Shani?

[grregg]

To my knowledge it has not yet been confirmed she is out of the game. Though you may interpret some comments in that direction.(...)

From the Polish forum:

Czy pojawi się Shani w W2

(...)@kalif94: z tego co wiem, nie.(...)

Translation:kalif94: Will Shani make an appearance in TW2?PM: As far as I know she won't.The comment is a bit mysterious, I figure that he would know, so why not just say yes or no without hedging, but for now the word is no. Kind of.

 

[e-ahmet.823]

Yeah, still not clear.

 

[szypek26]

Question's been asked in "Ask the dev team" topic.I'd simply wait for the reply. MM720 seems to deal with all the questions rather fast

 

[stanpapusa]

OMG... where do I even begin? I guess I own an explanation at least to those in charge of maintaining order on the plantation.One of the reason this discussion has 'derailed' so many times is - as far as I'm concerned - the every present reference to the books, which seems to permeate almost everything here, not just the Shani vs Triss debate. If I were to borrow the patronizing style of one of my debate opponents, "Perhaps you missed the part where" this website is not about the literary merits of Mr. Sapkowski 's latest work. Nor it is about debating with critics and would-be writers how the sequel to his latest novel might turn out. It is – I thought – a website about a videogame.Now, whether TW1 or TW2 follows the book 75%, or 99.5%, or 100% is a separate issue in a way. But I guess most of us will agree that a computer game is – or at least should be – a self-contained, internally coherent piece of work (pretty much like a movie inspired from a book would be), not an appendix to a novel or an abridged version of it.If the latter were true, then I would expect the help file to be a print of the book series, or character's diaries to have statements like “for further information on please consult... ”.Along those lines, let me state that the parallel with Christian fundamentalists wasn't a random attack either. Quite often people from that crowd appeal to the authority of the scriptures as though those verses were an axiomatic truth or the ultimate argument winner, even as their debate opponents declare right from the start: 'I do not accept that authority to adjudicate the issue we're discussing, nor do I consider it relevant/necessary' (for reasons stated in the previous paragraph).Honestly, what is the point of referring to a certain situation, character, etc from the book when – as often the case – those details might not even be referred to (or reflected in) the TW1 story/universe? And even if they are, it sounds like somebody taking refuge behind a myriad of details (known only to the initiated) rather than thinking outside the book... oops, I meant 'box'. Paraphrasing Richard Dawkins, “Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?”. It's this attitude that irritates me; it has nothing to do with being obsessed with Shani (although I admit I didn't even consider initially that she might not be in the sequel), or hating Mr. Sapkowski, or with wishing to have the last word in a debate. And by the way Vilgefortze, your attempt to boil down this dispute to alleged insults such as "hate the bookworm" has no weight whatsoever. It's just a cheap attempt to make me look like an ignorant. I might not be an avid reader, certainly not of fantasy books (though I'm an occasionally avid gamer), but I assure you I did my share of “bookworming”. You can't survive in this day and age without it, more so if you want to further your education up to (and including) PhD level. That being said, I'll leave you to it.P.S. I wasn't aware that merely pointing to somebody's objectionable debate style equates to an ad hominem attack. I guess I just learned my lesson.

 

[vilgefortze]

OMG... where do I even begin?

...in a different thread titled "Why I hate the original Witcher Universe so much" or "Why reading the original saga makes your opinion less important"

There's a good place to start.

 

[grregg]

@stanpapusaI think you'll find that whenever a game is placed in a pre-existing universe, it stops being a truly standalone entity. It generally has to adhere to the chosen world's conventions, characteristics, etc. Sometimes the limits are enforced via licensing as in case of Star Wars universe or D&D, sometimes it is simply a desire of game's creators to stick to certain vision. After all, if they didn't want to follow a world's conventions, why choose the world at all?CD Projekt is in an even harder position since they are not only placing their games in a world created by another person, they are using a character who's not really their own. And Geralt is not some minor side character, he is a protagonist of an entire series of novels. This is a situation akin to having a game where you would play as Darth Vader or, say, Harry Potter. In such situation, you really don't have that much freedom as to what you can do with the character. It is an already established entity and there's only so much you can change about it.I understand that you might have never heard about Saplkowski and his novels, but many fans, and more importantly CD Projekt, have. If they chose Geralt as the protagonist, I think it indicates that they want to stick to the character as created by Sapkowski. Otherwise why not create a game about some other witcher? A side effect of that choice is that Geralt is not going to settle down and start a medical practice with Shani and vice versa she won't take up wandering just to be with him. Regardless of what the player might want.And on a side note, that was one of the things that I liked about The Witcher. The fact that you do not necessarily get what you want. Even if you do happen to be a superhuman mutant swordmaster.

 

[barid]

And still this crap goes on for god knows why. (The crap about the books, not the matter this is about)Considering in the books you could play Geralt as pretty much a non-human hating Order loving dick, I would venture a guess that it's different than the "book" Geralt? And considering he was killed in the books and now is suddenly back from the dead and has no memory, sounds to me like the intention here was to take a foundation of a character and let players redefine him. Not base it all off of the books again.So drop it with the damn books. This isn't a retelling, this isn't an interpretation, this isn't an adaptation. It's a standalone game that uses the pre-existing universe in a completely undefined plot. End of god damn story.And with that said, two of the primary choices in the game were alignment and love interest. With CDPR spouting off from the beginning that this game is all about your choices as a player, to seemingly write off one of the 2 biggest choices is a let down to say the least. Exactly why or in what way, nobody knows as of now.Couldn't give 2 shits what the books had on the matter. I know what dialogue choices I was given, I know what I picked so I know what "Geralt" said in those certain situations. With that said, an exclusion of Shani makes it feel like those choices given to me didn't actually mean anything to begin with, something I thought CDPR was going to actually do differently from everyone else. Will have to see the actual game to know one way or another, but my excitement has definitely been stifled.

 

[vilgefortze]

The "crap" about books never dies out because whenever a person gives a valid point both from the game, and supporting references from the books, people who have no proper response/rebuttal , and I mean a logical one, resort to book-bashing as the only outlet of their pent up emotions.Don't understand what a guy's talking about? Refuse to concede a point? Still feel the need to oppose his point of view? Have no clue what can be a valid rebuttal? Attack the validity of the point itself. Age old solution to "not understanding". When the point of Shani not being in TW2 came up, the first reasons put up were from the game. About how Geralt said he had no right to put others lives in danger just to satisfy his desire from a family( in Murky Waters). About how he was seen leaving Vizima alone (at endgame). When it was pointed out that Triss was still present, the clarification was made that they met in the game when Zoltan and Dandelion was being hanged, and they came to their friends' rescue. Triss wasn't following Geralt around at the start of the game as a love interest. Only after stating all these points did some venture to say that this pattern fits in with the pattern in the original saga, where Geralt often runs away from the person he loves, to keep them safe, and how Triss is infatuated with him, and stalks him around. And the response?"He speaks heresy""He speaks of the forbidden text""He speaks of the thing about which I don't give a flying *****""Let's burn him at the stake"Sounds a lot like ignorant witch-hunting to me.If you're so confused, ask the Devs about what they think of the saga. Since they're in charge of developing the game, just ask they and find out if they give "2 *****" about the saga of not.See you all in hell.

 

[slash_luke]

Vilgefortze: I agree with everything you just wrote and only CD Project itself can solve this "conflict".So, until they (CDP) say anything on this "problem", it´s just "my opinion is X and it´s the only truth" vs. "no way, my opinion is Y and that´s the only truth"

 

[e-ahmet.823]

...If they chose Geralt as the protagonist, I think it indicates that they want to stick to the character as created by Sapkowski. Otherwise why not create a game about some other witcher? A side effect of that choice is that Geralt is not going to settle down and start a medical practice with Shani and vice versa she won't take up wandering just to be with him. Regardless of what the player might want.And on a side note, that was one of the things that I liked about The Witcher. The fact that you do not necessarily get what you want. Even if you do happen to be a superhuman mutant swordmaster.

Agreed. Firstly, the game was based on the pre-existing universe of the witchers and Shani didn't have a notable role in that universe. Despite that in the game she had. Players didn't put Shani in the game with that huge part disrupting that universe. The devs of the first game did. Although I read only two books, which are the only ones in English, I understand what a witcher can do and can't do. I know he can't settle down not only from books but also in the game Geralt himself says that. It seems it turned out devs had a bitter ending for the people who chose Shani because Geralt is a witcher and can't start a family or Shani wouldn't stalk him like Triss does (Maybe she'd like I don't know). The problem is this. I don't know how Shani would react to this. There wasn't a goodbye, break up, fight. I want a better resolution damn it.

 

[vilgefortze]

Vilgefortze: I agree with everything you just wrote and only CD Project itself can solve this "conflict".

Now consider this:

I recommend we just put a lid on this conversation for now. We'll see in sometime, won't we? Ceasefire from this end then.

I really don't understand why the old wound was opened again.We aren't even discussing Shani anymore. We are discussing whether the books are an inspiration or are they more than just that.And then we have a myriad of annoying opinions where people think once a game is made based on any text, it becomes an independent entity and can depict whatever they want. I'm sure these people whould cry is protest is a game is made showing Joker and Batman on the same side, or Aragorn leading Sauron's armies against Minas Tirith.I'm sick and tired of this discussion. I'm willing to admit that the Shani we met in TW1 is different from the Shani of the saga. I'm willing to admit she's a far more important character in the game than she's in the saga. I know I would prefer if she's included in TW2. The only point I differ on is that she's not vital to the continuity, and there is a logical explanation for her exclusion. I'm willing to meet my opponents halfway. Are they? I don't think so. While some are at least willing to concede that the saga was (at least) an inspiration, others don't give "2 ****s" about it.Is it logical to retain the neutral stance and and debate with someone who's obviously blindly biased? Or is it a better tactic to fall back to the other extreme and continue the conflict?So, obviously,

it´s just "my opinion is X and it´s the only truth" vs. "no way, my opinion is Y and that´s the only truth"

It needn't have been that way. But unfortunately, it is.@e-ahmetAt the risk of attracting flak, I'll state that it's exactly what the Geralt of the saga would have done. He left his loved ones behind without informing, not because he was an escapist, but because he knew they'll follow him into situations he didn't want them in. And nothing he said could stop them from following him either.

 

[e-ahmet.823]

@e-ahmetAt the risk of attracting flak, I'll state that it's exactly what the Geralt of the saga would have done. He left his loved ones behind without informing, not because he was an escapist, but because he knew they'll follow him into situations he didn't want them in. And nothing he said could stop them from following him either.

Yeah, it's what he did to Yennefer too. Shani must be thinking Geralt is a dick now It's never wise for a super hero (oops) I mean mutant to love I guess.

 

[vilgefortze]

Everyone has the right to love, mein freund. But superheros have a harder time living the life of a lover.Geralt ("mutant freak") has a harder time still.

 

[barid]

You're really too dramatic, calm down a bit...The main point in my post wasn't even about the books. The books really just need to stop being brought up altogether because the game is well past the storyline written and it is now writing its own story, as devised by CDPR.So with that in mind, using that baseline to cast the books aside completely and focus on the game, the issue at hand that I see is how what appeared to be a very significant decision, in a game that centers around making serious decisions and their consequences, has been revealed (at least as is apparent at this point in time) as being meaningless.Nothing any of us can do about that either, of course. But doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to voice our disapproval of the situation, which is precisely what I'm doing.

 

[Pangaea666]

I don't really get what the disagreement is about. This isn't a BioWare game. This game series won't end with Geralt and his love interest settling down and living happy ever after. I just can't see it. Besides, I think it's wrong to call what happened in the first game a "love interest". He handed a kid over to one of them and had sex twice compared to once, and wrote a letter. True, you could choose to sound very much in love and wanting to settle down, but unless CDPR want to radically break with the books (there's that nasty word again! ) Geralt will not settled down and become a farmer. I'd prefer if Shani is in TW2 too (keep in mind nothing has been confirmed yet, we are leaping to conclusions based on flimsy words), but I don't think she is crucial. Admittedly she is more important in the game than the books, and I'm fine with that. This isn't a "live happily ever after" type of game, however. I can't see that happening with Triss either. Maybe this whole argument will be a bit pointless when TW2 comes out. It all depends on what kind of story the game will have, who is natural to include. From what CDPR have said it will be more about political intrigues and the world will be much bigger, including more Kingdoms. In that context I'm not so sure it makes sense to give a medical student a prominent role. It makes more sense to give an aide to one of the kings a big(ger) role. If CDPR do as good a job with the story on TW2 as they did on TW1, I doubt any of us will truly miss Shani (if she is gone, which at this point in time is a big if).

 

[slash_luke]

Am I the only one, who noticed, that majority of people defending Shani´s importance didn´t read the Witcher saga at all? The Witcher games aren´t just inspired by these books/stories, they are directly linked to them (with a few years apart, of course) and (besides many other things) are using their main character(s) - character, which was fully written to every last aspect of his personality - and I don´t believe, that (temporary) memory loss could change him so much.Hell, good half of all texts/dialogues in the first game is word by word copied from the saga (which was one of the few aspects I didn´t like..too much dejavu for me), so why don´t take books as important source of information?I understand, that the Witcher saga wasn´t fully translated to english yet, but that doesn´t mean that you can say things like "I don´t care what is in the books, I want it the way I like it". It´s like there was, for example, game "Lord of the Rings: Frodo´s Journey" and some folks on a game forum talked like this "I don´t want to play hobit named Frodo. Hobits are stupid..why I can´t play girl? Why I can´t date Gandalf? Why I can´t change Frodo´s race? Why I can´t use this strange ring? .. what? What books? I don´t know them, I didn´t read them/they weren´t translated to my language..I don´t care about them at all." For people who read the original, speech like that is literally a desecration.I know that it isn´t exactly the same thing as we are discussing here, but it´s very similar. CDP did at least one thing too differently from the original - they (I don´t understand why) increased importance of one saga´s unimportant person - Shani. I have nothing against Shani..she is good, intelligent and loyal (and naive) girl, but .. I´m sorry .. she isn´t good enough for Geralt. They are too much different, have nothing in common and..she is too much young and idealistic for him.Everyone who read the original saga understand that, but unfortunately not all have this opportunity (yet). P.S.: Sorry for my english and too long text..I just had to say that

 

[vilgefortze]

OFFTOPIC: Post not about Shani. Do not read with Shani in mind, and do not use Shani as a reference if you're replying.

But doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to voice our disapproval of the situation, which is precisely what I'm doing.

I'm sorry. But if you voice your disapproval of other people voicing their opinions (from the books), I really have to disapprove.I would simply like to know what gave you the ingenious idea that games based on books can do whatever they like with the original characters? I have already cited a few example of how odd this might become, but you were so caught up in my "dramatic" representation of the matter, you failed to follow the subject itself.With all the references to the actual events in the saga from TW1, and the fact that the Devs said that Geralt would start getting his memory back in TW2, do you really think the Devs are trying to make a game that is disjoint from the source text? If they were trying to do so, would they bring his past back in TW2? Mind you, the glimpses of his past we got in TW1 were all events from the saga. What exactly leads you to believe that the Devs will suddenly do a backflip and run in the opposite direction? Do you really believe that the Devs are now making a "Geralt's Past" version exclusively for the game, or do you feel they're just going to borrow from the book? I'd appreciate an honest opinion.

 

[Corylea.723]

I'm a big Shani fan, as anyone who's played "Medical Problems" may have guessed. I admire her for all of the dangers she undergoes and the privations she endures in order to see her patients and treat them. Unlike Geralt, she's not a genetically modified super-hero. Unlike Triss, she's not a powerful sorceress. She's an ordinary human, which means that she's frail and vulnerable, yet she does whatever she has to do. You know the situation in the inn at the end of Chapter 1 can't be the first time she's ever been threatened by bandits. And being willing to go into war zones to treat patients means that she's taking her life in her hands, since soldiers are --understandably -- not always happy when a doctor tries to save the person they've just tried to kill. And then there's willingly going into a plague zone, to treat the people there, even though she knows she's going to be underpaid for the job.I also like it that she seems to love Geralt the man, not Geralt the super-hero. She seems to want him for HIM and not because he's a freaking one-man army.But in my last few plays, I've given Alvin to Triss, even though I admire Shani greatly. Geralt can't settle down; he's not that type. And an awful lot of a relationship consists of showing up. Shani is wonderful and seems to genuinely love Geralt for himself. But Triss can teleport. Geralt actually can maintain some sort of relationship with someone who can teleport to see him whenever she wants to, the kind of relationship that would be impossible with someone who would have to follow him into danger (not happening) or tie him down to one place (not happening) or see him once a year at most (bad idea).I'm sorry that Shani won't be in TW2. CDPR assigned her a lot of importance in TW1, so it seems odd to me that she won't be in the game. But she's not in the game for precisely the sort of reason why I eventually -- reluctantly -- concluded that Triss was a better match for Geralt: The situation has heated up, and Geralt is going after a gang of assassins. Only people who can defend themselves against professional assassins can come along. Triss can. Shani -- much as I love her -- can't.

 

[Garrison72]

I also like it that she seems to love Geralt the man, not Geralt the super-hero. She seems to want him for HIM and not because he's a freaking one-man army.

Thats a good point Corylea. Never thought of it that way.Unlike some others, I suspect Triss is looking at the big picture for Geralt, she's looking after him. Thats why she doesn't reveal everything. When I saw the scene in TW2 of Geralt and Triss kissing in the pool, it kind of confirmed that suspicion of mine. She's devoted to Geralt, but at the same time she has bigger fish to fry. She almost reminds me of Gandalf in The Lord of th Rings that way, although I hate to use LOTR as a comparison to Sapkowski.

 

[barid]

OFFTOPIC: Post not about Shani. Do not read with Shani in mind, and do not use Shani as a reference if you're replying.

But doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to voice our disapproval of the situation, which is precisely what I'm doing.

I'm sorry. But if you voice your disapproval of other people voicing their opinions (from the books), I really have to disapprove.I would simply like to know what gave you the ingenious idea that games based on books can do whatever they like with the original characters? I have already cited a few example of how odd this might become, but you were so caught up in my "dramatic" representation of the matter, you failed to follow the subject itself.With all the references to the actual events in the saga from TW1, and the fact that the Devs said that Geralt would start getting his memory back in TW2, do you really think the Devs are trying to make a game that is disjoint from the source text? If they were trying to do so, would they bring his past back in TW2? Mind you, the glimpses of his past we got in TW1 were all events from the saga. What exactly leads you to believe that the Devs will suddenly do a backflip and run in the opposite direction? Do you really believe that the Devs are now making a "Geralt's Past" version exclusively for the game, or do you feel they're just going to borrow from the book? I'd appreciate an honest opinion.

An honest opinion? Your posts, at this point, aren't even worth reading.Pulling the matter right back to the books, you've managed to skip right over what I've stated several times, twice in just the last two days. The issue is CDPR wrote the story, made certain things appear to be very significant, and so far seemingly undid a significant part of that. It's got nothing to do with the books, references, anything... It's the execution of the game and its story, nothing more. They appear to be going a route that the vast majority of other forms of media go which is a huge disappointment.