What has been the biggest "lore rape" so far ? What irks you the most?

[Luxorek]

It's the eight paige and I'm to lazy to look, so I'm simply gonna ask. Has there been anyone "offended" by the usage of the forbidden and holy r-word in the title of this thread? Please, please tell me.

Spoiler

If it was on BSN it would probably be like a second comment

Anyhow, biggest lore r-word ?

• Ciri's hair colour! Yep, I'm still bitter. She ain't an old wimmin, damnit !
• Sorceresses used brooms to fly in the novels. Really. It's mentioned! Give it to me now, so I can watch hateful comments on our forums about 'how it ruins the "realism" of the setting'.
• The whole Triss and Geralt relationship always seemed iffy to me given the stuff we know about it from the books. I never thought Triss would take advantage of Geralt like that, especially when she knows he suffers from memory loss. Well, I guess we as a player can refrain from pursuing her, but it's still jarring when you wake up with her at the beginning of TW2.
• The general absence of Yennefer and Ciri for two games. I was really baffled almost no one mentioned them and most acted like they didn't exist. Seemed bizzare. It's good to see them back for TW3.

 

[HellKnightX88]

Usage of the word "rape": I think it was mentioned in another thread, not sure.
The way I view it is it's the same as when someone fails to notice something obvious and another person asks them "are you blind!?". Would you find that question to be offensive to blind people? It's how I generally view usage of politically incorrect terms: context and intention is important. It's what makes comedians what they are, because you know the more politically incorrect language/jokes they may use isn't meant as hate speech but to provide their audience with a laugh. Context and intention.

Going back to your other points, more specifically to your last one: I can see your point and I think the devs want the player (at least those that are unfamiliar with the books) to form their own opinion on Ciri and Yen. That's why they weren't mentioned in the previous games that much. As to why they didn't actually appear in them and are only mentioned: my guess is that it didn't fit their vision of how the story plays out in the games.

 

[Selfluminous]

[*]The whole Triss and Geralt relationship always seemed iffy to me given the stuff we know about it from the books. I never thought Triss would take advantage of Geralt like that, especially when she knows he suffers from memory loss. Well, I guess we as a player can refrain from pursuing her, but it's still jarring when you wake up with her at the beginning of TW2.

What Triss did added another dimension to her character and made her all the more interesting to me, very unlike most flat female stereotypes

Sorceresses used brooms to fly in the novels. Really. It's mentioned! Give it to me now, so I can watch hateful comments on our forums about 'how it ruins the "realism" of the setting'.

This would make it look funny, though I think they are too liberated with the use of teleportation in the games.

The general absence of Yennefer and Ciri for two games. I was really baffled almost no one mentioned them and most acted like they didn't exist. Seemed bizzare. It's good to see them back for TW3.

Actually the whole events in TW1 and TW2 are quite short and only a few months apart, I think they are more baffled at Geralt being alive rather than commenting on Ciri and Yen (though some of them did)

 

[Sirnaq]

Lore rape?
from the top of my head:
-Geralt using Gabriel crossbow When he explicitly stated in the books that he hates them because they are unpractical.
-Geralt wearing corset
-George Clooney look, instead of dangerous ugly mutant from tw1
-Triss doesn't have scar
-Not enough/missing creatures like bobołaks, devilings, elementals, giant centipedes, forktails, slyzards, borowiks, criers, gnomes, dopelgangers etc.

Iam sure there is more but don't remember it all at the time.

 

[HellKnightX88]

-Not enough/missing creatures like bobołaks, devilings, elementals, giant centipedes, forktails, slyzards, borowiks, criers, gnomes, dopelgangers etc.

Technically that's not lore unfriendly though, is it? They're not denying the existence of all those things, they just weren't present in the games so far. Neither were all the things you listed present in the books, they were only mentioned.

 

[JackalJ]

The biggest lore rape for me would be if the wild hunt decided they can use Alvin instead of Ciri, then again I would like to have Alvin at least mentioned in TW3.

 

[HellKnightX88]

The biggest lore rape for me would be if the wild hunt decided they can use Alvin instead of Ciri, then again I would like to have Alvin at least mentioned in TW3.

Maybe he's

Spoiler

related to her, he has elder blood IIRC. Someone actually asked them in a interview about Alvin and the implications his fate might have inTW3 and the dude being interviewed said something like we don't want to spoil it.

 

[eLeF1]

In TW1 the biggest lore violation was not a single mention about Yennefer - one of the most important Witcher characters imo. There were also some minor lore issues like some monsters being vulnerable to silver even though there was nothing magical about them. Other than that I consider TW1 the most lore friendly game in the series because the atmosphere and overall feel was spot on.

From there it got much worse. In TW2 there was Geralt with a ponytail, grey hair and he didn't feel like a master swordsman at all. The colors were all wrong and because the game was much more mainstream oriented it got pretty far away from the feeling of the books.

However the biggest lore rapage will come with TW3 I think. You have crossbows, a very generic looking villain in a black spiky armor, pretty cheesy dialogue and gods know what else. Looks like the end result will be somewhere between a Game of Thrones wannabe and a Hollywood blockbuster which couldn't be possibly further from the books.

 

[Selfluminous]

-Geralt using Gabriel crossbow When he explicitly stated in the books that he hates them because they are unpractical.

let's hope he says the samething in the game and still uses it anyway, he's supposed to be quite contradictory in term of what is practical and what's not

Lore rape?
-Geralt wearing corset

heh, for someone who pirouettes on a daily basis, armor must be as close to the core as possible ! despite looking funny, it's actually a very good design for light mail armor.
But im sure there're other sets of armor you can choose from (probably not mail armor). This doesn't bother me as much as the wildhunt's design (especially their swords)

-Not enough/missing creatures like bobołaks, devilings, elementals, giant centipedes, forktails, slyzards, borowiks, criers, gnomes, dopelgangers etc.

I wouldnt mind having more variety of monsters, but then again, they are suppsosed to be quite sparse in distribution, and the maps of previous games arent that big

 

[Selfluminous]

a very generic looking villain in a black spiky armor, pretty cheesy dialouge and gods know what else. Looks like the end result will be somewhere between a Game of Thrones wannabe and a Hollywood blockbuster which couldn't be possibly further from the books.

these are the things I'm quite worried about. Eventhough nothing conclusive can be said about TW3 yet...

 

[xemerson]

I am actually really scared TW3 will be a huge lore rape with like ciri and yennefer things could take a cirious raping in the lore department.

 

[TheDespondentMind2]

All we can do is anticipate for now.

 

[Kinley]

I wouldn't blame anyone that is a bit worried for how TW3 might end up in the story department. So many characters being brought in the game continuity, all needing their space in order to shine, so many lose ends that need tying, all within the span of one game.

I suspect CDPR writers are either crazy or wizards (or maybe a bit of both). Only time will tell.

 

[TheDespondentMind2]

Trilogies usually disappoint in the third part, but despite that I just can't prepare myself for an disaster.

 

[saricc]

Not really. His survival is very strongly implied, and Sapkowski later just flat-out confirmed it. IOW, it doesn't retroactively change Witcher history via some invented explanation, nor does it contradict it.

I've heard that Sapkowski said that Geralt died, and Ciri pretty much implies that both he and Yennefer died. AND there's this from the book itself...

Spoiler

'And that,' Galahad asked, 'is the end of the story?'
'Certainly not,' said Ciri, rubbing one foot against the other, trying to get rid f the sand sticking to her feet. 'You want it to end? I do not!'
'So what happened next?'
'The normal,' she snorted. 'They got married.'
'Tell me.'
'What's to tell? The celebrate with a big wedding. They invited everyone - Dandelion, Mother Nenneke, Iola and Eurneid, Yarpen Zigrin, Vesemir, Eskel... Coen, Milva, Angouleme... And Mistle. I was there too, and we were drinking wine and mead. And they, Yennefer and Geralt, built a house and the live there happily ever after. Like in a fairytale. Do you understand?'

'Why are you crying, Lady of the Lake?'

'I'm not crying, the tears in my eyes are from the wind!'

If you notice a lot of the characters that attended the 'wedding' were already dead prior to the riots at Rivia. On top of that she says how it was like 'in a fairy tale' which is the exact opposite of the Witcher universe. Then she's crying, and then lies about not crying... I'm pretty sure this all leads to them being dead.

True but...

Spoiler

She doesn't shy away from a more aggressive conflict with Triss over Geralt or from reminding Triss about this betrayal. While in Skellige Yennefer uses a communicator to talk with Triss and she asks her if she's alone to which Triss replies yes. Yennefer sees through Triss' lie (Philippa is there with Triss) and tells her she has that same innocent face as when she was sleeping with Geralt behind Yennefer's back.

It's the same scene where Yennefer asks the Lodge to clear her name should she die trying to rescue Ciri and Philipa denies her request in the name of the Lodge because it doesn't suit their interest. Then Yen asks that at least her name be cleared in front of the witcher. Philippa denies her again stating that it's no in the interest of the Lodge to have the witcher trying to avenge her and that the witcher is probably already dead or will soon be dead. Yennefer makes one last request to have the Lodge protect Geralt from death and is again refused by Philippa. And Triss just stood there not saying anything. I get that Triss did some of the things she did because she's in love with Geralt. But abandoning your friend like that!? That was a dick move right there and I think it created rupture in Yennefer and Triss' friendship that isn't going to heal quickly.

That's one of the things I like about Yennefer and why in TW3 I'll try to get her and Geralt back together, she knows what she wants and is willing to fight for it. She doesn't care about the Lodge, what matters to her are Geralt and Ciri. At this point in the books Triss is still with the Lodge or at least not on her friend's side.

Yennefer has a similar conflict with Triss when entering Rivia right before the pogrom at the ending of the last book, again being quite aggressive towards Triss even threatening her with violence (I think she says something like grabbing Triss by the hair). To be fair towards Triss though she did not abandon her friends at the end of the books and stood by them as a good friend should.

All that said I don't think she means ill with her half truths in TW1 and TW2 and hiding certain things from Geralt. Yennefer is missing, probably dead and she sees this as a chance for happiness in the hands of the man she loves. We, the players, aren't told everything she said to Geralt. Maybe she told him more about Yennefer than what the game tells us, maybe she straight up lied about it, we don't know. The game intentionally tip-toes around the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer.

Spoiler

Haha, when does Triss is never really on the side of Team Witcher in the books. All she cares about is the Lodge and getting Ciri into it just like the others (with Yennefer as an exception).

It's the eight paige and I'm to lazy to look, so I'm simply gonna ask. Has there been anyone "offended" by the usage of the forbidden and holy r-word in the title of this thread? Please, please tell me.

Spoiler

If it was on BSN it would probably be like a second comment

Anyhow, biggest lore r-word ?

• Ciri's hair colour! Yep, I'm still bitter. She ain't an old wimmin, damnit !
• Sorceresses used brooms to fly in the novels. Really. It's mentioned! Give it to me now, so I can watch hateful comments on our forums about 'how it ruins the "realism" of the setting'.
• The whole Triss and Geralt relationship always seemed iffy to me given the stuff we know about it from the books. I never thought Triss would take advantage of Geralt like that, especially when she knows he suffers from memory loss. Well, I guess we as a player can refrain from pursuing her, but it's still jarring when you wake up with her at the beginning of TW2.
• The general absence of Yennefer and Ciri for two games. I was really baffled almost no one mentioned them and most acted like they didn't exist. Seemed bizzare. It's good to see them back for TW3.

The Triss thing doesn't really bother me. She was pretty scummy in the books too, she really only cared about herself.

I've really missed Yenn and Ciri. Those are probably my two biggest problems with the games. How could you not include two out of the three most important characters in the books?! It was a little lame, imo. Hopefully the third game improves on this a lot!