He does, but for some reason the witch hunters still roam about in the game. I'm fine with an industrialized Redania as he's doing a lot of good for the whole land. Also, this way, when Emhyr discovers that Ciri is actually alive and well, being a famous witcheress no less, he won't be able to send the entire Nilfgaardian army after Geralt or Ciri
- Status
It's not a trend, it's the core element. Games are about Choices. Otherwise it's just an interactive story.
I see, well I am sure that Ciri can handle avoiding Emhyr and in my ending Yennefer and Geralt ran off together to the east to settle down together, and Emhyr doesn't want anything more to do with him.
---------- Updated at 09:42 PM ----------
Depends on the sort of story the developers want to deliver, for example the ending of Bioshock Infinite.
To be fair, however, it'd be hard to make all the loose ends connect in a Witcher 4 as is, as there were simply so many outcomes, Unless it had very little connection to the original trilogy, maybe Ciri heading north to Kovir for example, then you could have Triss involved and if your Geralt ran off with Triss at the end, Geralt could make a cameo if not he'd only be mentioned for example.
Games like this are about the story. The problem isn't with choice, it's where that choice occurs, which is essential to getting a story right. Provide the choice of routes to the destination, not the choice of destinations. The latter just causes too many problems for future continuity.
I can see why Galahad was not in the game., and why Ciri and other story elements were changed in general. Sure one reason is the convenience, but I believe there is another reason.
IMO, the books and games have quite a different tone. The books are like an amalgamation of various Slavic and Anglo-Saxon myths/fairy tales, with a very "self aware" or "tongue in cheek" look at classic conventions within the story in a very realistic manner, thus there is a sense of absurdity, surrealism and silliness that the books allow from time to time that the games do not.
The games on the other hand almost take themselves too seriously for the lack of a better word, so having a character from Arthurian legend may seem jarring to say the least. If I didn't read the books, having Galahad appear in TW3 would be like King Henry appearing in Game of Thrones. Not to say that TW3 doesn't have its strange/funny moments, but its not metaphysical like the books.
For what its worth though, I thought the first game captured the feeling and tone of the books very well, and if CDPR continued with that tone throughout the trilogy, than a Galahad appearance in the games wouldn't have seemed so strange. But ever since the second game, it seems CDPR is trying to emulate "Game of thrones" or "A Song of Ice and Fire" tone/vibe rather than the very source material it is based on.
IMO, the books and games have quite a different tone. The books are like an amalgamation of various Slavic and Anglo-Saxon myths/fairy tales, with a very "self aware" or "tongue in cheek" look at classic conventions within the story in a very realistic manner, thus there is a sense of absurdity, surrealism and silliness that the books allow from time to time that the games do not.
The games on the other hand almost take themselves too seriously for the lack of a better word, so having a character from Arthurian legend may seem jarring to say the least. If I didn't read the books, having Galahad appear in TW3 would be like King Henry appearing in Game of Thrones. Not to say that TW3 doesn't have its strange/funny moments, but its not metaphysical like the books.
For what its worth though, I thought the first game captured the feeling and tone of the books very well, and if CDPR continued with that tone throughout the trilogy, than a Galahad appearance in the games wouldn't have seemed so strange. But ever since the second game, it seems CDPR is trying to emulate "Game of thrones" or "A Song of Ice and Fire" tone/vibe rather than the very source material it is based on.
Last edited:
So you basically say that the games fail to get what the books were all about? Yeah, I'm with you on that one, very much so. But that's not a good thing. That's 101 how to screw a franchise. If they wanted to make GoT they should maybe have bought that licence instead, don't you think?
And I don't think TW1 captured the essence of the novels. Maybe the tone, but not the essence. But you're right, it got worse over time. While the series' topics and characters get somewhat "closer" to the books with its culmination in TW3 they lost the feeling and sense what Witcher was all about in the first place. It's really weird tbh...
- The three games form a trilogy. and the story has ended. There's no indication or suggestion that Witcher 4 will be a continuation of this. And there's an existing discussion on what people hope from TW4 here:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/51985-Do-we-want-Witcher-4
- There's existing discussion on the ending of TW3 here:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...-of-the-game-is-a-bad-hot-mess-major-spoilers!!!
I'm not sure what the purpose of THIS thread is?
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/51985-Do-we-want-Witcher-4
- There's existing discussion on the ending of TW3 here:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...-of-the-game-is-a-bad-hot-mess-major-spoilers!!!
I'm not sure what the purpose of THIS thread is?
As far as I've understood it this thread is just about the question which of the three endings of the game people think should be the "game-canon" of the triology (no matter if there ever will be a TW4 as a sequel or not). So neither of the threads you link is really covering the same topic I think.
This thread is explicitly and exclusively to ask one question: What should be the canonical ending. That does not mean there should or will be a Witcher 4, it could be a continuation in literature or some other form of media so I don't think there is any conflict with The Witcher 4 thread.
Well yes we don't know if TW4 will be a sequel or a new story, and if it will be Ciri the new Witcher it can start in two ways a prequel to wild hunt or the sequel.
I think (and hope) that it will be a continuation to Wild Hunt, why? Well because in TW3 is clearly the end of Geralts story and the begining of Ciris beautiful story, cause we just get introduced to her amazing character.
Just imagine the new skill, ability and amazing story that could be done with Ciri in TW4 and sure maybe Geralt,Yenn,Triss and the other could apear like secondary or cameos.
So canon ending? if i have to choose witcher one, but i really think they should let you choose at the game start.
Now some people want a new Geralt game, guys his story is over I understand that it might be hard to not play as Geralt in a future game, just like it was for Shepard in ME3 but their stories must come to an end.
What is really important for me now is to give Geralt last game a proper ending by making a good post main-story content, because from what we know this is the last game with Geralt as main character so it Must have more time to spent with people Geralt love. I mean this is his and our chance to stay and spent time in their company, so @cdprojekt RED give us a good post main-story content with interactions like train/hunt with Ciri, romance/dialogs with Yenn,Triss and the others.http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/39674-Mega-SPOILERS-Immersion-Destroyer?p=1872922#post1872922
The particular ending doesn't matter as much as the quality of the game. If they can make a sequel that exceeds the quality of W3, I'll play with whatever game state they decide.
It still appears to be about either TW4 or complaining about the end-game, so locking. Please continue the discussion in one of the existing threads.
- Status