Shanimance

[JackofTears]

Shanimance

Just wanted to say that I finished the wedding mission and the Shani romance and really enjoyed it. It was a fun mission and the romance cap at the end was really sweet. CD Projekt Red does a great job at making each of the romance scenes feel very distinct for the women involved and I found myself grinning from ear to ear during the entire scenario. I really missed Shani from the first game and it was great seeing her again - not to mention this side of her. She's fun to hang out with and is the one woman in Geralt's romantic life I don't feel like he has to be on guard with, because she's honest and realistic about what they can be to one another. I also appreciate the fact that she's a strong, competant woman without having to be a sorceress - there's something sexy about that.

At any rate, this was an enjoyable experience and I really appreciate that the designers made it available; thank you.

 

[saladin1701]

I got to say that CDPR's inconsistent writing is becoming tiresome. I liked the quest, don't get me wrong, but if Geralt is prepared to settle down with Triss or Yen, why is he not prepared to settle down with Shani? The writing completely neglects that point making the entire romance inconsistent with the rest of the game. Hearts of Stone was a chance to correct some of the existing inconsistencies in the writing, not add to them with more. It's really disappointing.

 

[Floobosaurus]

As I remember it, it's Shani that breaks the relationship off at the end of HoS. Geralt tells her to stay, but she runs off to Kaedwen.

 

[JackofTears]

I never liked the idea of Geralt settling down anyway; the fact that she doesn't want to settle down is one of the things I love about Shani - she's more realistic about their relationship; she doesn't expect them to be husband and wife, she expects them to be what they are.

 

[Pug.]

I never liked the idea of Geralt settling down anyway; the fact that she doesn't want to settle down is one of the things I love about Shani - she's more realistic about their relationship; she doesn't expect them to be husband and wife, she expects them to be what they are.

I haven't reached the end of the game, but doesn't Shani explicitly state during the wedding that she is looking to settle down, and that she wants a man who will be there for her everyday when she comes home from work? It's Geralt that then goes on to say "I can't be that kind of man." She looked pretty upset when she caught that garland of flowers and reflected on the fact that she wasn't married.

 

[Boromir2015]

My Gerald would prefer to stay by Shani!!! What do you all think about a Shani-Fan-Group?! :harhar::harhar::harhar::harhar::harhar:

 

[Avin]

Oh, I love Shani since TW1. Never cared about Triss since that

Shani Shani Shani!

 

[JackofTears]

I haven't reached the end of the game, but doesn't Shani explicitly state during the wedding that she is looking to settle down, and that she wants a man who will be there for her everyday when she comes home from work? It's Geralt that then goes on to say "I can't be that kind of man." She looked pretty upset when she caught that garland of flowers and reflected on the fact that she wasn't married.

Yes, but the way she says it indicates she knows he can't be that person and doesn't expect him to be. It depresses her that she doesn't have that person in her life, because she's getting to a point in her life where she wants that, but she doesn't expect it to be Geralt.

---------- Updated at 08:27 AM ----------

---------- Updated at 08:27 AM ----------

Oh, I love Shani since TW1. Never cared about Triss since that

Shani Shani Shani!

Honestly, I love all three of Geralt's love interests , but I really missed Shani in TW2 and was missing her in this game as well; it didn't feel right not having her here.

---------- Updated at 08:28 AM ----------

My Gerald would prefer to stay by Shani!!! What do you all think about a Shani-Fan-Group?! :harhar::harhar::harhar::harhar::harhar:

I'd be in favor of this!

 

[Pug.]

Yes, but the way she says it indicates she knows he can't be that person and doesn't expect him to be. It depresses her that she doesn't have that person in her life, because she's getting to a point in her life where she wants that, but she doesn't expect it to be Geralt.

I think the reason that some people are calling this inconsistent writing is because Geralt ends up being precisely that kind of person if he chooses either Yennefer or Triss. In both of those endings he essentially hangs up his sword and becomes a stay-at-home house husband. Triss lets him go out every now and then on an adventure, but for all intents and purposes he retires.

At any rate, after seeing their interactions after the mansion, it all makes a little more sense. Shani is a field medic at the beck and call of the Redanian army. Her life is unpredictable and itinerant, and she doesn't expect Geralt to make that kind of sacrifice to be with her.

Still, I think she should have left the decision up to him. The whole situation reeks of "It's not you, it's me." Honestly, I think Shani just isn't into Geralt as much as Yennefer or Triss, and this is her way of letting him down gently.

 

[saladin1701]

I haven't reached the end of the game, but doesn't Shani explicitly state during the wedding that she is looking to settle down, and that she wants a man who will be there for her everyday when she comes home from work? It's Geralt that then goes on to say "I can't be that kind of man." She looked pretty upset when she caught that garland of flowers and reflected on the fact that she wasn't married.

Yes she does which is the entire point. Play the main game and romance either Triss or Yen and you eventually settle down with them. So why is that completely ignored by HoS? Why isn't that a valid option? I'm not saying Shani should necessarily have been a legitimate romance, although it would have been nice for Shanimancers from the first game to have that option, but they could have come up with a reason not to get involved with Geralt that was consistent with the rest of the game. It's the inconsistency that bothers me more than the fact I can live happily ever after with Shani.

---------- Updated at 10:16 PM ----------

At any rate, after seeing their interactions after the mansion, it all makes a little more sense. Shani is a field medic at the beck and call of the Redanian army. Her life is unpredictable and itinerant, and she doesn't expect Geralt to make that kind of sacrifice to be with her.

Still, I think she should have left the decision up to him. The whole situation reeks of "It's not you, it's me." Honestly, I think Shani just isn't into Geralt as much as Yennefer or Triss, and this is her way of letting him down gently.

And Triss is advisor to Kovir's King, surely a post that would require her to accompany him on any state visits. Plus, depending upon your choices, Redania is defeated at the conclusion of the game so she'd go back to clinic.

 

[Kallelinski]

I think the reason that some people are calling this inconsistent writing is because Geralt ends up being precisely that kind of person if he chooses either Yennefer or Triss. In both of those endings he essentially hangs up his sword and becomes a stay-at-home house husband. Triss lets him go out every now and then on an adventure, but for all intents and purposes he retires.

Triss might have a certain destination/place and with that a certain obligation, but with Yennefer they are just roaming the world, going wherever they want without a specific place. That's exactly what she told him after all, free to do what they want.

At any rate, after seeing their interactions after the mansion, it all makes a little more sense. Shani is a field medic at the beck and call of the Redanian army. Her life is unpredictable and itinerant, and she doesn't expect Geralt to make that kind of sacrifice to be with her.

She won't be a field medic forever, especially when the war ends. We also know from the books what she is going to be and even how long she will live, I think it would have been quite plausible that Geralt could live with her or at least be with her for a longer time of period.

I could imagine that the biological difference might be a problem for her. With each year she will age accordingly, but Geralt won't. Yet this is a problem of the future, so why bother with it now?

Settling down and starting a family in the long-term might be also a reason, why she declines Geralt.

 

[Boromir2015]

I could imagine that the biological difference might be a problem for her. With each year she will age accordingly, but Geralt won't. Yet this is a problem of the future, so why bother with it now?.

That would be a perfect legendary theme! Like in Highlander for example. Better than the relationship with Triss or Yen if I think about it...

 

[Pug.]

Yes she does which is the entire point. Play the main game and romance either Triss or Yen and you eventually settle down with them. So why is that completely ignored by HoS? Why isn't that a valid option? I'm not saying Shani should necessarily have been a legitimate romance, although it would have been nice for Shanimancers from the first game to have that option, but they could have come up with a reason not to get involved with Geralt that was consistent with the rest of the game. It's the inconsistency that bothers me more than the fact I can live happily ever after with Shani.

---------- Updated at 10:16 PM ----------



And Triss is advisor to Kovir's King, surely a post that would require her to accompany him on any state visits. Plus, depending upon your choices, Redania is defeated at the conclusion of the game so she'd go back to clinic.

Well, after having beaten HoS today, I don't agree that CDPR's handling of Shani is inconsistent.

According to the journal in the first Witcher game, even if Geralt prefers Shani to Triss, the relationship doesn't work out because of his immaturity:

Some of you have surely heard the rumors about the relationship that bloomed between the young medic Shani and Geralt. I hasten to inform you that they are all true. I consider Shani a friend both true and old. We go back to the days when I lectured in minstrelsy at Oxenfurt University, and I was the one to introduce her to the witcher. Upon Geralt's return to the living, they were reunited in Vizima, where the red-haired medic competed with Triss Merigold for Geralt's heart. She emerged victorious from the rivalry. The flame of their romance blazed bright, but it burned out quickly. Though a very young woman, Shani proved more mature than the witcher, who had always found relationships puzzling and difficult. Geralt would dodge his obligations towards her, preferring instead to pursue the missions King Foltest assigned him. The medic quickly realized this flour would yield no bread. She had a serious conversation with the witcher, and they parted amicably. Shani accepted an offer to teach at Oxenfurt and left for that city, whereas Geralt followed Foltest to the lands of the La Valettes. After splitting with Shani, the witcher needed comforting and quickly found solace in Triss Merigold's arms.

Nothing has really changed since then. Geralt could make the case that he has indeed grown, but Shani obviously doesn't buy it. Like I said above, the whole situation wreaks of "it's not you, it's me." It's pretty clear that she doesn't care for him in that way to the same degree that Yennefer or Triss do. Shani using her job as a pretense for breaking up is, in my opinion, just her way of letting Geralt down easily. In many ways, that's a masterful stroke on CDPR's part. It lends her character more believability and mirrors the way relationships often fall apart in real life.

I also thought it was pretty interesting that, if you visit the tomb of Vladimir von Everec after completing HoS, Geralt notices that flowers have been placed on his sarcophagus. He then goes on to speculate that Shani may have been the one to put them there. Not a startling revelation, but I think it sheds some additional light on her personality. The fact that she was drawn to Vladimir, a man who was the polar opposite of Geralt, underscores their incompatibility even more.

 

[saladin1701]

Well, after having beaten HoS today, I don't agree that CDPR's handling of Shani is inconsistent.

According to the journal in the first Witcher game, even if Geralt prefers Shani to Triss, the relationship doesn't work out because of his immaturity:



Nothing has really changed since then. Geralt could make the case that he has indeed grown, but Shani obviously doesn't buy it. Like I said above, the whole situation wreaks of "it's not you, it's me." It's pretty clear that she doesn't care for him in that way to the same degree that Yennefer or Triss do. Shani using her job as a pretense for breaking up is, in my opinion, just her way of letting Geralt down easily. In many ways, that's a masterful stroke on CDPR's part. It lends her character more believability and mirrors the way relationships often fall apart in real life.

I also thought it was pretty interesting that, if you visit the tomb of Vladimir von Everec after completing HoS, Geralt notices that flowers have been placed on his sarcophagus. He then goes on to speculate that Shani may have been the one to put them there. Not a startling revelation, but I think it sheds some additional light on her personality. The fact that she was drawn to Vladimir, a man who was the polar opposite of Geralt, underscores their incompatibility even more.

The entire theme of The Witcher 3 is that Geralt has matured. That's why the number of 'romances' where cut down to a handful, it's why he retires at the end of the game (in the romances). I say this again. He settles down with Triss or Yen so why not Shani? You're assumptions about making the case and not being believed are just that, assumptions. Had the game gone down that route then fair enough but it doesn't, it ignores that inevitability of the other romances so is out of step with them. It's not like it would have taken much work. Alternative dialogue to what we have now and a card at the end showing Shani and Geralt at her clinic, rather than Triss or Yen.

 

[Pug.]

I say this again. He settles down with Triss or Yen so why not Shani?

Ever take into account the possibility that Shani's personality has changed over the years and that she is no longer as attracted to Geralt as she once thought she was? It happens in real life, why not in video games? That's a pretty common thing: to be in a relationship with someone, end it, and then try to rekindle that romance years later only to find that you're no longer attracted to the person.

Edit: As for "making assumptions" on my part, you have to read into these sorts of things. When in real life or in fiction do jilted lovers ever sit down and tell the 100% honest to god truth about why they are leaving a relationship? If you are friends with someone, you want to let them down easy, as in the case of Shani.

Just because you don't like the reasons that Shani gives for breaking up with Geralt doesn't mean that CDPR is guilty of "inconsistent writing."

 

[saladin1701]

Ever take into account the possibility that Shani's personality has changed over the years and that she is no longer as attracted to Geralt as she once thought she was? It happens in real life, why not in video games? That's a pretty common thing: to be in a relationship with someone, end it, and then try to rekindle that romance years later only to find that you're no longer attracted to the person.

Edit: As for "making assumptions" on my part, you have to read into these sorts of things. When in real life or in fiction do jilted lovers ever sit down and tell the 100% honest to god truth about why they are leaving a relationship? If you are friends with someone, you want to let them down easy, as in the case of Shani.

Just because you don't like the reasons that Shani gives for breaking up with Geralt doesn't mean that CDPR is guilty of "inconsistent writing."

You're doing it again. I'm dealing in facts rooted solely in the dialogue. No opinions, just the facts.

Shani quite explicitly says that she needs someone in her life she can come home to but Geralt is always on the road which is in direct contradiction to the other romances where Geralt does retire and does settle down in one place. Geralt does not correct her, there is no dialogue choice allowing the player to do so therefore its out of step with the others because in those the player can decide whether Geralt settles down in a relationship or stays on the road. That choice is removed from the player in this and only this romance. If she's not interested in him then record dialogue to that effect. It's absence causes the inconsistency. The writing in the game is going from bad to worse in terms of its consistency and that's what bothers me.

 

[Pug.]

Shani quite explicitly says that she needs someone in her life she can come home to but Geralt is always on the road which is in direct contradiction to the other romances where Geralt does retire and does settle down in one place.

How is Shani supposed to have knowledge of that? What is supposed to do, whip out a crystal ball and predict, "If Geralt elopes with Yennefer or Triss, he hangs up his sword and retires, ergo he will do the same for me." You're looking at this entire situation through the lens of the player, when there is no possible way that Shani would be privy to such knowledge.

Geralt does not correct her, there is no dialogue choice allowing the player to do so therefore its out of step with the others because in those the player can decide whether Geralt settles down in a relationship or stays on the road.

Perhaps because, at this point in the narrative, even Geralt has not decided that he is going to settle down and retire. HoS is set during the events of Wild Hunt, and we are never told when Geralt comes to the conclusion that his Witchering days are over. If one were inclined, you could even think of Geralt's dealings with Shani in HoS as providing the impetus for him to later settle down with Yennefer or Triss.

If she's not interested in him then record dialogue to that effect.

Why? Neither men nor women have to justify their reasons for breaking up with someone in real life, what makes it incumbent upon them to do so in a video game? She's perfectly entitled to use whatever excuse she wants and deal with the situation in whatever way she thinks appropriate. I think your problem is that you can't divorce yourself from video-game mechanics. You expect Geralt to be privy to everyone's real motivations and for each decision to be neatly explained to the player with no obfuscation. That's not how it works in the real world, and surely realism is something that a developer should strive for when depicting in-game relationships.

It's absence causes the inconsistency. The writing in the game is going from bad to worse in terms of its consistency and that's what bothers me.

I'll agree to disagree. I thought HoS was a triumph.

 

[saladin1701]

How is Shani supposed to have knowledge of that? What is supposed to do, whip out a crystal ball and predict, "If Geralt elopes with Yennefer or Triss, he hangs up his sword and retires, ergo he will do the same for me." You're looking at this entire situation through the lens of the player, when there is no possible way that Shani would be privy to such knowledge.



Perhaps because, at this point in the narrative, even Geralt has not decided that he is going to settle down and retire. HoS is set during the events of Wild Hunt, and we are never told when Geralt comes to the conclusion that his Witchering days are over. If one were inclined, you could even think of Geralt's dealings with Shani in HoS as providing the impetus for him to later settle down with Yennefer or Triss.



Why? Neither men nor women have to justify their reasons for breaking up with someone in real life, what makes it incumbent upon them to do so in a video game? She's perfectly entitled to use whatever excuse she wants and deal with the situation in whatever way she thinks appropriate. I think your problem is that you can't divorce yourself from video-game mechanics. You expect Geralt to be privy to everyone's real motivations and for each decision to be neatly explained to the player with no obfuscation. That's not how it works in the real world, and surely realism is something that a developer should strive for when depicting in-game relationships.



I'll agree to disagree. I thought HoS was a triumph.

O.K. first of all let's deal with the term 'romance' within the context of this game. It falls in to two categories. A relationship and a one night stand.

In the base game (i.e. no Expansion), under the category of 'Relationship' we have Triss and Yennefer. Under the category of one night stand we have Keira, Sasha, Jutta and the whores.

So where does Shani fit in this when we add HoS in to the equation? Because Shani says "I need to sort this through in my mind" it's clear that it's presented as a potential relationship, not as a one night stand. If you're simply enjoying carnal delights there isn't anything to sort through in your head. However, in the other two relationship romances (Triss and Yen) the player can choose to settle down with them or not.

This choice is removed from the player in the Shani romance despite it being presented as a relationship. As a consequence of this lack of choice the player is funneled down a linear story with Shani, a girl who wants a relationship to define her life rather than sleep with some guy she happens to like a lot each time he wanders in through her door.

This is what's out of step with the other romances. It's got nothing to do with the character, the story or what you believe you read between the lines, it's the removal of player choice that is inconsistent with the other relationship-based romances and as a result, Shani's romance ends up falling somewhere between the two categories and succeeding at neither. It would not have taken much work to either make it clear this was a one off or to allow those people who went to bed with Shani at the end of The Witcher and woke up with Triss in The Witcher 2, to have re-kindled their old flame. The games already diverge from the books by allowing Geralt to settle down with Triss, why not allow players to settle down with Shani? It only needed an end-game card and a one-liner from Dandelion. Either way, the fact that it does neither is what makes it inconsistent with the other two.

 

[Sarcen]

This choice is removed from the player in the Shani romance despite it being presented as a relationship. As a consequence of this lack of choice the player is funneled down a linear story with Shani, a girl who wants a relationship to define her life rather than sleep with some guy she happens to like a lot each time he wanders in through her door.

Agreed.

GERALT: You got me.
SHANI: For how long? A day, two? Don't get me wrong, it's nice, but… you come and go. Yet I need someone who'll be there every night when I come home. After a day of bandaging wounds and sewing up guts, I need a good glass and a good laugh with someone who'll help me forget it all for a moment…
GERALT: I get it. And yeah, could never be there for you everyday. But I am happy to see you always. And today, I'm all yours.
SHANI: Hm, well, in that case let's drink to tonight.
GERALT: To tonight. May the moment last.

The highlighted line should have been a choice which could have changed her outlook on it. Then, if CDPR wants to make it as such that she isn't interested then she should say so not by using an excuse you just dismissed. That way it would still have been consistent with it still being pretty much the same as it is now.

Also when Shani ends it she says

SHANI: Ah, besides, we tried once… and you know how that worked out.

I was like , ah yes, the last time CDPR forced that choice too.

 

[Pug.]

O.K. first of all let's deal with the term 'romance' within the context of this game. It falls in to two categories. A relationship and a one night stand.

In the base game (i.e. no Expansion), under the category of 'Relationship' we have Triss and Yennefer. Under the category of one night stand we have Keira, Sasha, Jutta and the whores.

So where does Shani fit in this when we add HoS in to the equation? Because Shani says "I need to sort this through in my mind" it's clear that it's presented as a potential relationship, not as a one night stand. If you're simply enjoying carnal delights there isn't anything to sort through in your head. However, in the other two relationship romances (Triss and Yen) the player can choose to settle down with them or not.

This choice is removed from the player in the Shani romance despite it being presented as a relationship. As a consequence of this lack of choice the player is funneled down a linear story with Shani, a girl who wants a relationship to define her life rather than sleep with some guy she happens to like a lot each time he wanders in through her door.

This is what's out of step with the other romances. It's got nothing to do with the character, the story or what you believe you read between the lines, it's the removal of player choice that is inconsistent with the other relationship-based romances and as a result, Shani's romance ends up falling somewhere between the two categories and succeeding at neither. It would not have taken much work to either make it clear this was a one off or to allow those people who went to bed with Shani at the end of The Witcher and woke up with Triss in The Witcher 2, to have re-kindled their old flame. The games already diverge from the books by allowing Geralt to settle down with Triss, why not allow players to settle down with Shani? It only needed an end-game card and a one-liner from Dandelion. Either way, the fact that it does neither is what makes it inconsistent with the other two.

I never said that Shani went into the wedding thinking that this was going to be a one night stand. She posted a note on one of the bulletin boards near Oxenfurt which said that she was looking for a gentleman to accompany her to a friend's wedding, and that if he behaved himself, she might let that person court her properly. Fortuitously enough Geralt shows up, someone who, depending on player choice, might have had previous romantic dealings with her. So yes, I agree, she was not looking for a one night stand, she is potentially looking for a committed relationship and a man that she can settle down with. What I don't agree with is the assumption that just because she and Geralt might have once been an item, and because they decided to rekindle that romance at the wedding, that it is now incumbent upon Shani to make something permanent out of it. She said "I need to sort this through in my mind," as you yourself pointed out, which is obviously an indication that she has mixed feelings about what just happened. There are a myriad of different reasons why she might not want to marry Geralt, despite their previous romantic entanglements: he's infertile and incapable of having children with Shani, his lifespan is significantly longer than hers, he hasn't proven that he is capable of commitment and subordinating his own interests to that of another person (yes, Geralt eventually does just that with Yennefer or Triss, but Shani has no way of peering into those other potential realities.

You keep mentioning choice, how it is removed from the player despite the developers presenting this as a potential romance. But what about Shani's choice? You're basically saying that relationships in the world of the Witcher break down into two groups, flings and marriages, that all characters must fit neatly into these two categories, and if a character is not a fling then Geralt must have the option of marrying them. That's pretty twisted logic and way oversimplifies how relationships work.

It has everything to do with character development, story, and reading between the lines. Video game romances get a bad rap precisely because realism is relegated to the back-burner in order to accommodate player choice. In some ways this reminds me of the debates over npc sexuality over on the BSN. You would fall into the camp that says, "It only takes a few extra lines of code to make an npc gay or straight. Why not make everyone happy and create exclusively bisexual characters?" I would retort, as I seem to be doing in your case as well, that relationships do not work that way in the real world.

Anyways, I don't think we are going to arrive at a consensus. It's pretty clear that you conceptualize video game romances in a completely different way than I do. You seem to prioritize player agency, whereas I believe that developers should try to mimic the complexities of real life relationships, even at the expense of player choice.