The Yennefer/Triss choice in TW3

[Maerd.298]

It depends who is revealing the information. For example if Yen is accusing Triss of working for the Lodge again, I'd expect her to be angry about it and try to convince Geralt that Triss did something wrong. And of course Triss would try to put a positive spin on what she did in order to convince Geralt that it wasn't that bad.

Important part in such scenario is that then Geralt has a choice, who is more reasonable, or reject both versions and provide his own.

I think it would be interesting to hear different versions of events from several different characters and then decide who is closest to the truth (obviously we can look up the truth of events from the books, so I'm mainly thinking of more recent events like what Triss was up to with the Lodge in between games, or what Yen was up to for that matter).

It would be even better if there will be no "truth", just sides of the same coin, where everyone has a valid point.

 

[Kallelinski]

I agree, I hope they do a good job developing Yen's character in TW3 and providing more of a chance to find out what Triss is really up to.

I played both games first before I read the books. Triss made me uneasy in TW1 because I felt like she was hiding something important from me and I didn't trust her after the mirror scene. Then in TW2 when I was stuck with her anyway I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt, but as the game went on I started hating her for lying to me and not trusting me with the truth.

If she had just told me what she suspected instead of dragging Cedric into it, then I think that would have prevented a lot of problems that I had to clean up. By the time it got to the end of the game on my first play-through, I didn't even hesitate to save Anais instead of Triss. I was relieved that Letho saved Triss anyway because I don't hate her enough to want her dead, but even if she had died I wouldn't have regretted saving Anais instead (or Saskia for that matter).

Then I started reading the books and Triss is even worse than I thought she was

Are you me?

Did play the games first too and felt always Triss wasn't all that fair and square to me, but i couldn't prove my assumption and then i read the books.

Well, i rescued her anyway despite knowing she wasn't always honest with me, but she is still a friend and Geralt doesn't have many alive anymore...you have to hold them dear. I might even forgive her, if she lets Geralt and Yennefer alone

 

[username_2093396]

Are you me?

Hee hee, maybe

Did play the games first too and felt always Triss wasn't all that fair and square to me, but i couldn't prove my assumption and then i read the books.

Well, i rescued her anyway despite knowing she wasn't always honest with me, but she is still a friend and Geralt doesn't have many alive anymore...you have to hold them dear. I might even forgive her, if she lets Geralt and Yennefer alone />

The way I saw it, Anais was an innocent little girl trapped by Dethmold of all people O_O Whereas Triss got into that mess on her own by not trusting Geralt to help her investigate Sile. I think it could go either way for book-Geralt.

He would want to save Triss because she's his friend, but on the other hand I distinctly remember a scene where he acted rashly and possibly put his friends in danger in order to save a girl who reminded him of Ciri. I can see Geralt instinctively wanting to protect Anais even if he doesn't fully remember why he has that reaction.

 

[Maerd.298]

There is no point to save Anais for Geralt because everybody need her alive and well to have a claim to Temerian throne. She was in no way in danger of dying.

Geralt's long time friend Triss on the other hand was.

 

[Kallelinski]

Yeah, still possible, i might to add that i didn't want a witch hunt, so i am kinda "forced" to rescue her, otherwise sorceresses are being hunted in the North. I have a thing for those sorceresses, have that in common with Geralt...

But they mentioned that sorceresses are being a hunted species anyway in Witcher 3, so restoring the conclave didn't have an impact on that? Hm.

 

[Maerd.298]

But they mentioned that sorceresses are being a hunted species anyway in Witcher 3, so restoring the conclave didn't have an impact on that? Hm.

WHAT?!!! They don't respect the major endings? Where is a Protest button!

 

[Nerevar.220]

Yeah, but those "hints" in TW1 and TW2 are merely good ones to understand Triss' motivations regarding Geralt. They didn't really do a good job showing her true character so far.

Also why should anyone "switch" to Yennefer? They have to explain much in TW3 to make her even tempting for the player, otherwise nobody except the book readers will honestly prefer her than Triss IMO and even among the book readers there are many people, who just don't like Yennefer.

They promised a deeper mature romance? I hope they deliver it, i don't just be forced to be with Yennefer just because of it or with Triss, because she is the game LI, it should be reasonable and comprehensible.

Because she has been taking advantage of her (former) best friend´s boyfriend? How would you react if it was done to you? I don´t see it as something many people would forgive. Doesn´t mean you´d switch to Yenn, but the point remains that she took advantage of the situation and tried to keep it going by never asking about Yenn for months. With friends like those...

Sorceress hunt is book canon, and they seem to be following it as far as they can, so nothing to do there.

 

[Kallelinski]

Because she has been taking advantage of her (former) best friend´s boyfriend? How would you react if it was done to you? I don´t see it as something many people would forgive. Doesn´t mean you´d switch to Yenn, but the point remains that she took advantage of the situation and tried to keep it going by never asking about Yenn for months. With friends like those...

I totally agree, but apparently this is not the common opinion about her, it's quite the opposite, just look how many favor Triss despite that.

WHAT?!!! They don't respect the major endings?

Where is a Protest button!

That's what he said, so either it's the non-import story or our decision in this matter doesn't affect it.

Sorceress hunt is book canon, and they seem to be following it as far as they can, so nothing to do there.

Yeah i know, but i thought restoring the conclave would improve the situation or at least lessen down the conflict.

 

[Maerd.298]

I don´t see it as something many people would forgive.

In the middle ages it was unforgivable sin for a woman to wear pants... go figure.

If you read the books you'd see what Geralt can forgive to Yen.

 

[dragonbird]

"Sorceress hunt" can also refer specifically to the Lodge, which is on the run regardless of the ending choices.

 

[username_2093396]

There is no point to save Anais for Geralt because everybody need her alive and well to have a claim to Temerian throne. She was in no way in danger of dying.

The same could have been said for Boussy and yet he ended up dead anyway Especially considering that I just let Roche kill Henselt, I wouldn't put it past Dethmold to kill Anais just to spite Roche. Anais was still in danger and still needed saving.

And even if he doesn't want to kill her, the original plan was to force her into marrying someone against her will so that he could rule in her name, and of course Adda's not going to be happy if that someone is Radovid. It would be Adda's style to try to kill Anais so that she becomes Foltest's only heir (regardless of how she's despised by the nobles for the striga curse and probably couldn't even rule anyway).

But they mentioned that sorceresses are being a hunted species anyway in Witcher 3, so restoring the conclave didn't have an impact on that? Hm.

Is it possible that they were referring to Nilfgaard? I mean I kind of assumed that TW3 would involve Geralt going to Nilfgaard, but I don't know if Nilfgaard has actually been confirmed as a location in the game.

Because she has been taking advantage of her (former) best friend´s boyfriend? How would you react if it was done to you? I don´t see it as something many people would forgive. Doesn´t mean you´d switch to Yenn, but the point remains that she took advantage of the situation and tried to keep it going by never asking about Yenn for months. With friends like those...

I agree. This is why I don't like Triss (and also her activities as part of the Lodge and how she kept that information from Geralt as well). I think Geralt getting back together with Yen depends on whether Yen regains her memories too, but either way I want an option to not be involved with Triss

 

[Kallelinski]

"Sorceress hunt" can also refer specifically to the Lodge, which is on the run regardless of the ending choices.

I didn't have the feeling the kings will make a difference between the members of the lodge and sorceresses in general, if you don't rescue Triss, they go rampage and just kill any sorcerers in Loc Muinne.

Is it possible that they were referring to Nilfgaard? I mean I kind of assumed that TW3 would involve Geralt going to Nilfgaard, but I don't know if Nilfgaard has actually been confirmed as a location in the game.

Well, so far we only know that we will be primary in south Redania, west Temeria, Skellige Island and probably Cintra. I don't think we will see much of Nilfgaard on this way.

I agree. This is why I don't like Triss (and also her activities as part of the Lodge and how she kept that information from Geralt as well). I think Geralt getting back together with Yen depends on whether Yen regains her memories too, but either way I want an option to not be involved with Triss

Amen ^^

 

[Maerd.298]

The same could have been said for Boussy and yet he ended up dead anyway

When Boussy was alive Anais was expendable, now she's invaluable.

Especially considering that I just let Roche kill Henselt, I wouldn't put it past Dethmold to kill Anais just to spite Roche. Anais was still in danger and still needed saving.

Dethmold is not a teenager and not an idiot. First of all, he doesn't care much that Henselt was killed, may be annoyed a bit. Secondly, Dethmold doesn't know who killed Henselt, he wasn't there, there were no witnesses left, he won't be doing anything to spite Vernon just because there's nothing to be spiteful about. Thirdly, he's ambitious enough to understand that Anais is his key to political leverage. This is not the game where people are stupidly evil, killing and destroying everything for pathetic reasons.

And even if he doesn't want to kill her, the original plan was to force her into marrying someone against her will so that he could rule in her name, and of course Adda's not going to be happy if that someone is Radovid. It would be Adda's style to try to kill Anais so that she becomes Foltest's only heir (regardless of how she's despised by the nobles for the striga curse and probably couldn't even rule anyway).

The best plan for Radovid is to adopt Anais as a daughter. Then he can rule Redania and Temeria till his death and Adda will be totally fine with it without a need for any competition.

 

[username_2093396]

When Boussy was alive Anais was expendable, now she's invaluable.

Boussy was originally considered invaluable and he still died anyway. Even though it makes sense not to kill Anais, people are fighting back and forth and might kill her by accident.

Dethmold is not a teenager and not an idiot. First of all, he doesn't care much that Henselt was killed, may be annoyed a bit. Secondly, Dethmold doesn't know who killed Henselt, he wasn't there, there were no witnesses left, he won't be doing anything to spite Vernon just because there's nothing to be spiteful about. Thirdly, he's ambitious enough to understand that Anais is his key to political leverage. This is not the game where people are stupidly evil, killing and destroying everything for pathetic reasons.

Dethmold knows what he and Henselt did to Roche, and that Roche was surely coming for revenge (that was the whole point of leaving Ves alive to point Roche towards Henselt's location).

The best plan for Radovid is to adopt Anais as a daughter. Then he can rule Redania and Temeria till his death and Adda will be totally fine with it without a need for any competition.

Adda is probably barren because of the striga curse (or maybe even dead depending on player choice, although I saved her). If Radovid can't get an heir from Adda then he plans to marry Anais instead.

 

[sfinx]

Just imagine how Geralt wants to intervene and both sorceresses are yelling at him to shut the fuck up it's not his business or something like and he goes whatever and to the next tavern

Sorceresses as we love them..

Rittersporn, i have no idea how to properly translate that, maybe something like "chevalier spur", but that would be the literally translation.

I know in the czech version Dandelion is called Marigold and Triss' surname is Ranuncul, kinda confusing

I know - and Ranuncul is translation of Jaskier (MArigold's polish name - something like Hahnenfuß) but sill like czech names (Dandelion sounds stupid in czech language)

 

[Kallelinski]

To raise a new discussion here,

why didn't CDPR introduce Yennefer in the first game at all? Was she even mentioned by anyone? And i mean not just her name, i mean her as a character.

Yennefer was one of the major characters in the books, but also an very important goal for Geralt in the end (i might mention here, that including the games Geralt was willingly to sacrifice his life three times for her by now). Does CDPR want to make her a goal again in the Witcher games just like in the books? But how do you make a woman a goal, which was never really presented to the player? Does the player even WANT her?

Is that the reason why they replaced her with Triss? Because Yennefer was too important for the plot and Geralt to have her already in the first games?

Is Triss really just an replacement for her? A replacement for whom? For Geralt or the player or the story?

Was it because Yennefer didn't allow any other rivals besides her, so without Yennefer Geralt could go for other women? Since Triss is more "open" regarding this matter?

Was excluding Yennefer the lesser evil to make a more personal story for Geralt in the upcoming game?

What was the real reason to exclude her from the games at all until now?

Was it a wise move to introduce a new woman Triss as the Gamelady, while Geralt had already a Booklady called Yennefer?

 

[gedierond]

To raise a new discussion here,

why didn't CDPR introduce Yennefer in the first game at all? Was she even mentioned by anyone? And i mean not just her name, i mean her as a character.

Yennefer was one of the major characters in the books, but also an very important goal for Geralt in the end (i might mention here, that including the games Geralt was willingly to sacrifice his life three times for her by now). Does CDPR want to make her a goal again in the Witcher games just like in the books? But how do you make a woman a goal, which was never really presented to the player? Does the player even WANT her?

Is that the reason why they replaced her with Triss? Because Yennefer was too important for the plot and Geralt to have her already in the first games?

Is Triss really just an replacement for her? A replacement for whom? For Geralt or the player or the story?

Was it because Yennefer didn't allow any other rivals besides her, so without Yennefer Geralt could go for other women? Since Triss is more "open" regarding this matter?

Was excluding Yennefer the lesser evil to make a more personal story for Geralt in the upcoming game?

What was the real reason to exclude her from the games at all until now?

Was it a wise move to introduce a new woman Triss as the Gamelady, while Geralt had already a Booklady called Yennefer?

I have two theories.

The first is that they made it that way so as to give the players more freedom to choose the path they wanted (either Shani or Triss).

The second is that it was made thinking about the players who hadn´t read the books. They may have believed that introducing Yennefer directly in the first game would necessarily mean they had provide too much information from the books for the players to handle.
This way, they made a game which the players who hadn´t read the books could get into easily, while having lots of references to the books for those who had read them.

Maybe it was a mix of both, who knows?

 

[Kallelinski]

I have two theories.

The first is that they made it that way so as to give the players more freedom to choose the path they wanted (either Shani or Triss).

The second is that it was made thinking about the players who hadn´t read the books. They may have believed that introducing Yennefer directly in the first game would necessarily mean they had provide too much information from the books for the players to handle.
This way, they made a game which the players who hadn´t read the books could get into easily, while having lots of references to the books for those who had read them.

Maybe it was a mix of both, who knows?

1. So Yennefer was in the way of free choice?

2. Well, i think they didn't need to tell everything about her, just how they met would be enough to begin with, doesn't mean they have to make a tv series called "How I Met Your Mother".
In further dialogues they could offer the player to talk more about the past, if he doesn't want to, the player could just decline.

But now in the third game they need to explain everything about the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer, because nobody will understand that, unless he read the books.

 

[gedierond]

1. So Yennefer was in the way of free choice?

2. Well, i think they didn't need to tell everything about her, just how they met would be enough to begin with, doesn't mean they have to make a tv series called "How I Met Your Mother".
In further dialogues they could offer the player to talk more about the past, if he doesn't want to, the player could just decline.

But now in the third game they need to explain everything about the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer, because nobody will understand that, unless he read the books.

1. If the developers felt that having a fixed love interest was too constraining, then yes. (IMO, obviously)

2. With this point you have the upper hand, as I haven´t read the books. I have no idea how much of their relationship had to be told to faithfully represent Yennefer in the game. As I understand it (and correct me if I´m wrong), she has quite a particular personality, and many people doesn´t like her. For people to really care about her, their relationship would have had to be fully fleshed out in the game, also explaining their relatioship with Ciri, for example.

This said, I´m not saying not including Yen in the first game was a good idea or not. I´m just providing possible explanations for the devs´ decision.

 

[Kallelinski]

1. So why did they switch from a free choice to a "Triss or none" relationship in TW2?

We already had this issue here, IMO they indirectly force you to romance Triss in TW2. You can deny her in some dialogues, but you can't say "No" to her, so in the end you are in a relationship with Triss, also there is no real reason to decline her, she is a fine lady and good catch, why wouldn't you not want to be in a relationship with her?

2. Yeah, she does, particularly this, her character and their relationship could be explained across the games, now they have to do it in one game.

Triss and Yennefer could have been rivals over the first 2 games and in the third one you have to choose one of them, but now, well, what now?

You will probably choose between Triss and Yennefer, while you know one woman from 2 games, you don't know the other one at all.

This said, I´m not saying not including Yen in the first game was a good idea or not. I´m just providing possible explanations for the devs´ decision.

and i'm trying to figure out what the reason was