GuyN said:Exactly; the timeline was not meant to be accurate or self-consistent, and any claims that it must be consistent are conditions we have imposed on the world, whereas the world is what it is.
Charza said: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.
JonStryker said: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)/>/>?
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.
vivaxardas said: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.
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).
Kodaemon said:I'm interested in this, since the only reference to Triss' age in the books that I can remember is that she's "young", which could be rather relative since both witchers and mages are supposed to have lifespans much longer than regular humans. Can't remember anything regarding her age from the games.
revieced said:Triss is about 300 years old which is considered young for sorcerers/sorceresses. Yennefer is about 900+.
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.
revieced said:Triss is about 300 years old which is considered young for sorcerers/sorceresses. Yennefer is about 900+.
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.
revieced said:Triss is about 300 years old which is considered young for sorcerers/sorceresses. Yennefer is about 900+.
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.
revieced said:U-uh, if we take Witcher 3 as now, Yennefer is 99 and Triss should be around half her age.
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.
I'm seeing jokes where I shouldn't >_>vivaxardas said:If we use Uranus, they all are less than 1 year old.
I'm seeing jokes where I shouldn't >_>
Triss is about 300 years old which is considered young for sorcerers/sorceresses. Yennefer is about 900+.
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.
That is some next level bullshit