Triss vs Yennefer [NOW WITH SPOILERS. Oh, well.]

[Crazytwist]

They used love for both triss and yenn. butI think that was one of the instances where they had to have the book play a part. yennefer was geralts true love in the books, she returns, you gotta decide whether or not to stay faithful. So i agree it makes sense to have it worded like that also

but also this...

wrote is what should have been there, stick with with your old flame, kindle a new one or just be a wallet warrior...

Pretty sure redemyr hit the nail on the head with that

 

[Redemyr]

These new "leaked" changes have ushered a new era in the waifu wars, one about the lore and how it's broken into a million pieces... let's at least discuss it in the proper thread for it

There's an old joke in PvP "lore" that goes, Rock is fine, nerf scissors, signed paper...

With this I mean... I've never seen a single complain about how the ending where Yen and Geralt live happily ever after breaks the lore... when in fact, it contradicts how their relationship is portrayed in the books 100%... THEY NEVER managed to settle down down and do that... they might have wanted to, they might have tried, but they never did... but it's a happy ending right, so it's all good?

A ending, fitting the lore, would be them expressing their desire to retire (as they did in the books), then Geralt gets gravely wounded on his way to Ciri, Yennefer is too weakened by the fight with the creatures brought forth by the new conjunction, tries to heal him anyway and they both end up dying...

That ending is a lore friendly as it gets, but I'm willing to bet none of TY would be happy with that... (well, perhaps some idk)...

Whereas a "lore" friendly ending with Triss, would have the same situation, a Geralt badly wounded and Triss dragging him along, till she finds Phillipa or Margarita and her asking for their help in teleporting him somewhere where he can heal... completely lore friendly...

He gets to live and both move on to Kovir or wherever they want to be...

 

[Avaricious]

when in fact, it contradicts how their relationship is portrayed in the books 100%... THEY NEVER managed to settle down down

You can't say that for certain, they spent an uncertain amount of time on the isle of avalon/avallach/apples.

 

[FarrySquall]

A ending, fitting the lore, would be them expressing their desire to retire (as they did in the books), then Geralt gets gravely wounded on his way to Ciri, Yennefer is too weakened by the fight with the creatures brought forth by the new conjunction, tries to heal him anyway and they both end up dying...

That ending is a lore friendly as it gets, but I'm willing to bet none of TY would be happy with that... (well, perhaps some idk)...

Whereas a "lore" friendly ending with Triss, would have the same situation, a Geralt badly wounded and Triss dragging him along, till she finds Phillipa or Margarita and her asking for their help in teleporting him somewhere where he can heal... completely lore friendly...

:rofl: I see what you did there

You can't say that for certain, they spent an uncertain amount of time on the isle of avalon/avallach/apples.

:hmm: But i don't think Geralt and Yen can spend their entire life in that hut/house/whatever it is, soon they will need to go out and start a new adventure

 

[Avaricious]

But i don't think Geralt and Yen can spend their entire life in that hut/house/whatever it is, soon they will need to go out and start a new adventure

Probably not, but they deserve a break, and it can be as long as they want

 

[hungma147]

You can't say that for certain, they spent an uncertain amount of time on the isle of avalon/avallach/apples.

Happy ending (for me at least.)

 

[Scholdarr.452]

A ending, fitting the lore, would be them expressing their desire to retire (as they did in the books), then Geralt gets gravely wounded on his way to Ciri, Yennefer is too weakened by the fight with the creatures brought forth by the new conjunction, tries to heal him anyway and they both end up dying...

How's that ending fitting the lore? Without Ciri this doesn't work at all for me. Everything that happened in the books (pentalogy, to be precise) happens because, for or by Ciri...

And what you miss is progression. The games are meatnt as some kind of continuation of the books so they build on the progress that happened in the books. It's pointless to only argue with lore that is based on the short stories for that, for example.

 

[hungma147]

How's that ending fitting the lore? Without Ciri this doesn't work at all for me. Everything that happened in the books (pentalogy, to be precise) happens because, for or by Ciri...

But I agree that any "pure" happy ending doesn't fit the lore either.

The safest way to end a game franchise : Happy ending.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

The safest way to end a game franchise : Happy ending.

If only...

But I somehow doubt it. They already smelled the addictive odor of Franklins and got hooked. So sooner or later they will dig up the franchise from its grave again, cash in on in and label it a REBOOT. That's as sure as rain is wet...

 

[hungma147]

If only...

But I somehow doubt it. They already smelled the addictive odor of Franklins and got hooked. So sooner or later the will dig up the franchise from its grave again, cash in on in and label it a REBOOT. That's as sure as rain is wet...

Yeah, some spin-off. Sooner or later, It's just a matter of time.

 

[Redemyr]

You can't say that for certain, they spent an uncertain amount of time on the isle of avalon/avallach/apples.

You realize that's the metaphorical heaven in the Arthurian Legends right? Where Arthur is taken after he is mortally wounded by his son in the battle of Camlann, where he awaits there until he country needs him again or something like that.... interesting fact William the Conqueror bought it and actually searched for his resting place just to make sure he wouldn't come back... and guess what, he never found it and Arthur never came back either. because he was dead, same as Geralt and Yen in the books

Anyway sorry for the OT, the point is, according to the lore, they died and they went to heaven, author killed his characters, maybe he saw it as a fitting end for them...

CDPR broke the lore and replaced Geralt's death with something else... I'm glad they did it otherwise there would have been no witcher games in the first place...

My point is, it's weird to cry, save the lore, only when it is something you don't like... but it is perfectly fine to break it if you agree with the results...

At the end of the day, the games are their own thing, their own lore which draws from the books as much as it wants and needs to make the story in the them as interesting and compelling as possible...

And within that world, Geralt fell in love with Triss, if the "rumors" are true, he's been smitten all along too but it was buried deep and now all the masks are off and they live happily ever after... or he finally settles down with Yen... or he ends up alone... take the one you like, I'll take the one I like, live and let live...

 

[Avaricious]

Anyway sorry for the OT, the point is, according to the lore, they died and they went to heaven, author killed his characters, maybe he saw it as a fitting end for them...

CDPR broke the lore and replaced Geralt's death with something else... I'm glad they did it otherwise there would have been no witcher games in the first place...

I thought it was pretty ambiguous, you can make a strong argument for Geralt/Yen surviving or dying. All I'm saying is that you can't use Geralt/Yen settling as an example of CDPR breaking the lore because the Witcher games themselves start with Geralt and Yen settled and the Wild Hunt disturbs their retirement.

What I mean is: Geralt/Yen settling is something that has already happened in the games (and arguably in the books as well), having it happen again later on in the games does not contradict the games or the books.

Your other point stands (and I acknowledge it), but I'm just saying you used a poor example/analogy to prove it.

 

[OptoNick]

You realize that's the metaphorical heaven in the Arthurian Legends right? Where Arthur is taken after he is mortally wounded by his son in the battle of Camlann, where he awaits there until he country needs him again or something like that.... interesting fact William the Conqueror bought it and actually searched for his resting place just to make sure he wouldn't come back... and guess what, he never found it and Arthur never came back either. because he was dead, same as Geralt and Yen in the books

While thing about reference is true, seems like it's just another example of case when Sapkowski's mocking (giving more depths and meanings? altering? bending for his needs? whatever) mythology, just like he did it with the whole 'Lady of the Lake' theme. He obviously didn't want to simplify this ending to 'Geralt and Yen has died', that's why he brought that legend in the story in first place.

I've recently re-read old interview with pan Andrzej, which includes some insight on this matter:

Spoiler

Geralt was a very finalised, self-sufficient hero. For what purpose you've created image of Child of Destiny, Ciri, in next books? How you've come to it? Why?

A.S. I've conceived her as a monster. I wanted show how people are creating monster out of another man. Ciri - is The Evil, encarnated evil. Everyone's turning her into a monster: Rats, sorceresses, Bonhart, and even her own father - Duny. She's avenging unconsciously to everyone: Rience, guys from Dun Dare. 'You wanted to show me the pain with these fingers, Rience? With these arms?'. And they show her the pain! When she came to Dun Dare, black-eyed, old man asked her: 'Who are you?' - 'I'm Death'. Do you remember how in the end they are descending from staircase to the enemies, witcher and girl, side by side? So, it's The Good and The Evil are descending. The Good and The Evil. And that's why no one could stop them.


- So, witcher is The Good?

A.S. Yes, he is.


- So, then The Good has died?

A.S. Yes, it has died. He is going away, he and Yennefer. But Ciri ceases to be The Evil after this.


- And she turned into who?

A.S. She doesn't know it yet. And I won't tell you.

Point is, it was a metaphorical death of the Good, the Balance inside the Ciri's perspective of the world, she's ready for a new cycle now, Ouroboros bits his own tail.

Spoiler

BTW, there is also a pretty straightforward hint in text that at least Geralt is alive - he's feeling the pain from wound under his bandages

 

[Avaricious]

While thing about reference is true, seems like it's just another example of case when Sapkowski's mocking (giving more depths and meanings? altering? bending for his needs? whatever) mythology, just like he did it with the whole 'Lady of the Lake' theme. He obviously didn't want to simplify this ending to 'Geralt and Yen has died', that's why he brought that legend in the story in first place.

I've recently re-read old interview with pan Andrzej, which includes some insight on this matter:



Point is, it was a metaphorical death of the Good, the Balance inside the Ciri's perspective of the world, she's ready for a new cycle now, Ouroboros bits his own tail.

Spoiler

BTW, there is also a pretty straightforward hint in text that at least Geralt is alive - he's feeling the pain from wound under his bandages

Spoiler

What made me think he is alive is that Ciri cast the unicorn spell on him (to bring him back from death), and he appears in SoS epilogue. Also if they really died I think Ciri would have not been singing happily in the lake where she met Galahad.

 

[OptoNick]

Spoiler

he appears in SoS epilogue

Spoiler

Yep, this scene also made it pretty clear, but also bringing a lot more questions and grounds for interpretations

 

[Redemyr]

I thought it was pretty ambiguous, you can make a strong argument for Geralt/Yen surviving or dying. All I'm saying is that you can't use Geralt/Yen settling as an example of CDPR breaking the lore because the Witcher games themselves start with Geralt and Yen settled and the Wild Hunt disturbs their retirement.

What I mean is: Geralt/Yen settling is something that has already happened in the games (and arguably in the books as well), having it happen again later on in the games does not contradict the games or the books.

Your other point stands (and I acknowledge it), but I'm just saying you used a poor example/analogy to prove it.

You can interpret the ending the way you want, again, if that's the way you want to think it and it makes you happy the it's all good.

And it is true that he never clearly stated that they "they died." But all the evidence seems to suggest so, he just left the door somewhat open in case he ever wanted to continue the story by using a plot device... although IF he ever made them come back from Avalon, then he would be the one "breaking" the lore of the source material he used, which is the Arthurian legends.

You know, like in those tv shows were they write an ending that could be just the end of a season or the series if they don't get renewed... in this case AS effectively didn't "renew" them, so that's the end for them... even his newest book is a prequel and he went to great lengths to clarify that their wedding was NOT part of the cannon...

And yes, in the games they start there, but like I said, that was CDPR's device to continue the story, not part of the books themselves and in the books they never settled down for good, they tried and failed to stay together for a long period of time, it was one of the trademark of their relationship...

Also in the games, they don't really SETTLE DOWN, more like, Ciri takes them and leaves them there... not really giving them a way out... not that they would want one, I'm totally in agreement of Geralt and Yennefer spending their life together in the context of the games...

Btw, this argument is not really directed at you. Some of you (I mean TY to give it a name) understand what the game is about and don't care how people enjoy their playthroughs... but there are some that want to dictate what everybody should or should not do, using the "lore" as a wild card to criticize everything they don't agree with...

 

[OptoNick]

although IF he ever made them come back from Avalon, then he would be the one "breaking" the lore of the source material he used, which is the Arthurian legends.

Bad example, adaptation of medieval myths and continuation of the franchise, let me call it this way, are a very different things

 

[keldrath]

IF he ever made them come back from Avalon, then he would be the one "breaking" the lore of the source material he used, which is the Arthurian legends.

Try to keep in mind that where they were taken was never actually specified at any point. It's not called Avalon or Avallach in the books, only in the games.

It's all left ambiguous. Remember this is a story being told to Galahad by Ciri, for all we know she made that part up and they just died together in the streets of Rivia or something.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

CDPR broke the lore and replaced Geralt's death with something else... I'm glad they did it otherwise there would have been no witcher games in the first place...

Although that's a bit off-topic here: I think a Witcher game that is set many years BEFORE the books could be pretty great and much, much better than the concept of TW1-3. All of these games have to struggle with the creative limitations from the books (because they have to continue them somehow) and at the same time always compete with Sapkowski on a field in which they can't ever win. Just think about the creative freedom such a game that is set before the books would offer. There could be completely new tales and stories, new women, new settings. And not just the same old stuff we already know in different clothes...

So I wouldn't say that bringing Geralt back to life was the only way to make a Witcher game. Not at all. It was just the way CDPR wanted to do it.

 

[Avaricious]

Also in the games, they don't really SETTLE DOWN, more like, Ciri takes them and leaves them there... not really giving them a way out... not that they would want one, I'm totally in agreement of Geralt and Yennefer spending their life together in the context of the games..

There definitely was a way off the island. When the Wild Hunt kidnapped Yennefer, Geralt was able to leave the island and pursue them.