It is hard to tell what it would have been like, it is not really fair to compare the finished game from 2007 to an early demo made with a fraction of the resources. I think the stories of the first two games could have "worked", with some changes, even if Geralt was not the protagonist. One can only guess what the games could have ended up like in that case. But with Geralt's retirement, future games with a different or player created protagonist are still a possibility.
I was more referring to the top-down view (Iso-something.), or whatever it's called. In my opinion, it would have broken immersion, led to inferior combat, and would have taken away all of the beauty from the environment.
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:
Agreed, agreed, agreed, and agreed.
Here are some more:
1. Most people wouldn't want a Witcher game without a Witcher as the main character.
2. She can't cast signs.
3. C.D.P.R. has said that they are done with Geralt and company. We'll be seeing as much of her as we will Geralt. So, none.
Technically speaking, Ciri
is a witcher. Or a witcheress. Or a witcherette. Take your pick
She is supposed to be the true Child of Destiny that would not even require the Trials. I think Geralt mentioned this when speaking with Calanthe.
Also, as far as I remember, in the the BaW ending with Ciri, she says she drank Black Blood when fighting the garkain. Not that I particularly like that piece of writing, but it’s there. Maybe it’s a hint by CDPR?
I am not saying that I would necessarily want to see Ciri as the next protagonist, but CDPR could easily find a workaround to make her the next ‘witcher’.
Regarding her being a Witcheress: I must disagree. Look at all of the things that define a Witcher. A MAN, who can cast signs, undergoes mutations, and can drink Witcher's potions. She is none of those things. If anything, she's more of a faux-Witcher.
Regarding her drinking Black Blood: consider that statement to be non-canonical, and a mistake on C.D.P.R.'s part. It doesn't fit into the lore of the universe one bit.
Regarding work-arounds: a "work-around" is what developers do to "pander". Pandering ruins games. DOWN WITH WORK-AROUNDS!
For me - no mutations - no witcher :baby:
Also she doesnt have any witcher senses.
Yup.
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.
Double "Yup.".
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.
Lol. That's pretty funny. Nice find.
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.
The problem with this is that it makes your choices irrelevant. You made her a Witcheress, an Empress, or a martyr? Well, screw you! We decided that no matter what you picked, she'll end up following the same EVENTUAL path, anyway.
Not going to happen.
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).
There you go.
I've been thinking about it a lot and if I were a game developer responsible for the future Witcher game I'd choose between taking the following routes:
- Prequel to the Witcher series, when there were still many Witchers in the world. Draw inspiration from Dark Souls series and the Division (take elements from both) but also put a lot of focus on the story aspect of the game, make it feel a lot like Witcher 3 in terms of the amount of content and its quality. Single player experience would still be the primary focus on the game but the project would also require work on optional, additional MP content like in Dark Souls/the Division.
OR
- 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. This is a very brief summary of the story-line so please don't judge it, I actually wrote a lengthy short story depicting the events that transpired after Witcher 3 so could elaborate more but I want to keep this post short.
I'm scared to ask, but what do you want to see in TW4 that was in "The Division"?
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.
Exactly.
- 1st person/3rd person modes,
- possibility of coop.
- harder difficulty. Make it harder not by dmg or hp but by increasing speed, amount of enemies and intelligence. Death march was by far too easy.
- turn on friendly damage
1. Down-load the first-person mod, then engage in combat, and you'll see exactly why a first-person Witcher game is a pretty bad idea.
2. Every time an element of multiplayer/co-op is added to a game, the more the over-all game gets watered down.
3. Good ideas.
4. What do you mean by that?
