Triss vs Yennefer (now with poll)

[vivaxardas2015]

Well, in my opinion the player shouldn't choose, because Geralt already did, several times indeed.

Actually, in a game about choices we should choose, especially in the most important situations.
I agree, canonical view of things is to have Geralt and Yen together, and we should have this choice.
But we also should be able to stay with Triss (I can't imagine why though , but it's just me), and for those who did not choose Triss in TW1-2, and won't like Yen in TW3, some third option.
People, CDPR actually made it so that this situation makes sense - Yen also lost her memory. Now Yen is a different person as well, a blank slate, and all these last wishes may be nothing to her. She may have no frigging idea who Geralt is, and no desire to love him, or be his destiny. To make them be together is not going to be a default option, and, knowing Yen, no easy task. With a good approach to story-telling this situation can make sense any way Geralt chooses, just like in previous games concerning other matters.

I don't really get why people are against having a choice. You think only one option makes sense - then always take it, be as canonical as you want. And those who want something different, let them have it. Why on earth to force it onto everyone?

 

[arkblazer]

Why cant it just be that the yen option is the default canon option. like you can choose triss and what not but canon wise the yen option is the one that will be used for later games? something akin to what happened in witcher 2 with triss.

 

[AsTheDeath]

Let's completely disregard all role-playing done in the games up until now and completely destroy half the re-playability of the entire series, all because one of the short stories hinted that Yen/Gerlat must be a couple forever.

(...)

CDPR gave us the choice to pursue Triss in TW1/2, even as Geralt was regaining his memories, and many people chose to do so. Forcing Yennefer on us would render many dialogue and alternate path choices completely worthless, some of which having significant impact on the games (eg - choosing Triss over Iorveth/Roche).

(...)

If CDPR really wanted to stick so close to the books, they should have introduced Yennefer sooner. I have played through two out of the three games in the series, and Yennefer is still a faceless being...a nobody.

I originally thought I was going to be replying to two people, one of whom I agreed with, one of whom I didn't, but then I noticed you said both things. I'm not sure if I even need to elaborate on why I disagree with your first comment: if 'all role-playing' and 'half the replayability' of the Witcher series for you consist of Bioware-esque 'Love Interests', you might be playing the wrong game. I realise that putting it this way is perhaps slightly over the top, but then so was your first quote, so let's leave it at this.

Your second and third points are much more nuanced and interesting to discuss. You seem to imply that Triss' role is necessarily one of romance, (as an 'alternative' to Yennefer), while I think she is definitely important to Geralt, but as a friend. So no need to discard choices for Triss over Roche/Iorveth as 'useless' - you chose to help a friend instead of ideals/politics (which is what Roche/Iorveth stand for).

Lastly, I very much agree that CDPR have somewhat written themselves into a corner by not introducing either Ciri or Yennefer until now. I've just finished chapter 9 of the last book, which is full of awesome scenes and a particularly interesting twist (which undoubtedly will play a part in TW3 as well), and the reason it was probably the best chapter in all of the series is due to the fact that the reader knows all of the characters, has been reading about them for the past 4 books. Not having Yennefer and Ciri in earlier games really makes it more difficult for CDPR to pull off similarly engaging scenes in TW3.


I would've liked to write a lot more, but it's already a wall of text as it is. My main point is that no-one is against Triss having an important role in TW3 (rather the opposite), but for me that should be a role as a friend, not as a lover.

 

[Arius87]

...

So you basically say that there should be no choice at all.

I cannot agree with that. Since there are a lot of players you didn't read the books.
Try to see it from the other point of view.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Geralt himself mentioned that his feelings and memories were linked, so we can expect that his feelings for Yen have returned. The fact is, however, that Geralt (might have) had time to get involved with Triss during his amnesia, but there's also the fact that Triss never once mentioned Yennefer's existence to him, so he probably feels betrayed by her.

The situation is rife with potential for storytelling, and what's the point of playing the game if not for the storytelling. It's not just that you want to see events unfold in a story-based RPG, but that you want to actively affect them; so, it would make the most sense to let players stay in control of the Yen storyline.

I mean, let's be honest- the Yen storyline is the main storyline of the game, and I just hate the idea that the main storyline of the game is going to be static, linear, and unaffected by player involvement; it just wouldn't make sense as a choice and consequence RPG to neglect giving players a choice in the main storyline of the game.

An amnesiac (might have gotten/) got involved with someone during the course of the games, that's why there's the possibility that even though he got his memories/feelings back, he might be conflicted.

It doesn't matter what Geralt chose in the past (applies to both Triss and Yen) when he's equally capable of choosing two different routes now. No one else but the player should decide which route he chooses because we're the ones playing the game, otherwise, why don't we just watch a movie.

So basically, it doesn't make sense for a story-based choice and consequence game to not let you make a choice in the most important plotline of the game, and it doesn't make sense for anyone other than the player to make role-playing decisions during the course of the game. Again, what's the point of playing the game if not for the storytelling and the choicing and the consequencing.

...I have more to say (sorry).

I also don't understand why it would affect other players what someone else does in their own game. If you're worried about the integrity of Sapkowski's work, then you're a bit late on that- an adaptation of a work has no obligation or necessity to follow the course of the original work to the letter (sorry); in fact, doing so would be counter-intuitive to the act of adapting something.

I don't think we should think of Geralt as a lesser Geralt if he does something which you believe book-Geralt might not do- his actions during the course of the games have changed him as a person, and it makes sense for the games to acknowledge that fact, otherwise what was the point of this journey?

The storytelling which occurred during the games was just as potent and meaningful a journey as that which occurred during the books, and the length of time doesn't matter because Geralt was an amnesiac when he acquired new experiences; we can expect that those experiences affected him greatly because of his almost "blank" state. That's why it's certainly possible for Geralt to be conflicted about his feelings in TW3, despite regaining his memories.

Moreover, Geralt and Yen ending up together no matter what is just too clean and fairytale-like, I mean that it's so expected. If I already know the ending of a story-based game, and I'm playing it for the story and choices, then why should I play it. Why should Geralt choose Yen? Because books? Because fuck the players? These reasons are not justifiable for an evocative story-based choice and consequence role-playing game; if these words mean anything, then these reasons don't apply.

...that's everything, okay. Have fun and bye

 

[Kallelinski]

Actually, in a game about choices we should choose, especially in the most important situations.
I agree, canonical view of things is to have Geralt and Yen together, and we should have this choice.
But we also should be able to stay with Triss (I can't imagine why though

, but it's just me), and for those who did not choose Triss in TW1-2, and won't like Yen in TW3, some third option.

I don't basically disagree with you here, but just like you said, there are for sure people, who don't like Triss and Yennefer, so those would need a third option or even a fourth and so on and in end we will get someting like Mass Effect with a whole group of potential LI with any sexual preference, who do whatever you want.

Hmm, let's say i'm against a free choice between those two. There just happened too much in the novels to just ignore all of this with a simple decision, just because someone doesn't like her.

 

[tasir]

Geralt himself mentioned that his feelings and memories were linked, so we can expect that his feelings for Yen have returned. The fact is, however, that Geralt (might have) had time to get involved with Triss during his amnesia, but there's also the fact that Triss never once mentioned Yennefer's existence to him, so he probably feels betrayed by her.

The situation is rife with potential for storytelling, and what's the point of playing the game if not for the storytelling. It's not just that you want to see events unfold in a story-based RPG, but that you want to actively affect them; so, it would make the most sense to let players stay in control of the Yen storyline.

I mean, let's be honest- the Yen storyline is the main storyline of the game, and I just hate the idea that the main storyline of the game is going to be static, linear, and unaffected by player involvement; it just wouldn't make sense as a choice and consequence RPG to neglect giving players a choice in the main storyline of the game.

An amnesiac (might have gotten/) got involved with someone during the course of the games, that's why there's the possibility that even though he got his memories/feelings back, he might be conflicted.

It doesn't matter what Geralt chose in the past (applies to both Triss and Yen) when he's equally capable of choosing two different routes now. No one else but the player should decide which route he chooses because we're the ones playing the game, otherwise, why don't we just watch a movie.

So basically, it doesn't make sense for a story-based choice and consequence game to not let you make a choice in the most important plotline of the game, and it doesn't make sense for anyone other than the player to make role-playing decisions during the course of the game. Again, what's the point of playing the game if not for the storytelling and the choicing and the consequencing.

This. Every single word. Couldn’t agree more.
I also hope that nobody will be forced down our throats. The players should be able to choose between the ladies (Yen, Triss or other options), since this is a role-playing game, an interactive media, it’s about choice and consequence. People should understand that the book and the game are two completely different things. And even though the game is based on the novels, it’s still a non-canon, alternative story, even Mr. Sapkowski said so. Non-canon, alternative means that the games are not necessary following the book lore (at least not every single detail), devs has the right to change/alter some things, as they already did.
Of course, I am not saying that “screw the books and the whole saga”, but still don’t understand why some people cannot accept a second or third option. As cmdr_silverbolt said, it won’t affect other players what someone else does in their own game. If someone wants to choose Yen in TW3, then do it, but do not ruin other player’s fun who would like to have other options.

 

[AsTheDeath]

So you basically say that there should be no choice at all.

I cannot agree with that. Since there are a lot of players you didn't read the books.
Try to see it from the other point of view.

There will be plenty of choices, some might even be between Triss and Yennefer in some regards. But the choice between Triss and Yennefer as Geralt's 'Love Interest' (god I hate that word) shouldn't be offered to the player, I think.

I understand that many people, especially those who haven't read the books, don't agree with me on that. I think that the 'romance simulator' part of TW3 can safely take a back seat without compromising the quality of the game or even devaluing the Choices&Consequences element. On the other hand, I understand that romances and choices therein have become a very familiar and important element of RPGs (need I mention Bioware?), and that many people won't be content to simply be told Geralt loves Yennefer (whereas most will have become attached to Triss already).

And obviously, no matter what, Triss should feature heavily in TW3, and there should be a confrontation scene between her and Yennefer.


Interestingly, TW1 was based on the books so heavily that this whole debacle could be seen as an indirect consequence of that. Many elements in TW1 are very similar to characters and scenes from the books, which is why Yennefer and Ciri were not in that game: had they been in the game, the game would have been almost a 'retelling' of the books instead of the 'sequel' it's supposed to be. So CDPR were 'forced' not to have them in TW1, and needed TW2 to do something about Geralt's Amnesia. Which is why we're left with a final part in the trilogy that revolves around characters we haven't even met yet...

 

[wichat]

Geralt himself mentioned that his feelings and memories were linked, so we can expect that his feelings for Yen have returned. The fact is, however, that Geralt (might have) had time to get involved with Triss during his amnesia, but there's also the fact that Triss never once mentioned Yennefer's existence to him, so he probably feels betrayed by her.

The situation is rife with potential for storytelling, and what's the point of playing the game if not for the storytelling. It's not just that you want to see events unfold in a story-based RPG, but that you want to actively affect them; so, it would make the most sense to let players stay in control of the Yen storyline.

I mean, let's be honest- the Yen storyline is the main storyline of the game, and I just hate the idea that the main storyline of the game is going to be static, linear, and unaffected by player involvement; it just wouldn't make sense as a choice and consequence RPG to neglect giving players a choice in the main storyline of the game.

An amnesiac (might have gotten/) got involved with someone during the course of the games, that's why there's the possibility that even though he got his memories/feelings back, he might be conflicted.

It doesn't matter what Geralt chose in the past (applies to both Triss and Yen) when he's equally capable of choosing two different routes now. No one else but the player should decide which route he chooses because we're the ones playing the game, otherwise, why don't we just watch a movie.

So basically, it doesn't make sense for a story-based choice and consequence game to not let you make a choice in the most important plotline of the game, and it doesn't make sense for anyone other than the player to make role-playing decisions during the course of the game. Again, what's the point of playing the game if not for the storytelling and the choicing and the consequencing.

...I have more to say (sorry).

I also don't understand why it would affect other players what someone else does in their own game. If you're worried about the integrity of Sapkowski's work, then you're a bit late on that- an adaptation of a work has no obligation or necessity to follow the course of the original work to the letter (sorry); in fact, doing so would be counter-intuitive to the act of adapting something.

I don't think we should think of Geralt as a lesser Geralt if he does something which you believe book-Geralt might not do- his actions during the course of the games have changed him as a person, and it makes sense for the games to acknowledge that fact, otherwise what was the point of this journey?

The storytelling which occurred during the games was just as potent and meaningful a journey as that which occurred during the books, and the length of time doesn't matter because Geralt was an amnesiac when he acquired new experiences; we can expect that those experiences affected him greatly because of his almost "blank" state. That's why it's certainly possible for Geralt to be conflicted about his feelings in TW3, despite regaining his memories.

Moreover, Geralt and Yen ending up together no matter what is just too clean and fairytale-like, I mean that it's so expected. If I already know the ending of a story-based game, and I'm playing it for the story and choices, then why should I play it. Why should Geralt choose Yen? Because books? Because fuck the players? These reasons are not justifiable for an evocative story-based choice and consequence role-playing game; if these words mean anything, then these reasons don't apply.

...that's everything, okay. Have fun and bye

 

[Kallelinski]

Well, let's see what "options" we had in the last two games.

Witcher 1 had Triss and Shani as potential LI or none/some flings, while Triss was introduced right at the beginning with an interesting non-existing cutscene.

In Witcher 2 the only other option is gone and while those flings are still available you are forced into a relationship with Triss, again right from the beginning without your doing. It doesn't even matter what you did in the previous game. Your only "free choice" now is to ignore her in every potential relationship dialogue, which doesn't please her at all, e.g. she really wants to go with you to the elven ruin and doesn't like it, if you go alone. There is also that magic resistance buff thing, but i wouldn't interpretate too much into this. She is also not really amused to be rescued by another person instead of you.

Sure, you can still decide to ignore her in both games, but why should you anyway? You have to choose between a reward (establishing a relationship with her willingly and getting something out of it, you know what i mean) and nothing (ignoring her). Unless you hate her, you will pick the reward option.

Now i'm saying i would welcome it, if they do it the same way with Yennefer and everyone panics and thinks i am the devil

, just because i want the same treatment for her as we got for Triss.

 

[wichat]

@Kallelinski, not take up all the credit for wanting a Yennefer as she deserves.

You're not the only evil in this story />

 

[vivaxardas2015]

To Kallelinski: No, what people do not want is a lack of choice, which what your original post was about. They want options, though not necessarily a lot like in ME (for me a choice between Yen/Triss/no one will be sufficient). They do not want to be forced into any relationship, even with Yen. In TW2 we had an option to tell Triss to get lost loud and clear (not take her to baths, or (my preferred way) not to give her the rose, reject her offer to run away, not to have sex with her, and at last to choose Anais/Saskia over her). If to do it consistently, it is pretty damn clear way to tell a girl that you are not interested. So Triss was not forced on us, no more than Ves was.

I want the same approach on TW3, concerning both of them. Most likely I'll choose Yen, but only if I like her new (and hopefully improved, though I wouldn't hold my breath) personality. Otherwise I would tell both of them to get lost, canon or no canon.

 

[Garrison72]

I don't know how many times it needs to be said: THIS IS NOT THE BOOKS. They are not going to railroad us on this matter, they already said so.

 

[sb87]

What about Ciri? She's technically not his daughter, so....
OK OK I'm only kidding, but I hope she does make an appearance in the game.

 

[Zanderat]

What about Ciri? She's technically not his daughter, so..../>
OK OK I'm only kidding, but I hope she does make an appearance in the game.

Geralt as played by Woody Allen?

 

[Oloroar]

I don't know how, but CDPR will do us all justice. I believe!

 

[sfinx]

I know the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer from the books and their history together by reading up on it and discussing it with people who have read the books. But you have to understand that I have never seen Ciri, I have never seen Yennefer - they are nothing to me. Yennefer wasn't even mentioned in the entire first game, and Ciri still hasn't been mentioned two enhanced editions later!

OK, I understand, but when they appear, they have to be based on the books, with all their characteristics and connections on other characters - with love to Geralt, with relation-ship to Triss, Dandelion, Yarpen ..

I understand, when players haven't read the book, it could be confusing, but if CDPR uses characters from books, they should be presented like these characters.
In case of amnesia - that is possible, but Geralt already get his memory back (not sure how big part) and Witcher 2 seemed to me like serching for HER, not helping to Henselt, Blue stripes or Scoia'tael, but searching for memory and Yennefer (mentioned in elven ruins) and missions in W2 were just obstacles on this way.

If CDPR really wanted to stick so close to the books, they should have introduced Yennefer sooner.

Agree, I really don't know, why they didn't that. That was big mistake, nothing else. Even when Geralt lost his memory, he has a lot of friends who know them and Ciri and Yennefer are the most important persons for him. Changing of that seems much more unlikely than changing his profession (maybe not for CDPR, but for his character).

I don't want to force you, but I recommend you to read fan translations, not because I want to change your mind (that will very likely happen), but because it is masterpiece. What I saw in fan translations was very close to official translations.

 

[wichat]

I don't know how, but CDPR will do us all justice. I believe! />

There my hopes are rooted!

If NOT... then

 

[Oloroar]

NVM. No good can come from my comment. I want to make the mods lives a bit easier.

 

[wright1978]

Wut the Melon said

I would've liked to write a lot more, but it's already a wall of text as it is. My main point is that no-one is against Triss having an important role in TW3 (rather the opposite), but for me that should be a role as a friend, not as a lover.

Equally i don't think anyone is against Yen having an important role in TW3. Just for my 1st playthrough i want that role to be as his former lover, not his automatic current one.