The Yennefer/Triss choice in TW3

[KnightofPhoenix]

Well, the more i read or learn about how CDPR deals with the story (e.g. that bond thing) or how other players want how it should progress, the more i get the feeling i should fight for what i want and should not give up to do so. They want my feedback, so here it is.

If you want to be heared by someone, you have to speak for yourself.

When the Ice Giant thing was explained in the Gameinformer article, some people here were mad as hell about it, how the hell should it be possible that helping someone to slay an Ice Giant should determine who is the next king of the Skellige Island?! They even wrote to CDPR to discuss that matter.

So why should i sit tight and wait then?

Because when I and others expressed our worries, we didn't do so to restrict player options, quite the contrary. We were focused on the outside world and the representation of politics, not on Geralt or how people should play Geralt. The only people my concerns would alienate are those who actually WANT simplistic politics (what are they doing here?).

You on the other hand are asking for something that would severely alienate Triss fans and / or those who don't really care about book/Geralt and want to play their own Geralt within acceptable parameters, for the sake of a person most The Witcher players (or a substantial amount) do not know of.

I don't really like Triss. But I would rather not have an unknown be shoved down my throat as the option I should take.

Yes maybe Yennefer should receive more exposure than Triss only because we've known the latter in 2 games and not the former. But Triss remains irrevocably a major character in the games and one who sadly was not really done that well in both games, in large part because her arc is being built up to TW3. For them now to just drop Triss or present her in a half assed way would make the TW2 understandably average romantic subplot pointless.

 

[goopit]

I'm replaying W2 and Triss mentions Sile fears Geralt in chapter 3, Why is that? was it something from the books?

 

[Seboist]

You on the other hand are asking for something that would severely alienate Triss fans and / or those who don't really care about book/Geralt and want to play their own Geralt within acceptable parameters, for the sake of a person most The Witcher players (or a substantial amount) do not know of.

I don't really like Triss. But I would rather not have an unknown be shoved down my throat as the option I should take.

CDPR really botched the whole Yennefer sub-plot from get-go by having her be a nonentity in the first game and not elaborating her all that much in the second(The Triss romance in both sure didn't help things either). The end result being those who aren't familiar with the books don't have much reason to care about her much.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

With good writing, they can make me care for Yennefer in just one game. Add to that, I never really liked Triss that much (but I do like the romantic subplot and how I roleplay it as a build up), so Yennefer doesn't really have that much competition.

The important thing is not to botch up like TW1 to TW2, and just ignore what our Geralt did (granted Shani should never have been an option in the firs place but whatever).

 

[wichat]

The only think I can remember is the way they treated Yennefer, the Lodge, her supposed friends sorceress. Frigilla seem help her to fly from Thanned... but really wasn't her died by that teletransportation?. By other way, Triss can only try to distract Geralt about what happened really in the core of the Lodge and how she betrayed Ciri and Yennefer...

Well, The Lodge itself has its own complexity, conspirations and betrayals, where CIRI was also a political goal for them. And all sorceress know how Geralt loves Ciri and Yennefer. And how angry he can get if he'd suspect any harm against them... (this idea make believe why Sila, while Kayran hunt, was tempted to lie down with him but thinking twice remembering Yennefer...IMO)

 

[Kallelinski]

Because when I and others expressed our worries, we didn't do so to restrict player options, quite the contrary. We were focused on the outside world and the representation of politics, not on Geralt or how people should play Geralt. The only people my concerns would alienate are those who actually WANT simplistic politics (what are they doing here?).

Well, I do care about the politics, but as an outsider, it's just i don't care who wins, because i don't feel obliged to stand up for one or another party, if they want to smash each others heads, go ahead, but let me do the witcher things.

You on the other hand are asking for something that would severely alienate Triss fans and / or those who don't really care about book/Geralt and want to play their own Geralt within acceptable parameters, for the sake of a person most The Witcher players (or a substantial amount) do not know of.

I don't really like Triss. But I would rather not have an unknown be shoved down my throat as the option I should take.

Yeah, i can understand that, because they already did it twice, with the Shani and Yennefer fans, so now the Triss fans fear the same could happen to them.
I could understand why CDPR would do that and i would actually support that, is that really such a bad thing? Especially if i know already the context and the backgrounds of them? Even when i know that a similar event already happened in the books with a clear outcome?

Why did they even remove any rivals for Triss in TW2 at all? All i can think of is that they want a controversy between those two and here we are

Yes maybe Yennefer should receive more exposure than Triss only because we've known the latter in 2 games and not the former. But Triss remains irrevocably a major character in the games and one who sadly was not really done that well in both games, in large part because her arc is being built up to TW3. For them now to just drop Triss or present her in a half assed way would make the TW2 understandably average romantic subplot pointless.

Just like Fringilla Vigo.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Well, I do care about the politics, but as an outsider, it's just i don't care who wins, because i don't feel obliged to stand up for one or another party, if they want to smash each others heads, go ahead, but let me do the witcher things.

And that's fine, no one is objecting to that.

I could understand why CDPR would do that and i would actually support that, is that really such a bad thing? Especially if i know already the context and the backgrounds of them? Even when i know that a similar event already happened in the books with a clear outcome?

Yes, because you want to impose something on everyone else in a ROLE PLAYING GAME.
A big amount of players (if not the majority) didn't read the books. You can't just then ignore all previous games and all character developments that made us invested in Geralt. That's a guaranteed way to not only make me dislike Geralt, but never contemplate reading the books.

You want to act like book Geralt and pick Yennefer? Awesome, I not only hope, but I expect this option to be available. Heck I might even take it. Just don't shove it down everyone's throat.

Why did they even remove any rivals for Triss in TW2 at all? All i can think of is that they want a controversy between those two and here we are />

Because they were obviously building up to a love triangle and them not having anyone else in TW2 was a good move, as having Shani in was just pointless and compromised the build up.

If Shani was never a romance option, a lot of the controversy wouldn't happen, as we would have just accepted Geralt liking Triss as default in the same manner as him liking the jackass Dandy and Zoltan, as revelations about Yennefer start to come up and foreshadow at a love triangle. That would have been a great build up. Now, it's weakened by their botch in TW1.

 

[Kallelinski]

Yes, because you want to impose something on everyone else in a ROLE PLAYING GAME.
A big amount of players (if not the majority) didn't read the books. You can't just then ignore all previous games and all character developments that made us invested in Geralt. That's a guaranteed way to not only make me dislike Geralt, but never contemplate reading the books.

You want to act like book Geralt and pick Yennefer? Awesome, I not only hope, but I expect this option to be available. Heck I might even take it. Just don't shove it down everyone's throat.

But that's the point, you are playing a role and not a blank sheet (amnesia) anymore, CDPR (not me) brought back the book Geralt and now they have to deal with that, also with his past.

Because they were obviously building up to a love triangle and them not having anyone else in TW2 was a good move, as having Shani in was just pointless and compromised the build up.

That's one weird love triangle with just 2 persons, while the third one is absent and just shown in flashbacks.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

But that's the point, you are playing a role and not a blank sheet (amnesia) anymore, CDPR (not me) brought back the book Geralt and now they have to deal with that, also with his past.

No, they didn't. They brought the memories back, but the memories don't somehow undo his experiences in 2 games.

Geralt in TW3 is the combined experiences of both game Geralt and book Geralt.

If what they are planning to do is now impose their version of Geralt on me, I will say fuck this game I won't play it.

That's one weird love triangle with just 2 persons, while the third one is absent and just shown in flashbacks.

That's why I said "building up to"

 

[gedierond]

The important thing is not to botch up like TW1 to TW2, and just ignore what our Geralt did (granted Shani should never have been an option in the firs place but whatever).

I think KoP made a good point here. If Shani hadn´t been in the first game as a choice only to be discarded in TW2, the whole romantic subplot would make more sense, IMO.

They could have made TW1 with only Triss as a love interest, developing the relationship and introducing the memories of Yen as they did in TW2. That way, players with no knowledge of Yennefer from the books would still have an important and intriguing part of Geralt´s past life to uncover in TW3, and may indeed choose Yen in the end, while those players who did read the books and want Geralt to end up with Yen would get their chance to do it in the third game.

I really think is actually the devs´ intention, but they thought about it during the development of the second game.
My guess (you can call it a third theory />) is that during the development of TW1 they had planned to leave Yen dead.

Edit: Took too long to post this, KoP said the same thing about Shani being pointless in his post above, lol.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

As long as do not shove up down my throat anyone, I am fine with it. In TW2 I had an option to care about politics and a search for a kingslayer to clear my name much more, then to care about Triss. Sure, we had a long quest, and I sort of went through motions, but in the end I had an option simply to say "screw Triss", and to save a little girl. Book or not, it is a role-playing game, and I want some neutrality option concerning Triss/Yennifer. I do not want to be forced to choose either of them, or any of them.

 

[Kallelinski]

No, they didn't. They brought the memories back, but the memories don't somehow undo his experiences in 2 games.

Geralt in TW3 is the combined experiences of both game Geralt and book Geralt.

If what they are planning to do is now impose their version of Geralt on me, I will say fuck this game I won't play it.

Of course they have to deal with that now, should they just ignore his 80 years before the game? Why even bring back his memory, if it doesn't matter?

And as i said in the other thread, the games are following the books quite accurately, so i don't see any reason why they should change that now, they would actually contradict themselves if they implement now decisions, which aren't consistent with the lore.

That's why I said "building up to"

Well, then they did a hell of a good job, if still most people doesn't really know who she is.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Of course they have to deal with that now, should they just ignore his 80 years before the game? Why even bring back his memory, if it doesn't matter?

I didn't say they should ignore his memories. I said, they shouldn't impose anything on us.

If my Geralt decides to not love Yennefer, then it's my business to.

And as i said in the other thread, the games are following the books quite accurately, so i don't see any reason why they should change that now, they would actually contradict themselves if they implement now decisions, which aren't consistent with the lore.

Nothing that happened in the games happened in the books. They were inspired by events in the game, that's all.

Not to mention all the choices that Geralt could take, that he'd never take in the books.
They can't just piss on that and ignore it. The games take place after the books and what we choose to do is our business within acceptable parameters.

I couldn't give less of a damn if book Geralt loves Yennefer. If my Geralt does not fall in love with her, then he does not, full stop.

Well, then they did a hell of a good job, if still most people doesn't really know who she is.

They didn't do a good job.

Would still be better than if now they just impose Yennefer.

 

[wichat]

If what they are planning to do is now impose their version of Geralt on me, I will say fuck this game I won't play it.

Hope Google translator helped me:

In my humbleand very personal opinion I think we got out of context by pure selfishness.

Initially CDPR dared make a game about a character with a lifetime already written, a character that they have known since childhood, and that perchance they could greatly recreate in a game. As independent creators and since it was their first attempt at a AAA game I assume that they chosed not tangle with all the characters that make the series and created TW1 and to a limited audience. The success that followed was totally unexpected, they did not expect to reach as many places as distant. They wanted us to know Geralt of Rivia. We did, some of us even more and wanted to know who and why. They love the character and their respect for the work of Spawoski made ​​possible a real gem of game, they introduced to the world a character that we knew nothing, not even his books existed.

Seeing this devotion to a fictional literary character I felt morally obligated to get to know that witcher so well who CDPR had recreated. They did so well that they passed it on to me.

CDPR've introduced to us a character we did not know, not for this purpose, but to enjoy themselves a character admired as a game.

If they now want to approach the original character to who did not want to know more about Geralt of Rivia and his life, that can not be seen as a betrayal of their followers.

Disown the authors of both the character and the game, because one has built its oneself Alter Mundi (entirely respectable and commendable work) and feel disappointed it seems to me unfair to CDPR. Because, under my own point of view, CDPR have not create The Witcher game to create a new character, but to pay homage to one of its children's idols.

But again, it is my humble and personal opinion, which does not attempt to convince anyone of anything. Neither with this discard that CDPR take another direction different from that anyone can speculate according to their illusions.

No offense meant, sorry if I did.

 

[Kallelinski]

Nothing that happened in the games happened in the books. They were inspired by events in the game, that's all.

Not to mention all the choices that Geralt could take, that he'd never take in the books.
They can't just piss on that and ignore it. The games take place after the books and what we choose to do is our business within acceptable parameters.

I couldn't give less of a damn if book Geralt loves Yennefer. If my Geralt does not fall in love with her, then he does not, full stop.

If you didn't read the books, how do you suppose to know that?

Of course they didn't repreat the exact events, but the similarities are obvious, e.g. it's not the first time Henselt can

Spoiler

conquer upper Aedirn.

So i have to accept now that i am wrong with following the lore? Wrong with explaining why this is the right decision in my opinion? What's even the point in a discussion about this matter, if i can't state my point of view? To not convince others of my opinion? So i just have to shut the fuck up, because my opinion is not the same as others?

Why did they even stick to the lore, if they should do now whatever they want? The Witcher game series is not a loose adaptation, it's quite the opposite of that and i expect that they will still stick to it in TW3.

Here you are telling me that you will do whatever you want, okay, i won't stop you, but don't push your "i will do whatever i want/free choice for everyone" opinion on me, i think that's not the right decision, Geralt is a character with a background and one should respect that.
Also nothing you can do in the games is in contrary to the lore and they did a good job so far to implement decisions, which are indeed compliant with the lore.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

If they now want to approach the original character to who did not want to know more about Geralt of Rivia and his life, that can not be seen as a betrayal of their followers.

It is an insult for them to ignore the 2 games that got us invested in Geralt in the first place.

If everything I've done, all the thinking I've put, all the role playing I've done, to give my Geralt a character arc, is ignored then no one can expect me not to be pissed off.
Because you can't just make us invested in so much in a character that WE as players had a substantial leeway in defining his motives, character, beliefs and perspective, and then ignore that. It's the epitome of poor writing.

all I ask is to give me options. If you want to play book Geralt, fine. You'll have the option as you always did in both games. Good on you.
But why people think they must impose that on everyone else is beyond me. Just let me play the game in however way I wish as long as it doesn't contradict the lore or the core essence of who Geralt is.

What I ask for does not exclude you. What you ask for excludes me.

And no offense taken.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Look, it does not have to be one extreme, or the other. They offer a lot of choices. Some of them should be faithful to the lore, while others - contrary to book's Gerald, but align well with gamers' preferences. At the end of TW2 we can have radically different political situations in Temeria, and it is exactly why I love this game. If in TW3 we can have radically different situations concerning Gerald's personal life, it wouldn't be so bad, would it? You would have an opportunity to follow book Gerald, while I, for example, to create my own path.

I read the books, and I like them, but I personally do not want to follow them closely. I like a lot of books, and a lot of characters, but I do not always agree with their choices, and so I do not find it an insult to a book, or something, if I choose not follow them.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

If you didn't read the books, how do you suppose to know that?

Because those who read it told me so.

Because heck, the author said so. The games are not canon.

EDIT as for Henselt conquering Upper Aedirn. The conflict in TW2 has a completely new dynamic with Saskia and the Lodge's plans.

So i have to accept now that i am wrong with following the lore? Wrong with explaining why this is the right decision in my opinion? What's even the point in a discussion about this matter, if i can't state my point of view? To not convince others of my opinion? So i just have to shut the fuck up, because my opinion is not the same as others?

You are not wrong. You are simply excluding others who don't want to play the same way as you. I am not.

If you think that's a good idea fine. Just don't expect me or others to be silent about it.

Why did they even stick to the lore, if they should do now whatever they want? The Witcher game series is not a loose adaptation, it's quite the opposite of that and i expect that they will still stick to it in TW3.

It being a faithful adaption does not mean they are essentially copying the books, otherwise they wouldn't give us any choices.

Here you are telling me that you will do whatever you want, okay, i won't stop you, but don't push your "i will do whatever i want/free choice for everyone" opinion on me, i think that's not the right decision, Geralt is a character with a background and one should respect that.

I am expressing my opinion same as you. I think your idea is a terrible one.

And no, I never said I wanted to do whatever I want. I said, I want to do whatever I want within acceptable parameters.

Also nothing you can do in the games is in contrary to the lore and they did a good job so far to implement decisions, which are indeed compliant with the lore.

So Geralt can pick the Order or Scoia'Tael or neutral at the same time, can kill Henselt or not at the same time, can kill Berengar and Letho or spare them at the same time?

What you are saying is a contradiction. The games created scenarios with *mutually exclusive choices*. Book Geralt can't do both at the same time.

What the game did is give us options within the confines of Geralt's essence as a character. An important nuance.
And just like they gave us these choices, they better well give us similar choices in TW3 or I will not be playing it.

 

[wichat]

It is an insult for them to ignore the 2 games that got us invested in Geralt in the first place.

If everything I've done, all the thinking I've put, all the role playing I've done, to give my Geralt a character arc, is ignored then no one can expect me not to be pissed off.
Because you can't just make us invested in so much in a character that WE as players had a substantial leeway in defining his motives, character, beliefs and perspective, and then ignore that. It's the epitome of poor writing.

all I ask is to give me options. If you want to play book Geralt, fine. You'll have the option as you always did in both games. Good on you.
But why people think they must impose that on everyone else is beyond me. Just let me play the game in however way I wish as long as it doesn't contradict the lore or the core essence of who Geralt is.

What I ask for does not exclude you. What you ask for excludes me.

And no offense taken.

I don't ask for. I'm nobody to ask for nothing to CDPR. I give my opinion. I am a costumer with the luck to can tell what I think. I won't require anything to CDPR but quality, mature and intelligence. From that on, I'll accept their decision.

 

[Kallelinski]

They can't ignore the games, the games are within the lore, that's how they made them and that's even why i like them.

It's one of the reasons why the tv series is a silly adaption, because it took too much freedom.

I do think a choice is important, but it has to be reasonable and understandable, just having choices for the sake of it is just silly and ditching Yennefer for another woman, doesn't matter who, is not reasonable at all without a really decent explanation, because it contradicts everything Geralt stood up for in the books AND games.