Triss Merigold of Maribor (All Spoilers) Resurgence

+
Agreed, the problem with Triss' romance isn't the writing, it's the disjointed nature of it. Yen's romance is organic, (re)developing over the course of the game where as Triss' romance is reduced to a series of quests which turns it in to a mini-game, a common mistake game development involving romances. What was needed, what is needed is for Triss to have an expanded role in terms of her on-screen time in order to provide time for writing that allows that romance to (re)develop organically as well.

I personally think up to and including Now and Never it is as organic as act 1 Yen one. I really got a sense of 2 people finding their way back together.
It's just that afterwards yes the Triss paths aren't given the scale of treatment of Yen and comes as stunted jarring moments. If you break up with Yen you get meaty post break up content at Kaer Morhen, if you don't you get even meatier stuff. Yen being closely tied to most of the critical path helps her too later when resources were clearly stretched whereas Triss is very loosely tied.

I think it would have been possible with more effort to make it feel fully developed and by that i don't mean have Triss as some replacement mother figure. Instead include her in UMA Kaer Morhen section dealing with fallout between all 3 in all paths and then expand the lodge stuff later to give her and them some meat to the bone. It's not going to happen now and personally i'm grateful the scrap of meat that was the DLC line addition was given.
 
In my opinion the only way to make Triss fan base happy was to completely remove Yennefer from the Witcher 3

I'm a huge fan of Triss and strongly, strongly disagree with your statement. I would have loved for there to be a conflict. The more conflict the better. But the conflict would have had to be introduced and presented as a proper option.

Say they made gamer decisions carry over and started directly from TW 2. You've set off with Triss and not Vesemer for crying out loud in search of Yen like TW 2 eluded. They find Yen after much struggle (she just doesn't show up for crying out loud - talk about anti-climatic). The struggles and trials of the search put a strain on the relationship between Geralt and Triss. Geralt, because he's gotten his memory back, starts to feel torn between Triss and Yen as he reconciles with Yen and re-establishes some sort of friendship with Yen as the trio searches for Ciri. Maybe Yen is less overbearing and a wee bit more considerate after having lost him for a spell. Small gamer choices lead to bigger decisions later. Discussions that reflect back on them being together start tugging at him. Maybe he realizes he still loves Yen or cannot leave Triss. That would be up to the individual player. Some might stay loyal to Triss and not even begin to go down that road. Others will charge ahead. The point is at least then the gamer would have had the control and not been thrown into TW 3 with a break-up over which they had no input at all.

The problem isn't Yen's presence in TW 3. The problems are CDPR nullifying gamer decisions and repeating the stupid mistake of forcing various aspects, just as they had done in TW 2. At least, though, with TW 2 the game was a better RPG, had the story chops to overcome the irritant, and a player could always go back to TW 1 and romance Triss rather than Shani for continuity. That is what I did and it gave me a new appreciation for Triss. More latitude was due with TW 2 since when they did TW 1 they had no idea whether there would be a series.

Sadly, there is no chance at repairing continuity with TW 3. Nor is there an excuse for how CDPR approached and developed its story.

---------- Updated at 02:03 PM ----------

The reason the game is so shallow can be attributed to the following:

- Poor characterization of the antagonist.
- Inconsistent writing (of which Triss is a symptom of).
- Lack of save import (which negatively effects the Triss romance).
- Linear final third.
- Shit ending.

If Eredin had been more interesting, our choices from the previous game had counted, had there been more stuff to do outside of the main quest in Acts 2 & 3, the writing in general been more consistent with the first half of the game and that weird ending never written then this game would be top of the RPG pile for years to come. They had the chance to create not only a great game but a genre defining game, one that would long live in the memory of RPG gamers and one that would be the litmus test for all future cRPGs.

Whilst they could redress the romance problems with an expansion that deals with only either Triss or Yen, depending upon who the player romanced in the main game, the rest of the problems are too far gone to be redressed. Reducing the number of side quests would only have exacerbated the problems with the game, not improved it. In short, what I'm saying is I don't think there was an over focus on side quests, if anything, I think there was an under focus because there are opportunities to flesh out both romances through the use of side quests.

Totally agree with everything you said. While fixing the romance issues and the inconsistent writing, even then TW 3 would have to be completely torn down and redone to be what it should have been, which is exactly what you stated:

A genre-defining game for years to come.

That is what I expected. High expectations? Sure. But CDPR was worthy of those expectations after creating two earlier, superior games that did redefine things. TW 3, however, is not an RPG. Just an action game with RPG elements.

However, I'd feel a whole lot better about CDPR as a game developer going forward were they to fix the romance issues and inconsistent writing with an EE. Better enough to continue purchasing games from them. As it stands now, I won't be buying Cyberpunk or investing another dime in the Witcher series (should there be additions to the game with Geralt or another PC).
 
Last edited:
Nor is there an excuse for how CDPR approached and developed its story.

Given how vast the ending of the Witcher 2 was and given an idea of the scope of the stuff that got cut, dragged around and rearranged in the leaked documents for the quests trees -- I have to disagree. Do you know how much they wanted to cover? No. Do you realise this is the first time they've done something this big at long last? I certainly hope you consider it now. I'd say they have a pretty good excuse: they're a gaming company. The writers are fantastic people who have proven themselves time and time again within the smaller aspects of games - side quests, anyone? Hearts of Stone, anyone? - and you can (sorry, maybe I should say I can) sense that they really had something going with the main plotlines of the game.

I'd love to see your Calasade universe put together into a game and then you watch as your writing slowly gets torn and part, cut, and stitched back together for the world to see and scrutinise. No excuse! We tried to cover everyth-- No excuse.

If anything, I'm glad CDPR were the ones to tackle this. Regardless of the flaws in main plotlines, the flaws in characters (R.I.P. Triss' character development), the flaws in quest continuity... any other company would have killed it dead in so many other ways. Their only fault is that they bit off more than they could chew this time -- we know they are exceptional authors and developers, judging from their smaller projects (HoS, tw1, tw2, side quests in tw3) -- and while the Witcher 3 isn't genre defining it certainly speaks for itself as a gaming experience - even as an RPG experience in this day and age.


Say they made gamer decisions carry over and started directly from TW 2. You've set off with Triss and not Vesemer for crying out loud in search of Yen like TW 2 eluded. They find Yen after much struggle (she just doesn't show up for crying out loud - talk about anti-climatic). The struggles and trials of the search put a strain on the relationship between Geralt and Triss. Geralt, because he's gotten his memory back, starts to feel torn between Triss and Yen as he reconciles with Yen and re-establishes some sort of friendship with Yen as the trio searches for Ciri. Maybe Yen is less overbearing and a wee bit more considerate after having lost him for a spell. Small gamer choices lead to bigger decisions later. Discussions that reflect back on them being together start tugging at him. Maybe he realizes he still loves Yen or cannot leave Triss. That would be up to the individual player. Some might stay loyal to Triss and not even begin to go down that road. Others will charge ahead. The point is at least then the gamer would have had the control and not been thrown into TW 3 with a break-up over which they had no input at all.

Judging from what I've read here as your suggestions for a better opening to the Witcher 3 and from your review on the matter, it seems like you believe this game is Romance oriented from the get go. If you have read the books, I would assume that you know that isn't what the overall message of the Saga is about.

I think the presence of Vesemir as your guide in the opening serves far better than that of having two romance options dramatising in your face so early on in the game. It makes less sense for Geralt to travel with Triss if he had broken up with her -- ala, let's not confuse new players by continuing straight on from the Witcher 2 and have Geralt automatically in a relationship with someone -- while looking for his lost love than if he travelled with a fellow witcher who becomes emotionally relevant later in the narrative in a main plot kind of way, instead of a romance plot kind of relevance. I'd find that boring, to be honest.

As opposed to focusing and honing in on the romance plotlines as soon as you turn on the game. No. Triss should not be present in White Orchard. Yennefer not needing to be rescued was nice, but I do agree her showing up out of nowhere was surprising. When I played, I thought it very suspicious and interesting -- which didn't pay off later on. But now I know that in the original plans for Yennefer's plot there was going to be a deceit twist, perhaps that was intentional.

As for how I personally would handle the romance plot -- instead of just rebutting your personal two cents -- I'd say make Triss more active in the Political Sphere of the game world, beyond just saving a few sorcerers in Novigrad. Have your interactions with her conflict with perhaps some opportunities in the main plotline. Shift her 'I love you' quest to after the Skellige act, with a few hints just before. In my opinion, Yennefer was fine. Bland as balls since her character was already developed at the end of the novels and there was nothing more to really add to her, but her attitude was fine - arguably softer than she was in the books. I'd talk more about her, but we're in the Triss thread so more or less - my view is write Triss as a more interesting character and build on what she was after the novels ended rather than attempt to make her an opposing, pleasing candidate to Yennefer... and I think we have a winner.

CDPR probably won't be making an EE -- what they're doing now is fixing the game with a selection of quality patches instead. I don't think holding making a business orientated decision against them personally is at all productive and I think I'll be curious to see how they approach Cyberpunk especially since they said they have an even larger scope and more ambitious goals to achieve within that franchise than they did for the Witcher 3. It's much more open than the lore of Sapkowski's novels so I actually think the writers may have a better time with it.
 
Given how vast the ending of the Witcher 2 was and given an idea of the scope of the stuff that got cut, dragged around and rearranged in the leaked documents for the quests trees -- I have to disagree. Do you know how much they wanted to cover? No. Do you realise this is the first time they've done something this big at long last? I certainly hope you consider it now. I'd say they have a pretty good excuse: they're a gaming company. The writers are fantastic people who have proven themselves time and time again within the smaller aspects of games - side quests, anyone? Hearts of Stone, anyone? - and you can (sorry, maybe I should say I can) sense that they really had something going with the main plotlines of the game.

In regards to the vast ending of TW 2, CDPR should have never promised that those decisions mattered if they could not devise a way to incorporate those endings and deliver on continuity. In regards to TW 3, the only thing that concerns me as a customer is the end result. The end result outside of RedEngine 3 is very disappointing.

I'd love to see your Calasade universe put together into a game and then you watch as your writing slowly gets torn and part, cut, and stitched back together for the world to see and scrutinise. No excuse! We tried to cover everyth-- No excuse.

No, there would not be any excuse. Same as there would be no excuse if I wrote a novel that ended up with so many story arcs they failed at coming together in a cohesive manner. While nothing I write will ever be perfect, the writing must be tight. Some will like my stories, others might think the stories suck - to each their own taste - but one thing that will not exist in the end product are concrete flaws I have control over.

By the by, if you think I hold others to high standards, you should see what I put myself through. lol

Anyway, my OCD as it applies to my own writing and software engineering put off to the side, if the world of Calasade were to be brought into a game, I would hope the gaming company didn't try to do everything, but remained focused. Game development is at its base software engineering. Try to develop an application that does everything and you often end up with nothing or at least not anything satisfactory in that the application you've engineered will never approach what you envisioned after the requirements gathering stage and cannot possibly meet a stern client's expectations.

I would also hope (and insist in the contract) that if said gaming company starts with a main character, their stories do not follow along the novels I write about the same character but that the gaming company create original stories. Whatever happens to the game-character is not my book-character. Game he/she is different because it is experiences that form a character. The character in the game would have experiences different than the character in the book. Hence, why book canon and game canon should not be the same beyond the history leading up to whichever starts second.

If anything, I'm glad CDPR were the ones to tackle this. Regardless of the flaws in main plotlines, the flaws in characters (R.I.P. Triss' character development), the flaws in quest continuity... any other company would have killed it dead in so many other ways. Their only fault is that they bit off more than they could chew this time -- we know they are exceptional authors and developers, judging from their smaller projects (HoS, tw1, tw2, side quests in tw3) -- and while the Witcher 3 isn't genre defining it certainly speaks for itself as a gaming experience - even as an RPG experience in this day and age.

An RPG (or a good one) reflects decisions made within the game. TW 3 fails to do this in many instances, ruining the role-playing experience. "...in this day and age" is simply an enabler for lowering one's standards and I won't lower mine. If you do a RPG, you do it right. Same with any endeavor. Not perfect, no because nothing can be that, but not half-baked either.

Judging from what I've read here as your suggestions for a better opening to the Witcher 3 and from your review on the matter, it seems like you believe this game is Romance oriented from the get go. If you have read the books, I would assume that you know that isn't what the overall message of the Saga is about.

The books and games are separate to me. I don't mix one with the other due to the aforementioned reasons when speaking about Calasade. That said, I don't consider TW 3 to be relationship-oriented. I consider it to be a very personal story for Geralt. This game is more or less about saving family. His relationships with Yen and Triss should play a heavy part in that because the basis for the main story is so personal.

I think the presence of Vesemir as your guide in the opening serves far better than that of having two romance options dramatising in your face so early on in the game. It makes less sense for Geralt to travel with Triss if he had broken up with her -- ala, let's not confuse new players by continuing straight on from the Witcher 2 and have Geralt automatically in a relationship with someone -- while looking for his lost love than if he travelled with a fellow witcher who becomes emotionally relevant later in the narrative in a main plot kind of way, instead of a romance plot kind of relevance. I'd find that boring, to be honest.

In the scenario Triss and Geralt would not have broken up. Boring doesn't depend on the subject matter so much as how the subject matter is handled and how the relationship aspect ties into the quests.

As for how I personally would handle the romance plot -- instead of just rebutting your personal two cents -- I'd say make Triss more active in the Political Sphere of the game world, beyond just saving a few sorcerers in Novigrad. Have your interactions with her conflict with perhaps some opportunities in the main plotline. Shift her 'I love you' quest to after the Skellige act, with a few hints just before. In my opinion, Yennefer was fine. Bland as balls since her character was already developed at the end of the novels and there was nothing more to really add to her, but her attitude was fine - arguably softer than she was in the books. I'd talk more about her, but we're in the Triss thread so more or less - my view is write Triss as a more interesting character and build on what she was after the novels ended rather than attempt to make her an opposing, pleasing candidate to Yennefer... and I think we have a winner.

I won't argue that at all. Would have been an improvement over what we got.
 
Last edited:
I'd say make Triss more active in the Political Sphere of the game world, beyond just saving a few sorcerers in Novigrad.

Indeed. There was high potential for this theme, especially if we consider, that Triss cooperates with king of Kovir and Poviss, but unfortunately Tancred Thyssen is too passive in game. He, seems, doesn't think, that huge black predator aka Nilfgaard Empire, in case of conquering the North - sooner or later will attack his new neighbour, and their paper-alliance Emhyr will use as toilet paper. He doesn't think how to keep Emhyr's force far from his kingdom's borders. He sits and waits when Triss will bring him 2-3 dozen of mages. Thats all ~_~.

CDPR probably won't be making an EE -- what they're doing now is fixing the game with a selection of quality patches instead. I don't think holding making a business orientated decision against them personally is at all productive and I think I'll be curious to see how they approach Cyberpunk especially since they said they have an even larger scope and more ambitious goals to achieve within that franchise than they did for the Witcher 3. It's much more open than the lore of Sapkowski's novels so I actually think the writers may have a better time with it.

I doubt about EE, too. But still think, that discussions, like this - could be very usefull for future CDPR's projects, if devs read them. It doesnt matter with what "material" they work, Sapkowski's novels or their own project, for creation and developing characters, main plot or side lines - it depends on priorities. If CDPR decided that open world, guns, gameplay and etc much more important, then characters development in cyberpunk - we'll have same problems there.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion the only way to make Triss fan base happy was to completely remove Yennefer from the Witcher 3 :)

Perhaps there is a small, non-vocal minority who feel like that (as opposed to the very vocal majority of Yen fans who want Triss out 'because of the books'), you clearly haven't read what the majority of us are asking for; equality. Nothing more, nothing less. Since she is in the game, it's not much to ask that those who prefer to romance her can do so within a story that equals those who wish to romance Yen. Sadly that equality does not exist and is the source of the criticism CDPR receive regarding the imbalance of romances.

---------- Updated at 06:58 PM ----------

doubt about EE, too. But still think, that discussions, like this - could be very usefull for future CDPR's projects, if devs read them. It doesnt matter with what "material" they work, Sapkowski's novels or their own project, for creation and developing characters, main plot or side lines - it depends on priorities. If CDPR decided that open world, guns, gameplay and etc much more important, then characters development in cyberpunk - we'll have same problems there.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding CDPR saying there would be no EE. The game doesn't need an Enhanced Edition because any enhancements can simply be patched in via GOG or Steam. It allows them to get new content to the customer faster than sitting there and re-designing the game for an updated boxed version. The reason they are tight lipped on any future content is most likely because they're focusing all development efforts on the next Expansion and rightly so.
 
There are writing issues with how they introduced Triss, actually. Your first meeting with her doesn't take the discussion in the Elven bath or the Nilfgaardian camp rescue into account. Those two scenes are the turning point between her and Geralt, and it's when you tell her most decisively whether you'll stick with her or not, and whether you can move past her bungling in politics. Instead, we get an odd sequence of feeling out again during the rat quest. It makes no sense. The game is missing an imported decision there.
 
There are writing issues with how they introduced Triss, actually. Your first meeting with her doesn't take the discussion in the Elven bath or the Nilfgaardian camp rescue into account. Those two scenes are the turning point between her and Geralt, and it's when you tell her most decisively whether you'll stick with her or not, and whether you can move past her bungling in politics. Instead, we get an odd sequence of feeling out again during the rat quest. It makes no sense. The game is missing an imported decision there.

It's missing imported decisions all over the place and not just within the romance. I think it's fair to say that the majority of issues with this game stem from the lack of a proper save import.
 
Perhaps there is a small, non-vocal minority who feel like that (as opposed to the very vocal majority of Yen fans who want Triss out 'because of the books'), you clearly haven't read what the majority of us are asking for; equality. Nothing more, nothing less. Since she is in the game, it's not much to ask that those who prefer to romance her can do so within a story that equals those who wish to romance Yen. Sadly that equality does not exist and is the source of the criticism CDPR receive regarding the imbalance of romances.
How about your own words?
You've misunderstood me. Forget Triss and Yennefer, forget about writing, think of this in terms of creative choices. The introduction of a second romanceable character in the third game is what lead to a lot of the problems in the game. Had they simply focused on the same one it would have made things a lot easier for them. No second romance option, no lock in, no disproportionate treatment, no customer dissatisfaction regarding those issues. Game mechanics, writing and gamer experience all suffer as a result of the creative decision to introduce a second romanceable character.
 
How about your own words?

The second quote refers to the first game, not the third. Had Triss not been in the third game but a proper, reasonably and believable explanation for her absence had been written in, there would be an inequality to argue over. Do you have some problem with equality in the romance stories?
 
Last edited:
The second quote refers to the first game, not the third.


:areukiddingme:
The introduction of a second romanceable character in the third game is what lead to a lot of the problems in the game. Had they simply focused on the same one it would have made things a lot easier for them.

But nevermind. You imply that the "voval majority" of Yen fans would like to see Triss removed from the game with no evidence whatsoever. Unless you did some research.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
There are writing issues with how they introduced Triss, actually. Your first meeting with her doesn't take the discussion in the Elven bath or the Nilfgaardian camp rescue into account. Those two scenes are the turning point between her and Geralt, and it's when you tell her most decisively whether you'll stick with her or not, and whether you can move past her bungling in politics. Instead, we get an odd sequence of feeling out again during the rat quest. It makes no sense. The game is missing an imported decision there.

That's assuming TW2 flags choices like Rose of Remembrance, Elven Baths or Nilfgaardian Camp as the romance lock-in decisions, which it doesn't. First two choices doesn't change the nature of Geralt's relationship with her in the slightest, rescuing Triss doesn't automatically mean Geralt loves her forever, there are, in fact, 3 dialogue options with Renuald:

1) we're close
2) we're friends
3) she has the information important for me

Even if you go with the first one, nothing changes when you meet Triss again, there is no different dialogue that would confirm Geralt is committed to her.
 
Perhaps there is a small, non-vocal minority who feel like that (as opposed to the very vocal majority of Yen fans who want Triss out 'because of the books'), you clearly haven't read what the majority of us are asking for; equality.

It is hard to tell how the majority of fans feel like, since most of them do not post on the forums - out of probably 8000000+ who bought the game, most of the trouble here is made by a dozen or so people. I do suspect that the "vocal majority" with the extreme views you mentioned is probably a minority, it just looks bigger on the forums because it is, well, vocal. Anyway, this is not a discussion about Yennefer or her fans, and removing her from the game would not magically make the problems go away.

There are writing issues with how they introduced Triss, actually. Your first meeting with her doesn't take the discussion in the Elven bath or the Nilfgaardian camp rescue into account. Those two scenes are the turning point between her and Geralt, and it's when you tell her most decisively whether you'll stick with her or not, and whether you can move past her bungling in politics. Instead, we get an odd sequence of feeling out again during the rat quest. It makes no sense. The game is missing an imported decision there.

Yes, while it might have required too much effort to implement a path without the break-up between TW2 and TW3, the game could take those choices into account at least in some ways. In Pyres of Novigrad, there is even a conversation where she unconditionally talks about the massacre at Loc Muinne - it would have required something like 2 additional lines of dialogue to fix that. And oddly enough, some minor NPCs, like an alchemist outside Novigrad, do react to the same choice. A few more tweaks to acknowledge this and some other choices (like Roche/Iorveth) in conversations should not have cost that much, either.

I personally think up to and including Now and Never it is as organic as act 1 Yen one. I really got a sense of 2 people finding their way back together.
It's just that afterwards yes the Triss paths aren't given the scale of treatment of Yen and comes as stunted jarring moments. If you break up with Yen you get meaty post break up content at Kaer Morhen, if you don't you get even meatier stuff. Yen being closely tied to most of the critical path helps her too later when resources were clearly stretched whereas Triss is very loosely tied.

Indeed, in the first act, and partly the second (with the side-quests that can be played in either), most major characters have well made content, but after that, the quality of the game begins to drop. If we removed the first half, and Ciri and Yennefer, then what is left probably would not have won many awards. It is disappointing for the last part of a trilogy with a much higher budget than the prequels.
 
It is hard to tell how the majority of fans feel like, since most of them do not post on the forums - out of probably 8000000+ who bought the game, most of the trouble here is made by a dozen or so people. I do suspect that the "vocal majority" with the extreme views you mentioned is probably a minority, it just looks bigger on the forums because it is, well, vocal. Anyway, this is not a discussion about Yennefer or her fans, and removing her from the game would not magically make the problems go away.

Actually, there is a formula for judging how many people based off one. I forget what it was exactly, but think it was something along the lines of 1 from 100 people who feel the same actually take the time to voice how they feel.
 
Last edited:
That's assuming TW2 flags choices like Rose of Remembrance, Elven Baths or Nilfgaardian Camp as the romance lock-in decisions, which it doesn't. First two choices doesn't change the nature of Geralt's relationship with her in the slightest, rescuing Triss doesn't automatically mean Geralt loves her forever, there are, in fact, 3 dialogue options with Renuald:

1) we're close
2) we're friends
3) she has the information important for me

Even if you go with the first one, nothing changes when you meet Triss again, there is no different dialogue that would confirm Geralt is committed to her.

Then pray tell exactly what CDPR meant when they said, "Decisions matter." If it were just some decisions, perhaps they should have listed those so we as gamers would know which decisions to fluff off.
 
Then pray tell exactly what CDPR meant when they said, "Decisions matter." If it were just some decisions, perhaps they should have listed those so we as gamers would know which decisions to fluff off.

Would be a good list nowadays... but a terrible one on release.

A lot is being talked about choice... but I dont think you guys really understand how the best/most unforgiving version of it would have worked in this game :(

The way CDPR did it is ... unfortunately somewhat deliberate. They seem to know this poor medium and their targeted fanbase well. It is what it is in the end...
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Then pray tell exactly what CDPR meant when they said, "Decisions matter." If it were just some decisions, perhaps they should have listed those so we as gamers would know which decisions to fluff off.

I've just explained how TW2 didn't acknowledge any particular moment as the "Triss romance lock-in". Those decisions you've made didn't even mattered in TW2. Geralt's relationship with her was railroaded from the very beginning to the end, there was no choice involved, there was no alternate path for Geralt who doesn't want to be with her. With that in mind, everyone, not just you, finished TW2 in the same place regarding the relationship with Triss.
 
Top Bottom