- Status
Sapkowski did and apparently they will follow his "lead", but seriously it's way too early to interpretate anything in particular, perhaps the author just exaggerated about that.bcheero said:
But we can't pretend that the events of the two games did not happen. Let's not make these characters into beings far from reality; even in real life people fall in or out of love given certain circumstances. It's not unreasonable to assume that despite regaining his memories, Geralt's newly kindled love for Triss will overshadow his feelings for Yen. Yikes, I am writing like a romance novelist.Kallelinski said:
Anywhoo, the games are an inspired adaptation so it's not necessary for them to be exactly faithful to the original work.
cmdrflashheart said:
Of course not... but then WHY CDPR make Geralt recover his memories? Just to destroy the character changing all the past before TW1?
It would be more simple and easy just recovering some peices of memory just to make sense with the 2 previous games.
For me the axe is focus on that: recover ALL his memories, which ones? that already exist (so books canon)? or some new ones and absolutly invented by them?
Yeah, but Geralt was already in such a situation, with Triss andcmdrflashheart said:
Fringilla Vigo.
The german Gamestar also wrote a preview for The Witcher 3, they didn't mention any certain source, but their text is even more specific about Yennefer:
Geralt's past:
Geralt, the white wolf is tired. He is tired of hunting, he is tired of political intrigue, and he is tired to pull of the chestnuts out of the fire for others. The witcher wants finally find himself, and therefore, the third part shall tell a more personal story than the previous two. The witcher had been plagued by amnesia, but he attains finally in the third part his memory back. And so, the search begins for his friends and especially for his one true, great love: Yennefer. [...]
Triss Merigold:
The powerful sorceress Triss accompanied Geralt since the beginning of the series and not only plays an important role in his adventures and battles, but also secured a place in his heart. The romance of the two has always been a constant up and down, but after the events of the second part their relationship is in a rather complicated phase. Triss will play a role again in The Witcher 3. What exactly is not clear. Even though she is still very close to Geralt, she plays only second fiddle - behind his lost love Yennefer.
I can't lie or complain, it fits my expectation and it reassures me that the game will stick to the books as it already did.
I like her toobcheero said:
, I had not that in mind (if you react on my post).But this topic is maybe biggest problem for next game. As I mentioned - Yennefer is main goal of all games and Triss his love (good friend, helping hand,...) for both games. I hope they will not do anything stupid like let Triss (or Yen - even worse) die. Let that choice on players will be the best, I think.
But also Kallelinski is right and this: "...especially for his one true, great love: Yennefer." is true.
I like Triss very much and I have different impression about their relationship from Witcher 2 ending. I hope they take my game decisions into account.
I am conflicted about this: on the one hand I care more about the storytelling process than the choice aspect, and on the other I can't help but feel cheated out of making an important decision regarding the story.
My impression was that these game allowed players to experience alternative versions of story progression. I don't believe that every decision in past games was in character for book Geralt, probably because of the amnesia.
Now we're presented with a scenario in which all memories have been recovered, but why does this have to mean that Geralt is going to magically forget the events of the last two games, or how they affected him.
Is he so shallow that he's not allowed to be conflicted, or begin to think differently?
It has been established that Geralt and Triss have a bond, whatever it may be, so it is within reason for an adaptation of Sapowski's work to include an alternative version of story progression regarding the Triss/Yen choice.
If CDPR is bold enough to take away player autonomy in this choice, then I don't see why they shouldn't do that for every choice in the game.
Why not then just tell Sapowski's story faithfully, instead of taking a half-baked approach. If the objective was always to follow book story progression, then why present the sham of allowing player autonomy.
The witcher games were attractive because of their ability to present a nonlinear, yet cohesive narrative. By narrowing one of the most important decisions in the game to a single outcome, the game feels stunted.
CDPR should focus on being faithful to the thematic characteristics of Sapowski's work, and not necessarily on repeating singular events from the books; the latter is an immensely uninspired approach.
My impression was that these game allowed players to experience alternative versions of story progression. I don't believe that every decision in past games was in character for book Geralt, probably because of the amnesia.
Now we're presented with a scenario in which all memories have been recovered, but why does this have to mean that Geralt is going to magically forget the events of the last two games, or how they affected him.
Is he so shallow that he's not allowed to be conflicted, or begin to think differently?
It has been established that Geralt and Triss have a bond, whatever it may be, so it is within reason for an adaptation of Sapowski's work to include an alternative version of story progression regarding the Triss/Yen choice.
If CDPR is bold enough to take away player autonomy in this choice, then I don't see why they shouldn't do that for every choice in the game.
Why not then just tell Sapowski's story faithfully, instead of taking a half-baked approach. If the objective was always to follow book story progression, then why present the sham of allowing player autonomy.
The witcher games were attractive because of their ability to present a nonlinear, yet cohesive narrative. By narrowing one of the most important decisions in the game to a single outcome, the game feels stunted.
CDPR should focus on being faithful to the thematic characteristics of Sapowski's work, and not necessarily on repeating singular events from the books; the latter is an immensely uninspired approach.
Well I'll say that the biggest proportion of my attachment to Geralt was based my role playing of him. A Geralt that I didn't help grow and evolve is going to be much less appealing.
While on the other hand...Triss is the only love interest known by most people interested in the games due to TW1/TW2, while Yennefer remains as a nobody. If that's not a solid reason I don't know what is.
@ Kallelinski
I wouldn't hold those descriptions in high regard. The information provided is very vague, and is interpreted differently by different articles.
Consider this - what is said in that article contradicts what was said in the interview, which mentioned feelings and a bond that's hard to ignore between Geralt and Triss.
------------------------------------
I also have to add that you are coming off as extremely selfish. If a choice were to be provided, you would be able to play the game exactly how you want. You can ditch Triss, continue the romance with Yennefer, and the story would play out exactly how it would have in the books. The existence of an alternate path for others to enjoy would not impact you or your experience in any way, shape or form.
If Yennefer were to be forced on the player, you don't stand to gain anything, but players like me will lose a lot. Your argument against the existence of a choice aims at ruining the game for others, nothing more.
Yeah, i do, because i think it is the right decision. According to that, CDPR has to add even Ves, the Succubus, Shani, Cynthia and so on as potential LI, because some players want them as LI, even though it doesn't really fit (anymore?).
Exactly. I would not care if it were possible to swear eternal love and to marry Triss, to slay singlehandedly every nilfgaardian soldier and free the North, and to kill Emhyr in duel, as long as there were a lot of alternative choices, which would include to tell Triss to go to hell, for example. It seems CDPR are aiming to have as many different choices with radically different outcomes as in TW2. I hope the end result would please everyone, whatever Gerald's woman, or political situation they are rooting for.Dragon said:
You are comparing the 5 minute flings with Ves or the Succubus with two entire games with Triss?Kallelinski said:
Also, as far as the games are concerned, having Triss as the love interest fits perfectly with the first two games. In fact, not having a choice doesn't really fit.
I am sorry, my initial judgement stands, you are being very selfish and inconsiderate to other long standing Witcher fans for absolutely no reason. You stand to gain nothing, you just want to ruin things for others.
Why not? The fans want it, also Shani was not just a 5 minute fling and what about him?
Apparently there are people who wants more options.Aver said:
I chose Shani in TW1, and in TW2 I think Ves was actually in a longer part of the game compared to Triss (at least on Roche's path). Triss had a bit of the prologue, act 1, and a bit of the epilogue. Ves had acts 1 and 2, so I spent more time around her than TrissDragon said:
Plus (again on Roche's path) I felt that Ves had much more powerful and emotional scenes. Her character seemed a lot more interesting to me with a lot more depth, and I really hope that she'll appear in TW3 so I can see how she's doing (whether or not she ends up being a love interest).
This topic would benefit right now from an absence of both ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum arguments, so maybe it's time to move on?
(Comment was NOT addressed to Ward Dragon)
(Comment was NOT addressed to Ward Dragon)
The thing with Ves was just sex, it was clear and both were clear about it.
It's not comparable to what Geralt can have with Triss, irrespective of what people think of Ves (though yes I'd like to see her again). A nubmer of TW players professed love to Triss, something no one can do with Ves. You are excluding them and ignoring a choice that was clearly in the game (no headcanon romance).
Yes, Shani is a better analogy and I stand by it, CDPR made a huge mistake giving us that choice, which was written poorly anyways so as to make Shani the illogical choice.
It's not comparable to what Geralt can have with Triss, irrespective of what people think of Ves (though yes I'd like to see her again). A nubmer of TW players professed love to Triss, something no one can do with Ves. You are excluding them and ignoring a choice that was clearly in the game (no headcanon romance).
Yes, Shani is a better analogy and I stand by it, CDPR made a huge mistake giving us that choice, which was written poorly anyways so as to make Shani the illogical choice.
What about Shani? Everyone already agreed that it was a terrible mistake that hurt a lot of people. You want to repeat the exact same mistake to punish fans of a character you don't like, despite what both games thus far have shown and allowed us to do.Kallelinski said:
You have no excuses, no valid reasons for what you are doing beyond malicious intent.
You have already trolled the "Triss vs Yennefer" thread with your nonsense theories about Triss that were discredited by several long standing members, despite your persistence. To quote Guy N'wah:
Even your avatar aims to irritate Triss fans. You don't think I know the original image you got it from?
Despite all that, I have tried to be reasonable with you in this thread, but I am passed that now. Comparing Triss to the succubus is a little more bullshit than I am willing to accept. I ask that you either cut it out and be more receptive of other peoples views, or you stop posting in my thread.
I was just explaining why Ves is much more interesting from my point of view. If we're going the route of restoring player choice in the romance (after TW2 took it away) then I'd like to see more options aside from only Triss or Yennefer. Yennefer makes the most sense in terms of Geralt's past, but if she can be disregarded for Triss then it makes sense for other women to have a chance too (or for Geralt to decide to remain single rather than settle down with anyone).KnightofPhoenix said:
I still think the Shani choice is not illogical. By that point in the game, Alvin isn't really a threat to anyone else. I only have Triss' word for it that he's dangerous and Triss can potentially come across as very untrustworthy depending how the player interprets certain things. Of course she'd claim that he's dangerous and needs her help if she wants control of him. In that case, I think it makes sense to give Alvin to Shani instead since I trust her enough that I know she wouldn't try to exploit his power for her own goals, and since she's not the obvious target so I thought anyone after Alvin would have a harder time finding him.KnightofPhoenix said:
- Status