would be the forced inclusion of certain groups into the game just to appease those groups. It's a cheap, garbage tactic.

Witchers are all-male. Period. As much as certain groups of people (Who have no respect for a game's lore, and only want to achieve certain quotas.) hate the thought of that, it's simply how it is.

That doesn't go to say that Witcher's can't belong to other groups, such as ethnic minorities or homosexuals (There's nothing to suggest that Witcher's can't be the latter.). The two nations in the East (Haakland and Zerrikania.) are almost exclusively non-white, and are rumored to have Witchers. The same could probably be said for the many nations "across the sea". But, I wouldn't want to see Witchers from those areas as protagonist unless it takes place in that area. And, if that were the case, I wouldn't want to see Witchers from the West (The Northern Kingdoms and Nilfgaard.). I may have made that unnecessarily confusing.

You feel me, though?

---------- Updated at 01:04 AM ----------

Also, moderators, if that last post was too political, please don't delete it. I ask that you tell me what you want gone, and I'll surgically remove it without compromising the rest of the post.
 
Last edited:
You feel me, though?

That certainly makes sense. I do remember that in Blood of Elves (the last book I read) there's a point about how Ciri shouldn't be fed witcher stuff because they could mess up with her hormones, though I didn't realize it was part of a larger problem. Thanks for taking the time to point it out.

As for the other thing, I am fairly certain that if we get another Witcher game it will be set somewhere exotic. The Northern Realms are very homogeneous and we have already seen a lot of them in the trilogy. To my knowledge, that leaves Kovir, Dol Blathanna, Nilfgaard, Haakland and/or Zerrikania as the more likely options. So it would not surprise me of we got at least the option to make a... different looking protagonist.
 
That certainly makes sense. I do remember that in Blood of Elves (the last book I read) there's a point about how Ciri shouldn't be fed witcher stuff because they could mess up with her hormones, though I didn't realize it was part of a larger problem. Thanks for taking the time to point it out.

As for the other thing, I am fairly certain that if we get another Witcher game it will be set somewhere exotic. The Northern Realms are very homogeneous and we have already seen a lot of them in the trilogy. To my knowledge, that leaves Kovir, Dol Blathanna, Nilfgaard, Haakland and/or Zerrikania as the more likely options. So it would not surprise me of we got at least the option to make a... different looking protagonist.

Definitely. I am very curious as to what this hypothetical fourth game may offer.
 
Should be a semi-defined character. Without Sapkowski's rich lore and characterization, I doubt they'll ever reach the level of Geralt when it comes to a defined protagonist.
 
Should be a semi-defined character. Without Sapkowski's rich lore and characterization, I doubt they'll ever reach the level of Geralt when it comes to a defined protagonist.

There's only one way to find out!

Additionally, although Geralt's description is the same as in the books, the games have him a completely different personality. There's almost no correlation between the two. So, if you like him for how he appears, his feats, and his backstory, then that may be true, but if you like him for his personality, then you owe as much thanks to C.D.P.R. as you do Mr. Sapkowski.
 
There's only one way to find out!

Additionally, although Geralt's description is the same as in the books, the games have him a completely different personality. There's almost no correlation between the two. So, if you like him for how he appears, his feats, and his backstory, then that may be true, but if you like him for his personality, then you owe as much thanks to C.D.P.R. as you do Mr. Sapkowski.

To be fair, Geralt is still fairly unique for a fantasy protagonist, and I think the games owe a lot to the books in that front. He is still introverted, introspective, philosophical/moralizing, insecure and really bad with people. Those are qualities he has no matter how you play him, and they really set him apart from the other witchers and from your bog-standard fantasy hero.

He also doesn't emote a lot, which the other witchers do, so it's not a widespread thing. I believe that makes a lot of people confuse him with a Generic Action Hero and ignore his hidden depths.
 
Should be a semi-defined character. Without Sapkowski's rich lore and characterization, I doubt they'll ever reach the level of Geralt when it comes to a defined protagonist.
Meh. I honestly liked their own characters just as much as the ones they took from Sapowski. They owe a lot to him true, but they're not incapable of creating their own compelling characters. I mean Letho is about as perfect a foil for Geralt as you can get.
 
To be fair, Geralt is still fairly unique for a fantasy protagonist, and I think the games owe a lot to the books in that front. He is still introverted, introspective, philosophical/moralizing, insecure and really bad with people. Those are qualities he has no matter how you play him, and they really set him apart from the other witchers and from your bog-standard fantasy hero.

He also doesn't emote a lot, which the other witchers do, so it's not a widespread thing. I believe that makes a lot of people confuse him with a Generic Action Hero and ignore his hidden depths.

You are correct. I retract my original statement.

They changed his character considerably, but it is, more or less, the same personality as the one presented to us by Mr. Sapkowski.

By the way, welcome to the forums, @Gwydden.
 
So, all of our original trilogy decisions would be rendered meaningless? Regardless of whether or not she becomes a Witcheress, she becomes the Empress of Nilfgaard, or presumably dies, she'll end up going through the plot of TW4? That sounds like a super weak plot device.

All of your decisions meaningless? That's extreme. And I respectfully disagree with you. Maybe it's too idealistic, but I do think it's possible to create a game with Ciri as the protagonist without needing to sacrifice our sense of agency as the player.
 
Meh. I honestly liked their own characters just as much as the ones they took from Sapowski. They owe a lot to him true, but they're not incapable of creating their own compelling characters. I mean Letho is about as perfect a foil for Geralt as you can get.

Their own side characters and NPCs, yes. But a player character is a whole other thing. Geralt is multi-layered and nuanced. He's established in the player base's mind. There is so much under the surface here they've relied on since the first game, Inventing something from scratch and having it be independant from Geralt will be a major undertaking.
 
You put face into them for TW3, didn't you? I'd suggest you to it again for TW4 (If it ever even happens.). They rarely disappoint. I mean...these guys created the greatest video game of all time.

We're just having a discussion here. It's pretty much a given that I will buy whatever products CDPR releases in the future. I'm just speculating, that's all.

...keep in mind what most people are fans of this game for...Witchers. They are the unique aspect of the game's universe. Everything else is an amalgamation of all of the famous fantasy worlds and folk tales, or is common throughout other works. For example, there are a ton of games that let you play as a sorcerer, a soldier, a knight, etc. (The things that you mentioned, previously.). How many let you play as a Witcher? The series' lore isn't what makes it specially. It's the series' protagonist; the Witchers.

That's a fair point I suppose.
 
Their own side characters and NPCs, yes. But a player character is a whole other thing. Geralt is multi-layered and nuanced. He's established in the player base's mind. There is so much under the surface here they've relied on since the first game, Inventing something from scratch and having it be independant from Geralt will be a major undertaking.
Good. Let's see them earn that praise everyone gives them about being the best storytellers in RPGs. Sure some people will hate it, say they should've stuck with Geralt forever and ever but so what? You can't keep everyone happy.

And I've seen plenty of people claim they ruined Geralt so it will be nothing new anyway. Let's see them strech their wings outside of the cage using Sapowski's characters puts them in.
 
I'm only like... 3% into the game so I don't know how all of it comes to close but I kind of like the idea of a custom character in The Witcher universe. I also love Ciri. These are really cool ideas.

Be careful navigating these forums, friend, because they are replete with spoilers.

---------- Updated at 02:43 AM ----------

I don't think a new protagonist has to outdo Geralt. He can just be his own person. For example, let's say we got to play as a witcher from the Cat or Viper schools who was a Letho-like figure e.g. more of a hitman than a monster slayer by the time the story takes place. I consider that type of character to be different enough from Geralt while still remaining a witcher. Not saying they would have to do that or even go that far; just trying to show that there is more than one angle to the witcher identity than the one Geralt shows.

That's one way to do it, sure, and one of the reasons why I suggested Lambert earlier in this thread. He's kind of his own man, he's got a different attitude towards the witchering profession - more jaded and cynical - and we know that he goes on to do great things after the Hunt is defeated. But since they'll probably stay clear of characters whom we already know, a protagonist in the vein of someone like Lambert would probably be acceptable (or a Letho, etc.) *shrug*

I don't know if this appeals to you at all, but what I enjoy about (well done) customizable characters is the feeling of shared authorship. I certainly felt vested in and still remember fondly my bitter, egotistical mage or my thuggish but family centered dwarf from Origins. And it worked because I did feel like I had a hand in defining the character while keeping said character as a part of the universe rather than a player insert that just dropped out of the sky(rim).

There was some of that going on with Geralt, and I certainly enjoyed playing as him. If they made a replacement, there's no saying I would not enjoy it just as much. It's just that I'd like them to try their hand at a custom character. Maybe they'll get the hang of it better than other companies.

I actually did enjoy creating my character in the first Dragon Age, partly because Bioware went to such great lengths to - as you said - co-author his background through the Origins stories. That was lost in Inquisition, and I didn't really appreciate the way the Warden was relegated to a supporting role in the universe, while the Inquisitor became the Thedosian equivalent of Jesus.
 
All of your decisions meaningless? That's extreme. And I respectfully disagree with you. Maybe it's too idealistic, but I do think it's possible to create a game with Ciri as the protagonist without needing to sacrifice our sense of agency as the player.

Sorry...I misspoke. The biggest decision of the trilogy (Which the entire trilogy leads up to.). It boils down to "It doesn't matter if she became "A", "B", or "C", because she's now "D".". That would be very dissapointing.

Their own side characters and NPCs, yes. But a player character is a whole other thing. Geralt is multi-layered and nuanced. He's established in the player base's mind. There is so much under the surface here they've relied on since the first game, Inventing something from scratch and having it be independant from Geralt will be a major undertaking.

And the Bloody Baron wasn't multi-layered and nuanced? I personally think his character was in the same ball-park as Geralt, if not better (In some ways.).

We're just having a discussion here. It's pretty much a given that I will buy whatever products CDPR releases in the future. I'm just speculating, that's all.



That's a fair point I suppose.

I hope it didn't come across as if I were attacking you. If so, I truly do apologize. Perhaps I should watch my wording a bit more closely.

My apologies.

Good. Let's see them earn that praise everyone gives them about being the best storytellers in RPGs. Sure some people will hate it, say they should've stuck with Geralt forever and ever but so what? You can't keep everyone happy.


And I've seen plenty of people claim they ruined Geralt so it will be nothing new anyway. Let's see them strech their wings outside of the cage using Sapowski's characters puts them in.

Right on.
 
Sorry...I misspoke. The biggest decision of the trilogy (Which the entire trilogy leads up to.). It boils down to "It doesn't matter if she became "A", "B", or "C", because she's now "D".". That would be very dissapointing.

Actually, it could also make other decisions meaningless. If the new game with Ciri takes place in the Northern Realms, it would need to account for the three different political endings (Nilfgaard wins, Dijkstra becomes chancellor, or Radovid survives and wins the war). Knowing how the save import was done in the existing games, it would in practice most likely be limited to explaining in a few lines why all of them lead to the same outcome. Geralt's ending might not be respected either if he has any role in the game (not that I think he necessarily should - I do not particularly miss content related to Geralt's parents in the current games either - but there would probably be significant fan demand to make him appear). Only the Skellige ending seems to be safe, for the simple reason that it would likely be completely irrelevant in the new game.
 
Actually, it could also make other decisions meaningless. If the new game with Ciri takes place in the Northern Realms, it would need to account for the three different political endings (Nilfgaard wins, Dijkstra becomes chancellor, or Radovid survives and wins the war). Knowing how the save import was done in the existing games, it would in practice most likely be limited to explaining in a few lines why all of them lead to the same outcome. Geralt's ending might not be respected either if he has any role in the game (not that I think he necessarily should - I do not particularly miss content related to Geralt's parents in the current games either - but there would probably be significant fan demand to make him appear). Only the Skellige ending seems to be safe, for the simple reason that it would likely be completely irrelevant in the new game.

There you go. You explained it much more clearly than I did.
 
Sorry...I misspoke. The biggest decision of the trilogy (Which the entire trilogy leads up to.). It boils down to "It doesn't matter if she became "A", "B", or "C", because she's now "D".". That would be very dissapointing.

I understand. And I admit that my theories weren't well thought out, I was merely giving examples. I didn't mean to imply that the game would be 100% the same no matter what your TW3 decisions were, just that it needed to start off somewhere. There must be some common thread or else the story would be wildly nonlinear depending on your TW3 ending. Which could be feasible with future technology, but at present I think that may be too daunting. But I agree with you.

TW3 wasn't all that different for the choices we made in TW2. We didn't even get to see Iorveth or Saskia again. No mention of Anais or Adda, either. I find it extremely disappointing. Unfortunately it seems that the more complicated/bigger RPG games become, the more player agency gets tossed out the window.
 
It would be easiest for CDPR to make a prequel, maybe set years before the Witcher games or books. However, I'd like to see a sequel set after the third war with a new protagonist - neither Ciri nor Geralt. It could be another witcher or a sorcerer/sorceress. Maybe a knight-errant but I don't know if that would fit the tone of the Witcher series.

To account for all of the endings, a W4 would have to be set years (maybe decades) in the future.
 
Would like to see Ciri as the new main character, you will have to decide the begining of the story by how you ended TW3.
 
Top Bottom