Treating the games as canon

[LordNu]

Treating the games as canon

Interested to see if you guys treat the games as canon, even though Sapkowski has said they are not. This question boils down to me on how I wanted the stories to end. I couldn't be happier with the ending to the stories, and to that end, that is the whole of "The Witcher". I don't want to treat the games as anything more than games as I do not want it to affect what was a perfect story/ending.

Perhaps I am just wary that this third game will touch the main story of CIri and Yen, and I wanted to leave it where it ended with "The Lady of the Lake".

Thoughts?

 

[Lieste]

Va’esse deireadh aep eigean…
Something ends, something begins.

 

[RyeOrTheKaiser]

To me, games and books are separate. There are too many differences in the world and characters for me to even consider both being the same continuous story that just switched medium. Besides, as you mentioned, Sapkowski himself said that books are official canon and games are not part of it.

 

[Tjerra]

The books ended the way how they ended. Like @Lieste said it: Something ends, something begins. And they ended in a way which was disappointing to me on the one hand side, but so fitting at the other hand. It was a great story told and I was afraid of the ending, because many great stories were ruined with bad endings, but this one - well, I liked it. And, at the same time, I hated Sapkowski for it.

The games are a completely different thing to me. They start somewhere, some characters are the same, others not, the world is different in some cases, and it's another medium. I like the story told in the games, but I don't see it as canon. I felt awkward when I saw Ciri appearing in the game the first time. And I will feel awkward playing it, with Yen and Ciri and so on, characters I only know from the books. It's like someone ripped them off the pages and visualized them, and I can't get it together.
So, no. I don't treat the games as canon. They're additional. Like a vision, what could have happened, if the world were a better place.

 

[Easo]

They are direct continuation for me, so, canon.

 

[GuyNwah]

Canon is not merely continuation. Even if you disregard Sapkowski's very specific words claiming the canon as his alone and his right as original author to control the canon and make an end to the story, there has to be continuity in detail even to begin entertaining the possibility of admitting the games as a continuation to canon.

A continued canon could not contain global discrepancies such as a plain and intentionally uncorrected discrepancy of three years in time, or discrepancies in meaningful detail such as Triss Merigold's vanished scar. A continued canon would not telescope characters or situations, the way the first game uses Alvin.

In short, it is more than a little insulting to Sapkowski to claim that the Witcher games are any part of Witcher canon, and the games do not meet the basic requirements of a continued canon. This does not diminish the value of the games as entertainment or art or drama. It only insists that they be seen in a true perspective with respect to their original source.

 

[Cs__sz__r]

It's like the most expensive fan fiction ever made, that also generates revenue.


How I see it anyway.

 

[KingHochmeister]

Like a vision, what could have happened, if the world were a better place.

Though I wouldn't say that the world is better in the games' storyline, the events that happened in Witcher 1 and especially Witcher 2 put the world in a more terrible state than its state at the ending of the books.

 

[Blothulfur]

I like the books but i'm glad Sapkowski doesn't consider the games canon, it frees them to explore other possibilities and aspects while still respecting the world, characters and situations that the author wrote about. For instance I never really cared much for Ciri, just couldn't get invested, Geralt was initially far more interesting to me and so i've been more than happy with the games.

Perhaps a slightly different world, a little darker reflection that lies lost somewhere on the Spiral. They're both great works of art, whatever the makers want, when I interact with them i'll draw my own conclusions.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Canon-shmanon. I have no idea what "canon" even means in this case. I get it concerning religion, but in religion what goes into the canon is decided by collective agreement, not by the authorship of different work. In the Bible authors and styles are wildly different, but it was decided to go into canon anyway.
Concerning TW, I have no idea. Stories in games are not written by Sapkowski, they continue the story of Geralt after the last book ends. Do I like how they are doing it? Sure I do. Do they continue the book story believably, or at least without major breaks in continuity, characters, and events? In my opinion, sure. Minor details, messed-up time-lines are common problems for practically every book series, even from a single writer. So scars and timeline problems are not a big deal for me, especially given that the books are presented not like a chronicle, but more as a re-telling of a legend. That's all I can say until the meaning of this term is clearly explained, objectivity of a property this term denotes is demonstrated, and its criteria of application are rigorously stated.

So my conclusion is: either the question is nonsensical in virtue of lack of meaning of the term "canon", or it is undetermined until rigorous criteria of an application of the predicate "being a canon" are stated, or "being a canon" is a purely matter of opinion.

 

[Seboist]

To me, games and books are separate. There are too many differences in the world and characters for me to even consider both being the same continuous story that just switched medium. Besides, as you mentioned, Sapkowski himself said that books are official canon and games are not part of it.

This, I treat them as two separate things as well.

 

[volsung]

Considering there are important inconsistencies between games and books, making the games canon would imply rewriting history. For instance, Adda.

 

[LordNu]

Canon-shmanon. I have no idea what "canon" even means in this case. I get it concerning religion, but in religion what goes into the canon is decided by collective agreement, not by the authorship of different work. In the Bible authors and styles are wildly different, but it was decided to go into canon anyway.
Concerning TW, I have no idea. Stories in games are not written by Sapkowski, they continue the story of Geralt after the last book ends. Do I like how they are doing it? Sure I do. Do they continue the book story believably, or at least without major breaks in continuity, characters, and events? In my opinion, sure. Minor details, messed-up time-lines are common problems for practically every book series, even from a single writer. So scars and timeline problems are not a big deal for me, especially given that the books are presented not like a chronicle, but more as a re-telling of a legend. That's all I can say until the meaning of this term is clearly explained, objectivity of a property this term denotes is demonstrated, and its criteria of application are rigorously stated.

So my conclusion is: either the question is nonsensical in virtue of lack of meaning of the term "canon", or it is undetermined until rigorous criteria of an application of the predicate "being a canon" are stated, or "being a canon" is a purely matter of opinion.

In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual fictional universe. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The term "canon" can be used either as a noun, referring to "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows,"[1] or as an adjective to describe whether or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe.[2] Fan-fiction would be described as "non-canon," or "fanon," while an event from the official source material would be "canon." The alternative terms mythology and continuity are often used, with the former being especially to refer to a richly detailed fictional canon requiring a large degree of suspension of disbelief (e.g. an entire imaginary world and history).

Also, the question is subjective, and can purely based on ones emotions/opinion, regardless of the inconsistencies that some have mentioned.

 

[Vincentdante]

I consider it an alternative canon. As Sapkowski himself said he rather not consider them his own canon but fanfiction, and as others have pointed out there are too many discrepancies. Then again you can call it canon in the sense that it is a reimagining of the original series.

One of my favorite story tellers H.P Lovecraft once said that any and all stories written and set in the Mythos he created, by any author or in any format can be considered canon. His reasoning was that stories should evolve or be retold from new perspectives and he gives anyone and everyone open access to modify it or to retell it. I'm paraphrasing obviously but it was a practice his friend August Derleth took up after he passed away with many others later doing the same.

 

[Scholdarr]

To me the games are something like an "alternative reality" in the Witcher world. Like "what would have happened if Geralt survived...". So no, it's not canon but also not really fanfiction. Even some TV shows have single episodes with this "what would be if..." approch so I would call it semi-canon which means that all the lore and such is (and should be) honored but without necessarily continuing the original intention or storyline.