It would ruin one of the witcher 3 endings ( or two if you add the ending where she dies)Want to read them all.
Same here. I don't get were people get these ideas that she is an actual witcher, she isn't. She had some training of course. But she can't drink witcher potions, she gets sick and can catch diseases etc etc.For me - no mutations - no witcher
Also she doesnt have any witcher senses.
As much as I dislike the idea of a Ciri sequel, the lack of witcher senses could be seen as an advantage with how much over-used that feature is in the game. Trivia: the exact phrase "using your Witcher Senses" occurs 374 times in the game's localization files (with additional 88 "Use your Witcher Senses"), that is a lot of stuff to investigate that way.Also she doesnt have any witcher senses.
It would ruin one of the witcher 3 endings ( or two if you add the ending where she dies)
She is no witcher . She can't use potions too for example.
She is a female ( witchers are male )
She is really overpowered...
Want more ? :cheers4:
Really, a witcher 4 with ciri as protagonist would not have much to do with the witcher series we know and like.
And, personally i don't really like her :teeth:
She can possibly die in one of the endings, but it is not confirmed by the game, it is left open to interpretation. However, making it clear in a sequel that she does survive would render that ending completely meaningless (since Blood and Wine already shows that Geralt survives the fight in the crone's hut).MMmm, saw three endings and in none of them Ciri dies and as i said in another post you can choose which ending you had in TW3 and from there you will start.
Which is exactly what those (including myself) who would prefer their endings not to be ruined want to avoid, and for which the existing games have been criticized. That is, their approach to world state import is that it is often limited to inventing some contrived explanation why all imported choices lead to the same outcome (e.g. Henselt was spared in TW2 ? No problem, you learn from a few lines of dialogue in TW3 that he still died anyway in the battle for Lormark). Of course, this may not only be limited to Ciri's fate, depending on some factors (location etc.), other endings could get the same treatment. It would be nice if at least in what was advertised as the final game of a trilogy the ending choices were not for nothing.I.e (this was another user's idea, don't remember who, sorry) The story is: your father has been killed and nilfgaardian throne has been usurped, from here; if Ciri became a witcher (i know she isn't a witcher but CDPR made her endind like that in one of the finals) or ended the story as empress or fighting the white frost you can make a history from that so the three stories will end in the same point.
Ciri's powers like traveling through time may sound interesting in theory, but to actually implement them in a game could prove problematic.She has grown into an important character in this last TW game and guess is the natural heiress of Geralt and his legacy. if Geralt is not gonna be the main character anymore. Geralt was the main character for the player in TW3 but the story's main character was Ciri. Ciri's story, develop the character, travel through worlds, time ,etc, that's a huge playground for the players and CDPR.
That can be seen as another problem, since her character and history are already largely pre-defined by the books, games that use her as the protagonist would be limited by trying not to contradict the books. And it may even happen that more books are written in the future about Ciri. In the first two games, Geralt had amnesia, which allowed for some freedom to change his character, but now that his story is finished, I would prefer either a completely new protagonist, or at least someone who is not very well defined by the books yet.Ciri is also an important character in the books.
If Geralt still plays an important role, then why not just make him the protagonist again ? Otherwise, with unrelated main characters, I do not really see the point in shoehorning him and Ciri into the game. While I would prefer new characters, a few more games playing as Geralt could still be possible, perhaps in a more distant future like 25-50 years after the events of the current games. At that time, it would basically be a new story (the endings of TW3 would no longer matter, let's say Ciri always dies in some way even if she becomes a witcher or empress (or some other explanation is given to her fate, but she does not play a major role in any case), Geralt always ends up alone by the time of the new game and neither Triss nor Yennefer appears in it, the political situation always ends up the same with Radovid, Emhyr, and Dijkstra all long dead, and so on) with enough room to develop Geralt's character again, but it would still be Geralt.- Single player RPG just like Witcher 3. Brand new game (a reboot of the franchise if you will) with a brand new main character, takes place few generations after the events seen in Witcher 3. Witchers are a stuff of legend, no one believes in their existence anymore. Characters such as Geralt and Ciri will still play a somewhat important role in the game but won't be playable. The player character will go through the witcher training, mutations and whatnot.
only one dies,What would be a point then of having Geralt as a protagonist again if all the people he ever loved and cared about are now dead and gone?
If his past relationships are irrelevant to the new story I see no reason whatsoever to pull him out of his retirement. What would be accomplished with this that couldn't be with a brand new character?
I was referring to the post above mine, seems like I didn't used "reply" properly:only one dies,, all others livevesemir
I was unsure of what would be a point of using Geralt and not somebody new under these conditions.a few more games playing as Geralt could still be possible, perhaps in a more distant future like 25-50 years after the events of the current games. At that time, it would basically be a new story (the endings of TW3 would no longer matter, let's say Ciri always dies in some way even if she becomes a witcher or empress (or some other explanation is given to her fate, but she does not play a major role in any case), Geralt always ends up alone by the time of the new game and neither Triss nor Yennefer appears in it, the political situation always ends up the same with Radovid, Emhyr, and Dijkstra all long dead, and so on) with enough room to develop Geralt's character again, but it would still be Geralt.
Shit, I heard about it but I've never seen this before. Not a single word from anyone about Lambert? What a bunch of douchebags! :realmad:Lambert can die too