Triss Merigold (all spoilers)

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess there is one line I don't really like after all, I think is breaking lore unnecessarily.

Geralt to Triss: But it turned out my amnesia'd changed nothing. Wanted to be with you before, during, after - always.

It's implying Triss was the one and only before his amnesia, and everyone knows there was only Yen before that. Nobody else stood a chance. The way I see it amnesia gave him a chance to love someone else. I do think he always cared for Triss but before his amnesia it was just good friendship.
 
I guess there is one line I don't really like after all, I think is breaking lore unnecessarily.

Geralt to Triss: But it turned out my amnesia'd changed nothing. Wanted to be with you before, during, after - always.

It's implying Triss was the one and only before his amnesia, and everyone knows there was only Yen before that. Nobody else stood a chance. The way I see it amnesia gave him a chance to love someone else. I do think he always cared for Triss but before his amnesia it was just good friendship.

You did't read me analysis


Well then here you are :p
Beside your point, which i think is true. That one will make all Triss's romance dialogue in Norvigad change, in A Matter of Life and Death and Now or Never
-Triss won't give up anymore after that, she will be full of love, and i wonder how CDPR gonna change the "I....I love you" in the dock ??
-Like i said above, Geralt's comment change everything (Rose of Remembrance, earring dialogue), if CDPR don't careful the romance will be full of inconsistency just because of that line
 
You did't read me analysis

Well, I don't see how that should change anything, he doesn't admit it to himself until Now or Never. And that line is said way later in the story. It's not like you walk up to her in novigrad in act 1 and say that, that WOULD require everything to change :p.
 
Well, I don't see how that should change anything, he doesn't admit it to himself until Now or Never. And that line is said way later in the story. It's not like you walk up to her in novigrad in act 1 and say that, that WOULD require everything to change :p.

I will write one post about this change everything, wait and see :devil:

Btw, this line is in the rat's warehouse ;)
 
I guess there is one line I don't really like after all, I think is breaking lore unnecessarily.

Geralt to Triss: But it turned out my amnesia'd changed nothing. Wanted to be with you before, during, after - always.

It's implying Triss was the one and only before his amnesia, and everyone knows there was only Yen before that. Nobody else stood a chance. The way I see it amnesia gave him a chance to love someone else. I do think he always cared for Triss but before his amnesia it was just good friendship.

I think it needs editing or re-translation for clarity:

But it turned out recovering from my amnesia changed nothing. Wanted to be with you before, during, after - always.

Still has a minor inconsistency about why they broke up between games, but makes more sense and limits the scope of the statement to the W2-W3 timeline.
 
:hmm: But from your post below, i think it perfectly make sense that conversation is in rat's warehouse


So where do you think that conversation take place ?

I know for a fact that it takes place after the romance. It has a condition that checks if a fact called q309_triss_lover exists. (It's the fact that gets added after the lighthouse scene)

---------- Updated at 02:22 AM ----------

What consequence? Because I'm only seeing choice here.

I really struggle staying polite at dumb questions like this. Yes, we know, you don't consider a happy ending with Triss a consequence (as opposed to picking triss and not talking to her for the rest of the game). But we do consider it a consequence, not all consequences have to be bad.
 
I know for a fact that it takes place after the romance. It has a condition that checks if a fact called q309_triss_lover exists. (It's the fact that gets added after the lighthouse scene)

Thanks ;) Well i think it good, additional dialogue with Triss in Norvigad Act 3 maybe ^_^
 
I think it needs editing or re-translation for clarity:

But it turned out recovering from my amnesia changed nothing. Wanted to be with you before, during, after - always.

Still has a minor inconsistency about why they broke up between games, but makes more sense and limits the scope of the statement to the W2-W3 timeline.

Not sure if it's a translation issue, the sentence is just that... lore breaking :p

| | But it turned out my amnesia'd changed nothing. Wanted to be with you before, during, after - always.
| | وﻟﻜﻦ اﺗﻀﺢ أن ﻓﻘﺪان اﻟﺬاﻛﺮة ﻟﻢ ﯾﻐﯿﺮ ﺷﯿﺌًﺎ. أردت أن أﻛﻮن ﻣﻌﻚ ﻗﺒﻠﮭﺎ وأﺛﻨﺎءھﺎ وﺑﻌﺪھﺎ - داﺋﻤًﺎ.
| | Mas no fim, minha amnésia não mudou nada. Queria ficar contigo antes, durante, depois, sempre.
| | Ale ukázalo se, že ztráta paměti nic nezměnila. Chtěl jsem s tebou být předtím, během i poté - pořád.
| | Aber meine Amnesie hat nichts geändert. Ich wollte mit dir zusammen sein. Vorher, nachher. Die ganze Zeit.
| | Pero resultó que mi amnesia no cambió nada. Quería estar contigo antes, durante, después y siempre.
| | Mais il se trouve que mon amnésie n'a rien changé. Je voulais être avec toi avant, pendant, après… pour toujours.
| | Ma poi ho capito che l'amnesia non aveva cambiato nulla. Volevo stare con te prima, durante, dopo. Sempre.
| | Но, как оказалось, моя амнезия была не при чем. Я всегда хотел быть с тобой. Только с тобой.


While I can only read the English and the German one, it seems they are all phrased relatively similar.

(also the fact it has been translated in all languages already... probably has to count for something)
 
I really struggle staying polite at dumb questions like this. Yes, we know, you don't consider a happy ending with Triss a consequence (as opposed to picking triss and not talking to her for the rest of the game). But we do consider it a consequence, not all consequences have to be bad.

But there is no consequence if both options are equal. It's just a choice at that point. a wash.
 
Honestly, what's the big issue? The lore of the books was broken at several (crucial) points already. I can still hear all the people telling me that the games are their own thing. If you choose Triss in the game it's a completely game lore thing.
 
Although the games strive to remain true to Sapkowski originals, you're right, they're free to break lore and go their own way. What baffles me is the perceived need to "ship" Geralt with either Triss or Yen when the story being told is not about either. As you said elsewhere, it's about the growth and redemption of Ciri, and while it may fall short of that, it's not about a shipping war.
 
Although the games strive to remain true to Sapkowski originals, you're right, they're free to break lore and go their own way. What baffles me is the perceived need to "ship" Geralt with either Triss or Yen when the story being told is not about either. As you said elsewhere, it's about the growth and redemption of Ciri, and while it may fall short of that, it's not about a shipping war.

I agree. But I wonder if that's a pure storytelling decision or whether it was also heavliy influenced by "focus group" or audience considerations. I mean, as we can all see here many people put a LOT of emotional baggage in these romancing issues and it's hardly a new developement. It's one of the core selling points of the modern Bioware games. So it's imo likely that they butchered a bit of the lore to be able to present two "different" romance options that both feel really fulfilling in a video gamey sense. Arguably gamers who only played TW3 or only TW2 and TW3 are the core democracy of these changes and less the old fanbase, many of them also book readers. But then again, that's just speculation. There can be a lot more reasons why it turned out the way it turned out.

From a pure storytelling perspective I don't see much sense in these additions either.
 
Yeah I suspect a lot of RPG fan service (focus group driven or otherwise) went into the romance options. Shipping is so entrenched in modern RPG fandom (there are plenty of examples) that it's just inevitable. None of that makes it right or good storytelling, and it results in the game being targeted by disappointed shippers. Bummer.
 
From a pure storytelling perspective I don't see much sense in these additions either.

The point is there are things going on in the late game that should be on the characters' minds but are barely mentioned or even ignored entirely. The Triss choice was the biggest gap, but there are plenty of other things- like the fact that no one notices Radovid is dead, the fact that Ciri's meeting with the Lodge doesn't lead to anything, and the lack of any fallout from Philippa's threat to subvert Yennefer at the imperial court. I hope they will eventually add lots of other things, but the Triss-related additions are a nice start.

It's really more of a story immersion problem than a storytelling problem. We're not seeing any additional story content with these additions, but they fill in some gaps where it feels like the game is missing something. Many players feel like "hey, this thing happened that seems important, but none of the characters talk about it" or "hey, these characters are present but they have no dialogue."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom