The Bittersweet Ending is actually a Bad Ending ... and it's All Geralt's Fault. [SPOILERS]

[Willowhugger]

The notion that Cerys would be able to turn Skellige into a peaceful, prosperous realm without any more raids is even more laughable. Let's forget that, as a woman, her legitimacy would could be easily questioned anyway. Obviously Skellige is modelled after Viking society. A society whose tradition and custom is that of a warrior society, supported by their religion. Raiding is not only a vital part of the self-identity and authority of aristocracy, it's also basis of their economic survival, in a land whose climate is obviously not suited for agriculture. But yeah she's so intelligent and talented so no problem of just getting rid of an intergral part of their society and turning her land into a land where milk and honey float. All possible because she is a Queen hmmm.. But I may remind you (and the writers of the epilogue) that Queens in Skellige are no absolute rulers, even the games show that, with a clan structure where jarls exert substantial independence. They have to: in a land that is so fractured, divided by seas, and whose society is so "primitive", rural/decentralized, without any bureacracy/institutions, so do you really think a new Queen could come in and tell every jarl to go f*ck off?
But yeah she's so talented, she would just end all conflicts, I mean, blood feuds and such can be just abolished by the Queen's will, luckily she can resort to Skellige's sophisticated law and court system.

That would imply Cerys is attempting to stop raiding or "reform" Skellige society. Cerys isn't interested in raiding but she's not taking a stand against it, like, say Daenerys and slavery. Cerys focus is on the unity of the clans and creating a national cultural identity for Skellige as well as serving as a peacemaker. She's also attempting to build up their agricultural situation since it's not in a terribly good position. There's no indication that Cerys is going to be placing a ban on raiding because, at the end of the day, she's still a character born and raised in a climate where that sort of behavior is normal.

Another thing to understand is Cerys is the FIRST Queen but the situation in Skellige is far from patriarchal as it's been established Jarl's daughters are equal to men and given this is stated by YENNEFER, we should probably take that as gospel. There's a slight bit of eye-rolling as Cerys puts her hat in the ring for the Seastone Chair, so to speak, but nothing so much as would be on, say, Westeros. I think we can presume there have been female Jarls if nothing else.

Cerys also DOES suffer a Civil War early on in my game as there's no way to stop Madman Lugos' rebellion, albeit it doesn't start off auspiciously given Geralt kills said man early on. So, if nothing else, she DOES have to deal with civil insurrection as part of her efforts.

 

[Diogenes_The_Cynic]

That would imply Cerys is attempting to stop raiding or "reform" Skellige society. Cerys isn't interested in raiding but she's not taking a stand against it, like, say Daenerys and slavery. Cerys focus is on the unity of the clans and creating a national cultural identity for Skellige as well as serving as a peacemaker. She's also attempting to build up their agricultural situation since it's not in a terribly good position. There's no indication that Cerys is going to be placing a ban on raiding because, at the end of the day, she's still a character born and raised in a climate where that sort of behavior is normal.

Another thing to understand is Cerys is the FIRST Queen but the situation in Skellige is far from patriarchal as it's been established Jarl's daughters are equal to men and given this is stated by YENNEFER, we should probably take that as gospel. There's a slight bit of eye-rolling as Cerys puts her hat in the ring for the Seastone Chair, so to speak, but nothing so much as would be on, say, Westeros. I think we can presume there have been female Jarls if nothing else.

Cerys also DOES suffer a Civil War early on in my game as there's no way to stop Madman Lugos' rebellion, albeit it doesn't start off auspiciously given Geralt kills said man early on. So, if nothing else, she DOES have to deal with civil insurrection as part of her efforts.

Indeed according to the epilogue it could mean that she just personally didn't take part in raiding, but it automaticially leads to the notion that she stopped them altogether, atleast it sounded like that in the post I quoted. Apart from the consequence to relinquish from raiding would mean a loss of power and status in the competiton with other jarls, this still is cheap white-black writing that she is the enlightened ruler "tending to her land", implying that the others rulers are brute males like Hjalmar who don't tend to their lands. It really can't get any more cliche then that.

Though it is not a scandal in this society that a woman can become Queen, it's certainly unusual and it is natural that she'd need to show strength and consolidate her ruler more than a male ruler would do. Winning the war against Lugo might help. Btw the way howthis whole "civil war" with Lugos was brought up was weak too. Either make it right or leave it out.

 

[Willowhugger]

I'm inclined to agree but, I admit, I'm biased because I am very-very sick of any and all depiction of Nordic cultures beginning and ending at "Raiding." That's like depicting the British Empire during the Golden Age of Sail as consisting solely of Blackbeard and company.

Plus, they're also IRISH Vikings.



I will say, though, I think Cerys will do better than she might otherwise with the fact she's made Hjalmar her general. DItto the reverse with Cerys as his advisor. The two balance each other out well.

On my end?

One of my suggestions for the game would be improving the endings by adding these:

Skellige

+ A chance to talk to Queen Bran and have her explain why Geralt can or should support her son. This may include an optional "bribe Geralt with sex" section.

+ An option to talk to Prince Bran and maybe find out what his opinions are and that he's a pretty good candidate himself, perhaps the best.

+ A downside to Cerys being selected as Queen, perhaps her expressing a desire to make peace with Nilfgaard and opening trade relations with them to become more like them.

+ A upside to choosing Hjalmar like the fact his first act would be to be to join the North's fight against Nilfgaard and become a fast ally to them.

 

[Diogenes_The_Cynic]

I'm inclined to agree but, I admit, I'm biased because I am very-very sick of any and all depiction of Nordic cultures beginning and ending at "Raiding." That's like depicting the British Empire during the Golden Age of Sail as consisting solely of Blackbeard and company.

Plus, they're also IRISH Vikings.



I will say, though, I think Cerys will do better than she might otherwise with the fact she's made Hjalmar her general. DItto the reverse with Cerys as his advisor. The two balance each other out well.

I understand that, unfortunately Vikings are often wrongly portayed as just bloodthirsty raiders.

You know, I'm not saying she would be a bad ruler or would be too weak to ahieve anything.. But the whole Ciri/Cerys narration sounds so one-dimensional, like the world suddenly has 2 enlightened saviors who bring the peace and prosperity where everybody before them was just too cruel/stupid/egoistic whatever. The game nicely depicts how there's often no black and white and that rulers are often forced to act immoral for reason of state/because of the world/society they live in etc, yet this is all broken with their fairytale sounding ending. Just a consquence of the poor and short epilogue, I hoped they would create a more broad and nuanced narration like they did in the rest of the game.

 

[Willowhugger]

Yeah, I agree.

I can't help but think in a series as ground as the Witcher, Ciri's reign would hit its first snag on day-two.

Ciri: Free your slaves.

Guilds: No.

 

[Songborn]

Yeah, I agree.

I can't help but think in a series as ground as the Witcher, Ciri's reign would hit its first snag on day-two.

Ciri: Free your slaves.

Guilds: No.

Ciri: You don't want to piss me off!

Guilds: What are you going to do, murder people to get your way?

Ciri: No, I.... I AM GOING FOR A WALK!

 

[Captmorgan72]

Unfortunately, even if your points are good, we will never know what was int the mind of the devs. It's your supposition that they create this trap frankly, because Ciri is now a grown woman with superpower so if things doesn't go well for her in Nilfgaard she can teleport were she want even in another time and space... so i don't think Emhyr is that big of a problem for the now grown up Ciri afterall. I mean she defeated the White Frost ALONE. Do you really think Emhyr can do worse than the white frost? And, for last, the game are non canon so the backgrund of Emhyr in the books in the games simply doesn't exist.

I completely agree. Ciri is not "a little girl asking daddy to save her." She needs no saving is she freaking Ciri. She is headstrong and strong willed. She will rule with all the teachings of her adopted family. She will make a great empress and her actions will have a much larger affect than she could as a witcheress. Her power is so vast that she could be seen as a goddess by many. I can even see a new religion being started by her followers. I see the empress ending as the best one. I bet she will even cut through the armor that Emhyr has put up as he tutors her to rule. This will be his chance to actually learn who is daughter is and he may even do something he hasn't in many years, smile and laugh.

 

[Gerald01]

Isn't abolishing slavery (or similar legislative initiatives) unilaterally a prerogative for the Nilfgaardian State's Executive branch of government aka the Emperor?

 

[Willowhugger]

I completely agree. Ciri is not "a little girl asking daddy to save her." She needs no saving is she freaking Ciri. She is headstrong and strong willed. She will rule with all the teachings of her adopted family. She will make a great empress and her actions will have a much larger affect than she could as a witcheress. Her power is so vast that she could be seen as a goddess by many. I can even see a new religion being started by her followers. I see the empress ending as the best one. I bet she will even cut through the armor that Emhyr has put up as he tutors her to rule. This will be his chance to actually learn who is daughter is and he may even do something he hasn't in many years, smile and laugh.

The only thing worse than being an Empress for someone who wants to be normal would be to be deified. Also, while the game doesn't show it, Ciri can only teleport stuff.

She renounced other forms of magic.

But the best part of these games is they're subjective.

---------- Updated at 05:19 PM ----------

Isn't abolishing slavery (or similar legislative initiatives) unilaterally a prerogative for the Nilfgaardian State's Executive branch of government aka the Emperor?

Nilfgaard is in a weird place because the Emperor is an absolute monarch....and as we see, that's NOT working for Emhyr given the Guilds and everyone hate him for it and that grinds his war down to a halt.

But you're right, it's possible so I take that back.

 

[Gerald01]

But you're right, it's possible so I take that back.

Not saying it would not have serious (or even violent) consequences, but surely the Guilds' one is an informal influence on the Empire's politics (as private lenders, much like Banks in our Middle Ages), and nothing more.

 

[Willowhugger]

Not saying it would not have serious (or even violent) consequences, but surely the Guilds' one is an informal influence on the Empire's politics (as private lenders, much like Banks in our Middle Ages), and nothing more.

The Witcherverse isn't really Medieval, though, with a lot of modernized elements to remind people this is a Fantasy world. Besides, the Witcher hasn't been Medieval since The Witcher 1.

The world depicted is much-much closer to Renaissance or even later (Emhyr being closer to Gustuvus Adolphus or Napoleon than Richard I) and then the Banks had become people with their own armies and city-states.

 

[VenomousSnaaake]

That's false, as you can see here:
https://youtu.be/-MJXAyNNXaM?t=122

Lol... It's funny that you chose that youtube channel. Because i got the information about that ending precisely in one of that youtuber's videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYj52aQR80&feature=iv&src_vid=1r08I_h1TBE&annotation_id=annotation_3289170745

Check out the replies for the comment at the very top.

So... true, not false.

 

[Ultimamage001]

The Witcherverse isn't really Medieval, though, with a lot of modernized elements to remind people this is a Fantasy world. Besides, the Witcher hasn't been Medieval since The Witcher 1.

The world depicted is much-much closer to Renaissance or even later (Emhyr being closer to Gustuvus Adolphus or Napoleon than Richard I) and then the Banks had become people with their own armies and city-states.

The Witcherverse is odd because they have a medieval society in the north, more advanced in Nilfgaard but still brutal. I like how modern scientific notions come about due to magic. They have an understanding of genetics because of magic shortcuts. Unlike most "medieval fantasy" worlds that seem to be backwards in every way inspite of magical advantages.

Ciri being Empress is a good thing, security for her and when she acclimatises, there is no reason why she couldn't invite Geralt and Yenn to court as advisors she can actually trust.

Oh on another point, most fantasy depicted as medieval is actually more 1600/1700 societies where they forgot gunpowder, ie. ballrooms and full plate armour.

 

[carlos2033]

 

[griever0507]

I really don't want Ciri to become an empress, but they say that it is the BEST Witcher 3 ending of all, but to be honest it isn't. I give credit to the thread owner because what he said was correct. If Geralt didn't lie and ask Ciri to visit his father then Ciri wouldn't have to lie as well and take the position of an empress. Though you have your choice in the game really to hide or to give in to the visiting of her father.

 

[psJustDoit]

I cant agreed on OP its not Geraldo's Fault its yours ;to give your adoptive Daughter not to choose what she love to do and what she needs to be.Sacriedfies the things she loves dosnt mean she will be in a Golden CAGE.and are incapable what she loves.
She is a blue Blood (elder blood),Kings daughter, I recommend play TW2 again =(foltest siblings baroness,What happen exactly pay Attention to the lodge.Listen to the people who betray lie and why they are Doing this.)
Why are almost all centered on Cirilla=? its the world around here that the Ending will fitt not the other way around.

 

[TheWhiteWolf0101]

I didint like that in the witcher ending they set off their own paths,this is the only thing that made me sad ,but still she can teleport right? She would teleport to Geralt when she would be miserable,but what if she doesn't know where Geralt is?

 

[Scryar]

Does anybody else think that it would have been better to just make one ending for everyone?
I have now played all three endings and none of them was satisfying. Either the outcome was depressing (empress, crone) or the way to it was unsatisfying. That was probably the purpose, so no ending feels much better than the other two, but was it really necessary?
Even if I do everything "right" according to CDP I only get a bittersweet ending. The witcheress ending f has a great outcome, but why could we only spent maybe 2 minutes with Ciri and no time with any of Geralt's friends at all? That ruined it for me.

I really would have preferred if everybody got the same. long and satisfying ending.
The witcheress ending would make the start. They wouldn't even have to change anything.
We would go to emhyr, tell him that Ciri is dead and than travel to that blacksmith to get the sword. We would meet Ciri in the tavern and give her the sword. The surprise that Ciri is alive would be still there.

Then we would go on with the empress ending. Zoltan, Dandelion, Triss and Yennefer would join us in the tavern and we would spent time with our friends and get the opportunity to talk to all of them, including a special scene with our LI.
Afterwards Ciri and Geralt would go out hunting and we would experience the same father/daughter time, but with a happier Ciri
Finally Ciri and Geralt would travel to Crockback Bog and do their first "Witcher contract" together by slaying the last crone and retrieving Vesemir's amulet.

The choices we made during the game would just influence the wold states, the Li's etc.
This would also make a Witcher 4 with Geralt or Ciri much easier and a post-ending dlc possible. and would solve the problem that small, parental and often unclear decisions lead to huge consequences.
It would hurt the replayability, but how many people play such a long game several times anyway? Furthermore there are a lot of other choices which would lead to different outcomes.

I know its too late now go get it "official", but somehow I hope someone might make it possible with the Redkit 2. There wouldnt even be that much changes needed. Just stringing together the current endings, cutting out the last few minutes of the empress and crones ending and change/cut a few dialogues in between.

 

[Avaricious]

Does anybody else think that it would have been better to just make one ending for everyone?
I have now played all there endings and none of them was satisfying. Either the outcome was depressing (empress, crone) or the way to it was unsatisfying. That was probably the purpose, so no ending feels much better than the other two, but was it really necessary?
Even if I do everything "right" according to CDP I only get a bittersweet ending. The witcheress ending f has a great outcome, but why could we only spent maye 2 minutes with Ciri and no time with any other of Geralt's friends at all? That ruined it for me.

I really would have preferred if everybody got the same. long and satisfying ending.
The witcheress ending would make the start. They wouldn't even have to change anything.
We would go to emhyr, tell him that Ciri is dead and than travel to that blacksmith to get the sword. We would meet Ciri in the tavern and give her the sword. The surprise that Ciri is alive would be still there.

Then we would go on with the empress ending. Zoltan, Dandelion, Triss and Yennefer would join us in the tavern and we would get a last chance to spent time with our friends and the opportunity to talk to all of them, including a special scene with our LI.
Afterwards Ciri and Geralt would go out hunting and we would experience the same father/daughter time, but with a happier Ciri
Finally Ciri and Geralt would travel to Crockback Bog and do their first "Witcher contract" together by slaying the last crone and retrieving Vesemir's amulet.

The choices we made during the game would just influence the woldstates, the Li's etc.
This would also make a Witcher 4 with Geralt or Ciri much easier and a post-ending dlc possible. and would solve the problem that small, parental and often unclear decisions lead to huge consequences.
It would hurt the replayability, but how many people play such a long game several times anyway? Furthermore there are a lot of other choices which would lead to different outcomes.

I know its too late now go get it "official", but somehow I hope someone might make it possible with the Redkit 2. There wouldnt even be that much changes needed. Just stringing together the current endings, cutting out the last few minutes of the empress and crones ending and change/cut a few dialogues in between.

Wish I could explain how much I support this.

If you ask me, a story-driven game like the witcher doesn't need as many choices as we are given. I don't think the choice to be mean to Ciri (things like refuse to bury Skjall) should be there. I don't think think the choice to kill Keira or Lambert should be there either, same with the choice to be with Triss or to let Dijkstra kill Roche after he fights in Kaer Morhen for you. W3 branches too much for no reason, and the result is CDPR biting off more than they can chew, instead of narrowing a bit more into a linear game and getting a much more complete and satisfying experience. As you said, who really has time to play a 100+ hour game 3 times?

 

[ZoltansBeard]

To me the Witcheress ending makes no sense because how the hell would no one realize that she is actually alive? Nilfgaard located her after she arrived back on the continent from another world. So faking her death and then just continuing to roam the lands without ever being recognized is very unrealistic - plus Geralt would be a wanted man for betraying the emperor and they would try to take Ciri by force. Not to mention she can only become a Witcher if you don't take her to the emperor. If you try to avoid the fact she's an incredible person and selfishly shield her from influences YOU don't like.

Whatever the reasons for her choice, maybe she was manipulated nefariously we'll never know, the fact is she decides to become empress and you have to respect her choice as an adult and let her fly the nest. Perhaps she'd fail in her attempts to reform the empire, but isn't that a better fate than having your head torn off by some monster in a swampy village that no one will remember? Ciri had a gift, and she chose not to run away from it but instead tried it make the world a better place. Avoiding problems never works. She might have enjoyed being a witcher more but that doesn't mean her elder blood suddenly vanish and no one will ever try to exploit her again. Just like me playing Witcher 3 all day didn't change the fact it was bloody exam week!