In the world where it is true to say that 1271 is 6 years later than 1268, the meaning of numerals they use is different (in no possible world (in our language) 68+6=71, it is mathematically impossible). So in order for readers to be consistent as well, we shouldn't claim that we understand what it means (for example) "six days later" in TW world, because we do not understand what "six" means in that world.GuyN said:
You, guys, can believe anything you want, and be as inconsistent as you like, but for me either making all number discourse meaningless, or turning TW world into Alice in Wonderland, is not a way to go. I really hope in TW3 CDPR would choose a simple way and change 1271 into 1273(1274).
Oh right, I remember now.
In the beginning in the prison, Vernon indeed says that his report detail some of the events that happened 5 years ago, which are the events of the Rivian pogrom.
1268 is the supposed year and the Witcher 2 is set in 1271.
3 years does not equal 5 years, so there are still some mix ups that can not be properly explained.
The game however does explain that time is relative, and that those who have been in contact with the wild hunt, perceive time differently, or not at all.
The effects of time also differ significantly from one person to the next if you regard people that have been into contact with the wild hunt.
Since the story has these sort of "quantum" elements, with the conjunction of spheres, and things like the wild hunt that seem to be in 2 different realities at the same time. It might just be so that some of these contradicting elements are actually part of the story, and that all of this will eventually be revealed in the future.
Now I come to think of it, the first witcher game had a sort of time loop/alternative reality thing as well.
Remember Alvin ?
The first game sort of suggested that Alvin was actually a younger version of Jaques de Aldersberg, and that Jaques de Aldersberg himself might have been an invader from another world, or other timeline.
Jaques was able to bend reality in many different ways, since he was a very powerful source.
I'm not saying all dates make sense. I am saying however that some of it might actually be intentional, and be part of the bigger story line that will be saga of Geralt of Rivia.
In the beginning in the prison, Vernon indeed says that his report detail some of the events that happened 5 years ago, which are the events of the Rivian pogrom.
1268 is the supposed year and the Witcher 2 is set in 1271.
3 years does not equal 5 years, so there are still some mix ups that can not be properly explained.
The game however does explain that time is relative, and that those who have been in contact with the wild hunt, perceive time differently, or not at all.
The effects of time also differ significantly from one person to the next if you regard people that have been into contact with the wild hunt.
Since the story has these sort of "quantum" elements, with the conjunction of spheres, and things like the wild hunt that seem to be in 2 different realities at the same time. It might just be so that some of these contradicting elements are actually part of the story, and that all of this will eventually be revealed in the future.
Now I come to think of it, the first witcher game had a sort of time loop/alternative reality thing as well.
Remember Alvin ?
The first game sort of suggested that Alvin was actually a younger version of Jaques de Aldersberg, and that Jaques de Aldersberg himself might have been an invader from another world, or other timeline.
Jaques was able to bend reality in many different ways, since he was a very powerful source.
I'm not saying all dates make sense. I am saying however that some of it might actually be intentional, and be part of the bigger story line that will be saga of Geralt of Rivia.
All I know is that Ciri was born on May 1st, 1251 and that TW3 supposedly starts during May 1272.
I hope Geralt doesn't forget to bring cake to Ciri's 21st birthday...
!
I hope Geralt doesn't forget to bring cake to Ciri's 21st birthday...
!That sounds a like a hugely extensive explanation to a problem that can be very simply answered. Time flows differently and magically five years are three (or the other way around)?Charza said:
CDProjektRED isn't completely error prone. They did screw up with the dates. So what?
With the same redcon logic you could argue that there are probably several cities in the Northern kingdoms with the same names (Aedd Gynvael in Kaedwen AND in Kovir) or that Thanedd most likely vanished in the ocean due to plate tectonics.
The timeline doesn't make sense.
My guess is that Ciri messed it up, because CDPR hadn't included her in the other games.
My guess is that Ciri messed it up, because CDPR hadn't included her in the other games.
True !JonStryker said:
And some of these date errors are quite inexcusable if you ask me. 5 years simply do not equal 3 years. and in general the dates just don't seem to add up at all.
Timeloops are however part of the games and their story canon, and it can be one possible explanation for SOME of strangeness surrounding the timeline.
I can image that some of the fuzzy dates that Geralt mentions in his Witcher 2 flashbacks, are actually quite distorted by the fact that he is chasing a group of spectres that seem to be in 2 realities at the same time.
However, in general the timeline doesn't make sense, and the writers really could have done a much better job !
Wow, for some reason I completely read over this post.vivaxardas said:
I agree 100% though.
One can not simply say that we perhaps numbers have a different meaning in the world of the witcher.
If numbers don't have any meaning we as readers/game players can understand, because even though the numbers match the ones we know in our world, they have an unestablished different meaning, then the information that is relayed to us as readers/game players, is unnecessary
as a whole.
CDPR just has been very sloppy with this, and its better for us fans to just admit that.
Triss is about 300 years old which is considered young for sorcerers/sorceresses. Yennefer is about 900+.Kodaemon said:
Thats what i remember from the books anyways. i believe its been mentioned in the Time of Contempt book, in Gors Velen at the Sorcerers/esses gathering party.
U-uh, if we take Witcher 3 as now, Yennefer is 99 and Triss should be around half her age.revieced said:
Are we talking about Moon years here? If we use Uranus, they all are less than 1 year old.revieced said:
Yep, it was my impression as well after I read the saga. Triss is much younger, but she is still in her fifties.revieced said:
hahaha! yeah somewhere in her 90s sorry, its too late here. time to go to bed.vivaxardas said:/> Are we talking about Moon years here? If we use Uranus, they all are less than 1 year old.
Yep, it was my impression as well after I read the saga. Triss is much younger, but she is still in her fifties.
LOL !!!
Well it's hard not to see this one !
On-topic: Lets hope Wild Hunt will give us some clarity.
Calender still screwed up.
I see that it's now 1272:
In just about one more year, it'll finally be five years after the 2nd Nilfgaard War and the Witcher 1 can start.
C'mon CDPR. Just fix the dates already.
I see that it's now 1272:
In just about one more year, it'll finally be five years after the 2nd Nilfgaard War and the Witcher 1 can start.
C'mon CDPR. Just fix the dates already.
@didymos1120
There's two ways to fix that problem. Either move all the dates 2 years later, or simply say that the Witcher 1 started just 2 years after the war with Nilfgaard. Both ways appear to still have some flaws.
If all the dates move 2 years later, the Witcher 1 would start in May 1272, instead of May 1270.
However, the Witch Hunts that appear to be explained by the games, would start in the end of year 1273, or the start of 1274. That is incorrect, since the books have mentioned that the Witch Hunts happened in 1272.
If CDPR changes that one sentence about the "5 years after the War with Nilfgaard" and makes it to "2 years after the War with Nilfgaard", then everything would make sense.
Except Geralt and Letho meeting in Angren in July 1270. That does not make sense, unless the dates of everything else get moved, or is explained another way, for example some crazy time travelling.
I believe these are pretty much all the Timeline issues. I can't see that problem fixed though. There's either been a mess up without repair, or CDPR has some crazy plot line in store for us.
There's two ways to fix that problem. Either move all the dates 2 years later, or simply say that the Witcher 1 started just 2 years after the war with Nilfgaard. Both ways appear to still have some flaws.
If all the dates move 2 years later, the Witcher 1 would start in May 1272, instead of May 1270.
- That would make sense, since it would be 4 to 5 years after the war with Nilfgaard.
- Also, the problem with Geralt meeting Letho for the first time, in the forests of Angren in July 1270, would be solved. Right now, this does not make sense, since TW1 starts in May 1270, and Geralt meets Letho in July 1270.
However, the Witch Hunts that appear to be explained by the games, would start in the end of year 1273, or the start of 1274. That is incorrect, since the books have mentioned that the Witch Hunts happened in 1272.
If CDPR changes that one sentence about the "5 years after the War with Nilfgaard" and makes it to "2 years after the War with Nilfgaard", then everything would make sense.
Except Geralt and Letho meeting in Angren in July 1270. That does not make sense, unless the dates of everything else get moved, or is explained another way, for example some crazy time travelling.
I believe these are pretty much all the Timeline issues. I can't see that problem fixed though. There's either been a mess up without repair, or CDPR has some crazy plot line in store for us.
Last edited:
Yennefer is 100 years old exactly. Triss is much younger than that. I'd say she's around 40. Her exact age is not mentioned anywhere. So I would say your comment is quite valid.
