if no witcher exist in 200 years the world will be overrunning by monsters and drowner consider the amount i already killed in a day's work.
Monsters thrive on war. An end to the incessant battles between the petty monarchs of the North will stifle the food supply of the ones remaining, and the Order of the Flaming Rose remains an efficient, if reprehensible, institution for dealing with the remnant. The few remaining Witchers cannot suppress anything more than troublesome local infestations of monsters. It takes a concerted effort by an organization like the Order.
Someone more think that the Hearts of Stone achievement : I wore Ofieri before was cool is suspicious ? CD project obvious have plans for the Ofieri in the future.
in the next game we will go to the South and will know the more about the obscure places in The Witcher universe like Zerricania, also the books have some flash forward and we have canon procedence for more http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline
The north will be attacked by the Haak in the future : http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Haakland
in the next game we will go to the South and will know the more about the obscure places in The Witcher universe like Zerricania, also the books have some flash forward and we have canon procedence for more http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline
The north will be attacked by the Haak in the future : http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Haakland
It would be awesome for Ciri to play a big part in a sequel and even be playable, but TBH if she was the MAIN protaganist, I probably wouldn't buy the game.
I would much prefer to be able to create my own character and determine their gender, abilities, etc.
Also I really don't like playing as females. Not that I don't like them or think they're bad. It's an immersion thing. For some reason if I'm not playing as a male I just can't really get immersed into the game. I like to play RPGs to create my own character and make them as close to "Me" as I can, though I usually give them hair, while I have a shaved head in RL haha. So in a way it really is "Me" in that game world, kicking ass, wooing ladies, slaying monsters, and all that other various hero things.
Sure it's probably not right and I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but that's just how I feel.
I think it would be far cooler, if the remaining Witchers and Ciri were trying to get the Witcher schools back up and training more witchers, and altering the witcher mutations so that there's a much less chance of horribly dying or turning insane during the trial of grasses so there's more witchers out killing monsters.
Because, as of W3, Witchers are a dying breed, all the schools are in a state of disrepair, not a single known school is training new witchers, and those that are still alive are either dying on the job or are looking at retirement.
If this keeps up then it seems like there's a good chance of more and more monsters popping and causing a lot of trouble.
The next witcher game can have a cool feature of rebuilding Kaer Morhen and some other schools by looking for people to live nearby. The war has caused a lot of refugees and Velen was kind of a horrible place to live anyways, so it doesn't seem unlikely that Geralt and friends might consider letting some refugees live around Kaer Morhen in exchange for helping to do repairs and work around the school.
It can be like the Assassins Creed games where you have your hide outs and cities, and find people that can make upgrades and improvements.
For example you can find a refugee stone mason, and let him and has family live in the area in exchange for rebuilding KM. Farmers can have farms nearby and give a portion of their crops to the Witchers.
At first a lot of people in the world may not like this, but with few other places to go and monsters popping up in more places, living near a Witcher school of professional monster hunter hunters suddenly doesn't seem like a bad idea.
I would much prefer to be able to create my own character and determine their gender, abilities, etc.
Also I really don't like playing as females. Not that I don't like them or think they're bad. It's an immersion thing. For some reason if I'm not playing as a male I just can't really get immersed into the game. I like to play RPGs to create my own character and make them as close to "Me" as I can, though I usually give them hair, while I have a shaved head in RL haha. So in a way it really is "Me" in that game world, kicking ass, wooing ladies, slaying monsters, and all that other various hero things.
Sure it's probably not right and I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but that's just how I feel.
I think it would be far cooler, if the remaining Witchers and Ciri were trying to get the Witcher schools back up and training more witchers, and altering the witcher mutations so that there's a much less chance of horribly dying or turning insane during the trial of grasses so there's more witchers out killing monsters.
Because, as of W3, Witchers are a dying breed, all the schools are in a state of disrepair, not a single known school is training new witchers, and those that are still alive are either dying on the job or are looking at retirement.
If this keeps up then it seems like there's a good chance of more and more monsters popping and causing a lot of trouble.
The next witcher game can have a cool feature of rebuilding Kaer Morhen and some other schools by looking for people to live nearby. The war has caused a lot of refugees and Velen was kind of a horrible place to live anyways, so it doesn't seem unlikely that Geralt and friends might consider letting some refugees live around Kaer Morhen in exchange for helping to do repairs and work around the school.
It can be like the Assassins Creed games where you have your hide outs and cities, and find people that can make upgrades and improvements.
For example you can find a refugee stone mason, and let him and has family live in the area in exchange for rebuilding KM. Farmers can have farms nearby and give a portion of their crops to the Witchers.
At first a lot of people in the world may not like this, but with few other places to go and monsters popping up in more places, living near a Witcher school of professional monster hunter hunters suddenly doesn't seem like a bad idea.
IIRC, it was stated in the books that most of the post-Conjunction monsters were very rare, having been either killed by witchers or pushed to remote wilderness areas by better-organized, growing human communities. CDPR made monsters around every corner for gameplay purposes, IMO.
Last edited:
True, yet, Avallach had Ciri to open the main portal, which caused another Conjuction of Spheres (Yennefer mentions it while they are running to the tower), which means another legion of monsters got into the Witcher world... I think next game could easily start like 50-60 years after W3, with School of Wolf teaching new witchers at repaired Kaer Morhen and Eskel as the head of the school, with Geralt missing or never heard of for 50 years... Player could then start as a custom made character, freshly after Trial of Grasses, still in training, just to be thrown into world because of some event... W3 end created a huge opportunity for a massive expansion, while 50 years would be still not too much for some characters to reappear ( Witchers and Sorceresses live much longer, Vesemir in W3 was over 200 years old, Geralt was 100 years old, and nobody knows how old Phillipa or Yennefer were...)
Why so many people want to rebuild Kaer Morhen?
The witchers are interesting, because they are outcasts and people are afraid of them. They are meant to extinct and soon they will live only in the legends and myths. The whole idea of new witchers breaks this unique witcher feeling.
The witchers are interesting, because they are outcasts and people are afraid of them. They are meant to extinct and soon they will live only in the legends and myths. The whole idea of new witchers breaks this unique witcher feeling.
if they are so rare how comes anyone knows you as a witcher :what2:
Cat eyes, medaillon, two swords (of them made of silver)...those are the typical signs of a witcher. Witchers are really distinctive. And how people know about witchers? Because they are already part of folk tradition - stories, fairy-tales, ballads. And if someone kills a beast like griffin or wyvern, a rumor spreads quickly.
And that's not all. In the first chapter of the Blood of Elves, Dandelion sings a ballad about a witcher and a sorceress. And the audience recognizes that the witcher must be Geralt of Rivia. Yes, they know him even though there is only one Geralt of Rivia and some of them have not seen him yet.
Finally, you can look at TW1 journal entry which explicitly states that "only a few representatives of the caste still travel the world, and no more monster slayers are being made."
yes, because not many monsters left... now imagine this - another Conjunction of Spheres happened when Ciri entered that portal... thousands and thousands new monsters entered the world... plus, war just ended or is about to end, so death is all around... such time is ideal for Witcher return... they will be needed again... If you payed attention during dialogues with Eskel, he wanted to talk about future of Kaer Morhen with Geralt (but never had chance after battle + the funeral left everybody sad and hopeless)
its quite simple - thousands of monsters + hundreds of orphans = witchers are needed and nobody really cares what happens with the kids...
btw,in last Sapkowski book "Season of Storms", we get a glimpse of distant future(Geralt already dead), and witchers are still out there..
While I enjoyed Ciri as a character more that I thought I would, I don't really think she'd be the right choice for a followup to TW3, no matter the form it's going to take.
And no, it's not because she dies in one of the endings: CDPR would simply canonize one of them like they did for TW2 and move on from that - and that'd be the witcheress ending of course. Also, it's not because she's a woman and some people don't like playing as a woman (but I do!). Nor it is because she's arguably somewhat less likeable than Geralt - nothing fundamentally wrong with Ciri, it's just that Geralt is so incredibly cool and charismatic and matching him is gonna be very hard no matter who replaces him. But... no, not that reason either.
My real gripe with Ciri is that she's way too overpowered already, and while her abilities can actually open a lot of storytelling and exploration possibilities (it'd be the first time no one can complain because there's fast travel in an RPG...
), they already create enough embarassment in TW3 where you only get to play Ciri briefly: I mean stuff like "if she can teleport to Kaer Morhen on her own, why doesn't she do that until Geralt rescues her?". Actually, you can apply the same idea to pretty much everything she does in game. She wears a bra as armor yet she's untouchable, if you think about it. Building a credible and compelling gameplay around her, with no armor that serves any purpose, no potions, and blink-to-fast-travel abilities seems really difficult to me. And quite possibly, very boring.
And I'm sorry, but I think that solutions to artificially "cripple" her for gameplay purposes sound pretty silly. (And no, it's not the same as having Geralt reset at level 1 at the beginning of each game. The Elder Blood works even when you've got amnesia or are stuck with shitty common armor.) In any case, Ciri-without-Ciri-powers loses all of the magic and purpose of being, well, Ciri
So, no, thanks.
I'd still prefer a prequel with a younger Geralt. They can even set it before the books so they have greater artistic freedom with the characters and their environment. I also don't like the idea of "another witcher", whether built by the player or as a fixed PC like Geralt is now. The series is called "The Witcher" not "Witchers", and that "The" in the title refers to Geralt of Rivia and no one else. We'd be constantly comparing the new guy in town with Geralt - and I fear he'd end up comparing unfavorably against the old boss. See what I said above about Geralt's charisma. He's close to irreplaceable, it's part of his greatness as a video game character.
And no, it's not because she dies in one of the endings: CDPR would simply canonize one of them like they did for TW2 and move on from that - and that'd be the witcheress ending of course. Also, it's not because she's a woman and some people don't like playing as a woman (but I do!). Nor it is because she's arguably somewhat less likeable than Geralt - nothing fundamentally wrong with Ciri, it's just that Geralt is so incredibly cool and charismatic and matching him is gonna be very hard no matter who replaces him. But... no, not that reason either.
My real gripe with Ciri is that she's way too overpowered already, and while her abilities can actually open a lot of storytelling and exploration possibilities (it'd be the first time no one can complain because there's fast travel in an RPG...
), they already create enough embarassment in TW3 where you only get to play Ciri briefly: I mean stuff like "if she can teleport to Kaer Morhen on her own, why doesn't she do that until Geralt rescues her?". Actually, you can apply the same idea to pretty much everything she does in game. She wears a bra as armor yet she's untouchable, if you think about it. Building a credible and compelling gameplay around her, with no armor that serves any purpose, no potions, and blink-to-fast-travel abilities seems really difficult to me. And quite possibly, very boring.And I'm sorry, but I think that solutions to artificially "cripple" her for gameplay purposes sound pretty silly. (And no, it's not the same as having Geralt reset at level 1 at the beginning of each game. The Elder Blood works even when you've got amnesia or are stuck with shitty common armor.) In any case, Ciri-without-Ciri-powers loses all of the magic and purpose of being, well, Ciri
So, no, thanks.
I'd still prefer a prequel with a younger Geralt. They can even set it before the books so they have greater artistic freedom with the characters and their environment. I also don't like the idea of "another witcher", whether built by the player or as a fixed PC like Geralt is now. The series is called "The Witcher" not "Witchers", and that "The" in the title refers to Geralt of Rivia and no one else. We'd be constantly comparing the new guy in town with Geralt - and I fear he'd end up comparing unfavorably against the old boss. See what I said above about Geralt's charisma. He's close to irreplaceable, it's part of his greatness as a video game character.
Back then, the human race was weaker, now they can handle without witchers (i.e. in. TW1 there was the Order of the Flaming Rose). Anyway, my main argument is that it would break the unique witcher feeling. More monsters, more witchers - that does not imply better game.
And if we desperately need a witcher setting with more witchers and more monsters, we can play as younger Geralt.
Citation needed. The epilogue of the Season of Storms is very ambiguous and can be interpreted in more than one way.
They do not generally "canonize" endings in a way that cannot have a believable explanation. That is, choices A and B both having the same outcome in the sequel (which indeed happened to many choices) is not the same as the sequel just making it a fact that the player chose A, even if it is not actually true. The latter case is rare - despite the amount of criticism the save import feature in the games receives, it recognizes most choices from the previous game in some way. Thus, a main protagonist that is presumably dead would be an unusually bad way of handling choices from TW3 even for the series' admittedly not very high standards in this aspect.
On the other hand, it is not confirmed in the game that Ciri really dies, so it may be explained that she comes back eventually and still becomes a witcher anyway. However, that would make the Ciri ending choices in TW3 kind of meaningless even for those (such as probably myself) who do not buy the sequel.
I agree that we never see Ciri's body, nor does the narrator say for certain that she dies, so she could have survived in the "bad" ending and could return in a future game. However, I thought it was said that Geralt lived out his days alone in the "bad" ending, meaning Ciri never contacts him if she survives and she doesn't work as a witcher in the Northern Realms - since Geralt would have heard about an ashen-haired woman killing monsters. So, to not canonize any one ending, a future game featuring her as the protagonist should take place in another region of the Continent, IMO.
I wouldn't mind another Witcher game but Geralt, Yen, Ciri, Triss and most main characters from trilogy should be left out.
They played their part, let new characters arise and leave the old ones to their rich legacy.
They played their part, let new characters arise and leave the old ones to their rich legacy.
I would love to see another game in the witcher universe, but not play as a witcher because of the reasons algernon79 said above. And I wouldnt want to play as Ciri for the same reasons he/she said above also.
I would love to see what CDPR can do with a fresh protagonist seeing as Geralts story is done. Im slightly dubious on the create your own character though.
Dont get me wrong, some of my all time faves are those kinds of games but (and nothing against Bioware. Mass Effect and Origins are some of my greatest old loves) I said this in another thread...player characters can easily become boring when devs are too afraid to take away a players complete freedom in personality. That sounds strange, I love freedom in RPGS but the reason Geralt is so loved by me is because CDPR had licence to give him his own personality, which in equal parts I love and hate.
Love Geralt himself ...hate not being able to kick some people in the vagina/peen because thats not what CDPR's Geralt would do.
So if they could get a balance if they go back into the universe Ill be game, but sadly/happily I love Geralt as a protag so much ill have my judgy pants on if they create another witcher.
Witchers should be a part of that story if they ever want to revisit it but not the focus. No Geralt no deal. No Geralt, fresh start. So no Ciri.
Because lets face it. If Ciri ever got into trouble, (and if she was the main protagonist of the next game she would have to be wouldnt she) it doesnt matter if Geralt was retired. If he got a whiff of Ciri in danger (and he would, he dreams of her when shes in danger) he'd pick up his swords once again.
Then players would just be like "why not just play as Geralt?" because it would just be another wild hunt if Ciri was the focus again....aaaand we circle back to why Ciri shouldnt really be the next protagonist. Too close to Geralt. No Geralt, no fresh start? No deal in my opinion.
I would love to see what CDPR can do with a fresh protagonist seeing as Geralts story is done
. Im slightly dubious on the create your own character though.Dont get me wrong, some of my all time faves are those kinds of games but (and nothing against Bioware. Mass Effect and Origins are some of my greatest old loves) I said this in another thread...player characters can easily become boring when devs are too afraid to take away a players complete freedom in personality. That sounds strange, I love freedom in RPGS but the reason Geralt is so loved by me is because CDPR had licence to give him his own personality, which in equal parts I love and hate.
Love Geralt himself ...hate not being able to kick some people in the vagina/peen because thats not what CDPR's Geralt would do.
So if they could get a balance if they go back into the universe Ill be game, but sadly/happily I love Geralt as a protag so much ill have my judgy pants on if they create another witcher.
Witchers should be a part of that story if they ever want to revisit it but not the focus. No Geralt no deal. No Geralt, fresh start. So no Ciri.
Because lets face it. If Ciri ever got into trouble, (and if she was the main protagonist of the next game she would have to be wouldnt she) it doesnt matter if Geralt was retired. If he got a whiff of Ciri in danger (and he would, he dreams of her when shes in danger) he'd pick up his swords once again.
Then players would just be like "why not just play as Geralt?" because it would just be another wild hunt if Ciri was the focus again....aaaand we circle back to why Ciri shouldnt really be the next protagonist. Too close to Geralt. No Geralt, no fresh start? No deal in my opinion.
Honestly, I don't like the idea of playing as Ciri as a main character, even if I loved her. She is not even a "real" witcher. TW3 was, unfortunally, the last game with Geralt as main character, meaning it will be another witcher this time. It could be Vesemir's story, a prequel showing Vesemir in his golden years, maybe while training a child named Geralt. Or Lambert. Who knows. Another plot could revolve around Lambert himself and Keira, since they left Kaer Mohren togheter. Also, Eskel could be the new protagonist. He said the witchers should talk about taking new apprentices, if I remember correctly, during TW3. But he also left Kaer Mohren so possibilities of reviving the wolf school are slim. Unfortunally, I doubt we will see Letho or Berengar ever again. That's unfortunate, I really liked those two. And, of course, I still hope they could change their mind and start a new trilogy with Geralt as main character. It would feel different without him and not necessarily better.
Personally i like the idea of Ciri as a protagonist. The endings don't prohibite it imo, she isn't confirmed dead in the bad ending and Empress seems rather an insecure position in nest of snakes that is Nilfgaard. Certainly possible to explain how Ciri ends up on witcher path no matter what or they could pick a canon which isn't inconceivable if not desirable imo.
As an existing character she certainly brings a strong backstory similar to Geralt and wouldn't require the vast levels of exposition a completely new character would require. The fact that her skill set is different would allow them to play about with combat and make it different. Using her would allow cameos from characters from the Geralt trilogy(including possibly Geralt)
I see introducing a brand new blank slate character into that timeline as a much weaker option than using a protagonist we know and already have had some experience with. The only concept that might be interesting is introducing a blank slate character into a prequel set in the early days when witchers were first created.
As an existing character she certainly brings a strong backstory similar to Geralt and wouldn't require the vast levels of exposition a completely new character would require. The fact that her skill set is different would allow them to play about with combat and make it different. Using her would allow cameos from characters from the Geralt trilogy(including possibly Geralt)
I see introducing a brand new blank slate character into that timeline as a much weaker option than using a protagonist we know and already have had some experience with. The only concept that might be interesting is introducing a blank slate character into a prequel set in the early days when witchers were first created.