Why "Ciri Witcher" is not a good ending in my view (spoilers)

+
I have just finished the game, got an ending where Ciri becomes a witcher, Emhyr wins and Geralt stays alone. Now I am doing my second play-through to get a canon (in my view) ending: Geralt with Yen, Ciri is Emperess. Let me share my thoughts why "Witcher" ending is not the best, not for Ciri, nor for Geralt.

1. Ciri is not a true witcher. Don't recall where (book or game), but Geralt once said she was never to be as good as him. No matter how much he was teaching her, shes only half-witcher, missing on a physical part. Remember the book scene where Geralt's life was saved only cause he had ability to slow-down body functions being mortally wounded? Ciri does not have that. She cant use elixirs. This is bound to end bad, with just a single wound, which witchers usually get plenty.

2. I was really surprised how unfinished was ending "Ciri witcher - Emhyr lives". Emhyr was searching relentlessly for her for 20 years. No way he would trust Geralt on his word that Ciri was dead. And that phrase about Ciri becoming famous? She would draw Emhyr attention at once, becoming a hunted prey once again. And Geralt would never rest easy with Yen/Triss as Emhyr would never forgive him his lie until Geralt is dead.

3. Even if Emhyr leaves Ciri alone (which is very unlikely) or Emhyr dies, lets not forget that Ciri is a rightful heir to the throne. From the book we know how exiled Emhyr reclaimed the throne from usurper. Those planning to take over after Emhyr wont let Ciri live cause of that. Like in a book when kings of the North decided that Ciri has to die, just in case.

So looks like "Ciri witcher" will lead to Ciri's death in any case, from assassins or monsters, and Geralt's as well in case Emhyr lives. Even if they somehow manage to avoid it, this means a life of constant running and hiding, far from that idyllic life we are being shown in the ending. Ofc it is much better then ME3 ending, but still far from well-thought.

A very astute observation. I completely agree with everything you wrote. The "Witcher(ess) ending" is not only the most sappy, self-indulgent and plain logical inconsistent out of the three possible conclusions, but, more importantly, it doesn't make sense from a thematic standpoint and undermines Ciri's arc of self-actualization and character growth and opts instead for a continious state of arrested development.

Whereas the "Empress ending" doubles down on Ciri becoming a self-sufficient, mature person who takes control of her potential as both an inherently powerful wielder of magic as well as royal heiress of two mythical lineages and ultimately learns to, if not embrace, at least accept her specialness, the "Witcher(ess) ending" has Ciri, once again, shed (and run away from) responsibility - despite her clearly stating throughout the game how fed up she is with constantly being on the run - and taking up an occupation she is not only inadequately suited for (as comprehensively explained by Cromanin) but one, one can't help but feel, that is most likely only a temporary diversion for her.

I feel that Ciri wanting to be "a simple Witcher" is more an expression of her desire to escape from all the responsibility and peril (Emhyr, The Wild Hunt, Lodge of Sorceresses, etc.) than an actual wish to really follow in Geralt's footsteps. It's important to remember that by the time the final battle is waged, Ciri has clearly evolved and matured from the person that just wanted to be left alone and has finally taken control of her destiny - to the point that she leaves both her "foster" parents in the dark about her actual plans regarding her impending battle against the White Frost.

Another thing to consider is that Ciri would be severely ill-equipped as a Witcher not only due to her incomplete training and fragmentary knowledge but even more so because she's an impatient, hot-tempered person who is prone to righteous indignation. If there's one thing that is paramount to being successful (read: not immediately killed) in this line of employment it's patience, resourcefulness and restraint. All characteristics that Ciri somewhat lacks.
And while her strong moral standards are an enviable character trait from which whole nations and races might benefit when channeled in the correct way and under the right circumstances - say as a magnanimous and tolerant ruler of a powerful kingdom - it might very well spell doom for her in form of a premature death if these character attributes were to come to the forefront in a less than desireable situation. Geralt knows a thing or two about that. After all, there's a reason why Witchers tend to be neutral, or at least feign neutrality. It has, to some extent, to do with self-preservation. Also, job security. No one hires a judgemental, socially concerned and tradition-violating Witcher.

To be honest, I have the sneaking suspicion that the reason why so many people here prefer the Witcher(ess) ending and consider it (head)canon is simply that it allows them to conceive of further imaginary adventures featuring an ass-kicking, monster-slaying Ciri that take place after Witcher 3: Wild Hunt ends, something that both other endings deny them. And yes, Ciri ascending the throne as Nilfgaard's empress is a denouement tinged with both hope and sadness, and thus perfectly in line with Sapkowski's prose. And as the old saying goes: Good storytelling doesn't give you what you want, it gives you what you need!
 
Last edited:
I'm replaying the game after taking a few months off. This whole thread is if Ciri is better off being a Witcher or Empress. Here's the big elephant in the room.

In order for the empress option to even happen that means Geralt has to make other choices. She never even has the option if Geralt doesn't help kill Radovid and then support Roche. Is the north losing even cannon? No it's not. So all of this boils down to personal preference in what we each think is a "good" ending. It's not based on Ciri because she hasn't told us. it's based on what we think she would want. However, in the end it isn't even possible.

Now I haven't read all the books and other stuff as some aren't even translated yet. So maybe in a book the north actually loses but in the timelines the year 1276 (4 years after the game) it says the witch hunts end. This strongly implies Radovid won the war. Therefore being empress isn't even a possibility.

According to Wikipedia the last book "The Lady of the Lake" says the following about Ciri:

"Ciri ends recounting her tale to Galahad, whom has been listening intently the entire time. Ciri sarcastically says that the tale ends with Yennefer and Geralt getting married, and that a celebration ensued between all the different dead and alive characters of the saga. Galahad eventually invites her to the court at Camelot, which she accepts. The saga ends with Ciri and Galahad riding side by side, holding hands."

Doesn't sound like an empress ending to me.
 
Last edited:
Now I haven't read all the books and other stuff as some aren't even translated yet. So maybe in a book the north actually loses but in the timelines the year 1276 (4 years after the game) it says the witch hunts end. This strongly implies Radovid won the war. Therefore being empress isn't even a possibility.
The books end at a point before the games.

Timeline:

1.) Books, ending with progrom of Rivia & Ciri ships off Yennefer+Geralt to the isle of Avalon, Ciri rides off with Galahad riding side by side.
2.) Games prelude: Wild Hunt assaults isle of Avalon, Yennefer is kidnapped, Geralt hunts the Wild Hunt, Geralt talks Eredin into trading Geralt for Yennefer, Geralt rides with Wild Hunt, Ciri helps Geralt escape from Wild Hunt and....:
3.) TW1 starts: Geralt has just been teleported to Kaer Morhen by Ciri. TW1 happens, then TW2, then TW3.


Except for some short parts in Lady of the Lake, where people in the future off books time speak about the events following the books, there's no books indication about the upcoming history. Radovid ending the witchhunt a few years later is a cannon however, and so, you're right of course, and Nilfgard winning isn't going to happen.

But, eh. Timey wimey wibbly wobbly ... so who knows! ;)
 
Last edited:
So looks like "Ciri witcher" will lead to Ciri's death in any case, from assassins or monsters

One small detail have been forgotten.... Ciri has extreme supernatural powers and can move with the speed of sound and has the most enhanced superhuman reflexes. It is not possible to kill her because she is going to kill any assassin or monster before even getting close to her......
What kind of assassin should they send after her? Superman? :D *ggg
 
So looks like "Ciri witcher" will lead to Ciri's death in any case, from assassins or monsters, and Geralt's as well in case Emhyr lives. Even if they somehow manage to avoid it, this means a life of constant running and hiding, far from that idyllic life we are being shown in the ending. Ofc it is much better then ME3 ending, but still far from well-thought.

Wow that is one large leap in an assumption. Yes Witcher's die but so do merchants, kings and everyone else. And hopefully you recall how Witchers go out for a season or two then return to their home base for the winter. It is not a constant time on the road. It is a job like many other jobs.

I simply have no clue how you can say with certainty that Ciri will die to assassins or monsters. Not to mention how cares if Emhyr lives or dies. Geralt or Ciri can go to other lands. There simply is zero proof for what you claim here.
 
In order for the empress option to even happen that means Geralt has to make other choices. She never even has the option if Geralt doesn't help kill Radovid and then support Roche. Is the north losing even cannon? No it's not. So all of this boils down to personal preference in what we each think is a "good" ending. It's not based on Ciri because she hasn't told us. it's based on what we think she would want. However, in the end it isn't even possible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "is the north losing even canon? No it's not." Canon by whose definition?

Sapkwoski has made it abundantly clear over the years that he does not consider any aspect of the games to be canon:

The game - with all due respect to it, but let's finally say it openly - is not an 'alternative version', nor a sequel. The game is a free adaptation containing elements of my work; an adaptation created by different authors.Adaptations - although they can in a way relate to the story told in the books - can never aspire to the role of a follow-up. They can never add prologues nor prequels, let alone epilogues and sequels. Maybe it's time to set the matters straight. 'The Witcher is a well made video game, its success is well deserved and the creators deserve all the splendour and honour due. But in no way can it be considered to be an 'alternative version', nor a 'sequel' to the witcher Geralt stories. Because this can only be told by Geralt's creator. A certain Andrzej Sapkowski.

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...r-of-the-witcher-books-thinks-about-the-games

Since the games take place after the events of Sapkowski's novels, and Sapkowski has decided that the games are not a continuation of the story he started, CDPR is free to take the Witcher universe in whichever direction they wish. The developers have never said that they prefer one ending over the others, nor have they spoken out in support of one ending as "canon." The epilogue which the player is presented with reflects the culmination of their actions, and in that sense, Ciri becoming an empress, a witcher, or dying all hold equal weight.

Now I haven't read all the books and other stuff as some aren't even translated yet.

The majority of the books have been translated into English (Last Wish, Sword of Destiny, Blood of Elves, Time of Contempt, Baptism of Fire). The Swallow's Tower and Lady of the Lake are the only two that remain, and those will be translated by the end of 2016 and 2017, respectively.

So maybe in a book the north actually loses but in the timelines the year 1276 (4 years after the game) it says the witch hunts end. This strongly implies Radovid won the war. Therefore being empress isn't even a possibility.

The epilogue slide in the Witcher 3 that has Radovid winning the Northern War clearly states that, not only does he continue the Witch Hunts, he expands them:

As they had in Novigrad, pyres burned in Temeria and Aedirn, lands now 'liberated' under the Redanian monarch. In the drive for moral renewal, simple herbalists, pellars, healers and nonhumans - all supposed heretics - were murdered in droves. For many, freedom beneath Radovid's scepter proved more tragic than servitude to another.

If anything, the witch hunts ending strongly implies that Emhyr won the war.

According to Wikipedia the last book "The Lady of the Lake" says the following about Ciri:

"Ciri ends recounting her tale to Galahad, whom has been listening intently the entire time. Ciri sarcastically says that the tale ends with Yennefer and Geralt getting married, and that a celebration ensued between all the different dead and alive characters of the saga. Galahad eventually invites her to the court at Camelot, which she accepts. The saga ends with Ciri and Galahad riding side by side, holding hands."

Doesn't sound like an empress ending to me.

As I stated above, the Witcher novels take place before the events of the Witcher games. Geralt is killed at the Rivian pogrom in Sapkowski's stories (this isn't really a spoiler, since the opening of the first game directly addresses this). CDPR brought him back, and the games are their interpretation of what Geralt's life might be like in the ensuing years, after the events of the novels.
 
Last edited:
Is the north losing even cannon?

There is not really any "canon" choice or ending to the game until a sequel makes it so. And even then much of the time it can be written in such a way that there is a plausible explanation why multiple endings from the previous game all lead to the same state at the beginning of the sequel, thus, still no "canon path" in the prequel. Since Radovid can die in TW3 (as the result of the player completing a quest line to assassinate him), it would be strange if such an important character was made unconditionally alive in TW4, although it could happen if CDPR choose so for some reason. That is, assuming the events of the next game are even going to take place in the near future after TW3.

When it comes to consistency with the books' "canon", I am not sure if the games consider that important for events that happen after the beginning of the first game. One could argue that the story line has branched since that point from what Sapkowski would have written if the books had sequels that take place in the same time frame, thus the books' future is not relevant because the games' story is non-canon to the books in any case, they only take the books' past (with some occasional liberties) as a starting point. But others will say that future events in the books define a fixed "destiny" that the games cannot avoid.
 
By cannon I mean what is in the books or various timelines when the books don't cover a specific topic. So once again going back to what Wikipedia said about the book Lady of the Lake it says:

"Ciri sarcastically says that the tale ends with Yennefer and Geralt getting married, and that a celebration ensued between all the different dead and alive characters of the saga."

So Geralt and Yennefer are married. This hasn't happened yet in the games so therefore logic dictates it happens after the game timeline ends.

Then the next line says:
"Galahad eventually invites her to the court at Camelot, which she accepts. The saga ends with Ciri and Galahad riding side by side, holding hands."

Now we have already established that Geralt and Yennefer get married after the game timeline ends. So this next part must happen after that marriage. Now it doesn't specifically state that Ciri left being Empress but it clearly shows she wasn't one at that specific time. They are going to Camelot holding hands. No mention at all about any duty to being Empress.

Of course you can always argue (without any evidence) that she was Empress or still is but on a "vacation" or just away.

Now in the "official" time line (based on Offcial Witcher Wiki page) syas the war starts in 1272 and the third games events take place then. Then the next entry in 1276 says "The End of the Witch Hunts".

Some argue that says Nilfgaard wins but that is twisted logic. That would be like saying "In 1952 German persecution of Jews ended". When one side wins the atrocities of the losing side are ended for multiple reasons. So in order for your logic to work then Nilfgaard must have supported the witch hunts and nto done anything to actually end them for 4 years. You have to stretch and twist the logic to make it fit.

But since it was specifically mentioned int he timeline that means it's an important event. It happens 3+ years after the war ends. It wasn't directly related to the war. So Occam's Razor here. Then ended in 1276 because either Radovid ended them or Radovid is no longer in control in 1276 to continue them (death or peace).

So based on these two points the strong circumstantial evidence points to the North winning.

And let me offer this one last point. In the Triss vs. yen wars it's been stated that Geralt ends up with Yen is cannon. (I agree). I quoted above a sentence that says this. It says they get married. But as I said they are not yet married in the game so it happens AFTER the games. Therefore, Ciri is telling Galahad this story AFTER the games. North winning is based on the books and what Ciri is doing.

"Geralt is killed at the Rivian pogrom in Sapkowski's stories (this isn't really a spoiler, since the opening of the first game directly addresses this). CDPR brought him back"

The quote above also is wrong. CDPR didn't bring Geralt back to life. The books did. How else could Geralt marry Yennefer?
 
"Ciri sarcastically says that the tale ends with Yennefer and Geralt getting married, and that a celebration ensued between all the different dead and alive characters of the saga."

So Geralt and Yennefer are married. This hasn't happened yet in the games so therefore logic dictates it happens after the game timeline ends.

Note the word "sarcastically", she does not say it seriously, and if that is not enough to make it clear it is a joke, how could a celebration ensue between dead characters of the saga ? (although, knowing the "quality" of the arguments often brought up in shipping wars, it does not surprise me that people actually take a sarcastic comment like that as a statement of fact) It is not known what happens to Geralt and Yennefer, their fate is left open by the books; they may or may not be alive after Lady of the Lake. Thus, the entire reasoning in the above post is based on something that is not a fact.

And, as I explained before, even if it was, it would not matter in the games' story that is separate from the books starting from 1270. Edit: or, more accurately, from the end of Lady of the Lake, since what happened to Geralt and Yennefer after the pogrom is already written by CDPR in the games' story. Separating the games' and books' "canon" from that point on is also more logical in the sense that any future books will not "overwrite" the story of the games (as far as I know, Season of Storms (November 2013 ?) is already newer than when most of TW3 was written).

And let me offer this one last point. In the Triss vs. yen wars it's been stated that Geralt ends up with Yen is cannon.

I do not see evidence of that statement being true. It is said by people who (based on the books) cannot imagine Geralt with anyone other than Yennefer, but that does not make their subjective opinion "canon". The only thing that would is a future game making it a fact that Geralt is with Yennefer (and even that would not create a canon choice in TW3). Which I would find rather disappointing, as it would pretty much prove that the choice was only put in the game for cash grabbing purposes.

The quote above also is wrong. CDPR didn't bring Geralt back to life. The books did. How else could Geralt marry Yennefer?

See above, the line you quoted does not prove he did. It even suggests that he did not, otherwise saying it would not be sarcasm.
 
Last edited:
Note the word "sarcastically", she does not say it seriously, and if that is not enough to make it clear it is a joke, how could a celebration ensue between dead characters of the saga ? It is not known what happens to Geralt and Yennefer, their fate is left open by the books;

Ciri knows they are dead and is being flippant/sarcastic to Galahad. It's the author's way of gently mocking the general desire in most readers for a happy ending. The author has Geralt and Yennefer die because it's the only ending that gives meaning to all the themes he presented throughout the books. Lifted straight from Le Morte d'Arthur. They died. It's the perfect bittersweet terminus to the series.Ciri dies at the end too. Symbolically, not physically.

Ciri after she told Galahad about the wedding she cries...

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 (dead), Milva (dead),
Angouleme (dead)... And Mistle (dead). I was there too, and we were drinking wine and mead. And they,
Yennefer and Geralt, built a house and they live there happily ever after. Like in a fairytale. Do you understand?
Why are you crying, Lady of the Lake?

Also before Ciri took G/Y to the island Triss asked Ciri if she can go with them and Ciri replied to her that she don't know what she is asking for...pretty much this confirms that Ciri taking dead Yen/Geralt to a place beyond...somewhere where mortals cannot be...

Well for me it is pretty clear but of course it is up to interpretation ;)

At the end I would really recommend to Witcher fans read the books even the fan translations, they are really really good! :)

I do not see evidence of that statement being true. It is said by people who (based on the books) cannot imagine Geralt with anyone other than Yennefer, but that does not make their subjective opinion "canon". The only thing that would is a future game making it a fact that Geralt is with Yennefer (and even that would not create a canon choice in TW3).

I agree here with you...Witcher games are fanfictions it shouldn't be mixed with the books story...CDPR took "what if" approach that's all :) for them and many people it is continuation from books - "what could happen after the end" fanfiction. Only one who can say what is canon or not is creator of the world and owner of the rights and that's Andrzej Sapkowski and he made pretty clear that Geralt/Yennefer/Ciri story ended in Lady of The Lake book.
 
Last edited:
By cannon I mean what is in the books or various timelines when the books don't cover a specific topic. So once again going back to what Wikipedia said about the book Lady of the Lake it says:

"Ciri sarcastically says that the tale ends with Yennefer and Geralt getting married, and that a celebration ensued between all the different dead and alive characters of the saga."

So Geralt and Yennefer are married. This hasn't happened yet in the games so therefore logic dictates it happens after the game timeline ends.

Feel free to read @sv3672 and @Gilthoniel 's posts above. My thoughts pretty much echo theirs in this regard.

Now we have already established that Geralt and Yennefer get married after the game timeline ends. So this next part must happen after that marriage. Now it doesn't specifically state that Ciri left being Empress but it clearly shows she wasn't one at that specific time. They are going to Camelot holding hands. No mention at all about any duty to being Empress.

No, we have not established that, for the reasons that @sv3672 and @Gilthoniel enumerated above. Also, as I said in my previous post, the books take place before the events of the games, so I don't understand why you keep using Lady of the Lake to explain what happens after the Witcher: Wild Hunt. Not to mention the fact that, as I stated before, Sapkowski considers everything in the games to be fanfiction.

Now in the "official" time line (based on Offcial Witcher Wiki page) syas the war starts in 1272 and the third games events take place then. Then the next entry in 1276 says "The End of the Witch Hunts". Some argue that says Nilfgaard wins but that is twisted logic. When one side wins the atrocities of the losing side are ended for multiple reasons. So in order for your logic to work then Nilfgaard must have supported the witch hunts and nto done anything to actually end them for 4 years. You have to stretch and twist the logic to make it fit.

Emhyr winning the northern war isn't going to immediately put an end to the Witch Hunts. First of all, the epilogue in which Emhyr is victorious clearly states that he had to contend with considerable domestic troubles, including members of the Nilfgaardian elite who had been conspiring against him in his absence. That is precisely why he agrees to Roche's proposal, because his resources were stretched thin, he had no desire to engage in perpetual guerrilla warfare with the Temerians, and his house needed to be put back in order in Nilfgaard. His first move is going to be consolidating his power in the capital and making sure that the nobles are kept in line. Second, one cannot eradicate intolerance and prejudice overnight. The Church of the Eternal Fire is a large and powerful organization whose entire raison d'etre is to cleanse the north of "inferior" peoples like mages and non-humans. They're not going to go quietly into the night.

And let me offer this one last point. In the Triss vs. yen wars it's been stated that Geralt ends up with Yen is cannon. (I agree).

It's probably best if you don't rely on the "Triss vs. Yen" or other shipping threads to support your conclusions.

I quoted above a sentence that says this. It says they get married.

Your quote also says that "a celebration ensued between all the different dead and alive characters of the saga," but that's not possible, is it? As @sv3672 and @githoniel said, Ciri was being sarcastic ... hence why it states "Ciri sarcastically says ..."

But as I said they are not yet married in the game so it happens AFTER the games. Therefore, Ciri is telling Galahad this story AFTER the games. North winning is based on the books and what Ciri is doing.

Your problem, as far as I can tell, is that you are trying to reconcile the books with the games. There is no reconciliation to be found there. When Sapkowski wrote Lady of the Lake, he had no knowledge of the games much less what happens after the games. They are two entirely separate universes.

The quote above also is wrong. CDPR didn't bring Geralt back to life. The books did. How else could Geralt marry Yennefer?

Geralt dies in the books. The end. The sentence which you keep requoting from wikipedia you are also misinterpreting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Note the word "sarcastically", she does not say it seriously, .

So you never once herad someone say something sarcastically yet it be the truth?

What about something like: "The American people have said sarcatically that Obama is the best president ever."

Doesn't mean he wasn't a president.

Now if what you claim is true that Geralt and Yen are both dead and never come back then that means everything in the games is bogus. No one could ever claim anything from the games mean squat. Ther is no basis for Triss vs. Yen. No basis for a new Nilfgaard war. No basis for Ciri being empress. No basis for the witch hunts. Nothing. Everything is fictitious.

And that then means you can NEVER ever reference the books to say this or that is legit in the games because they have zero relationship in what happens from the start of the games. You can only say int he past thing A happened. But it has zero impact about any decision, event, occurrence that happens int he game. Triss is NOT manipulative because Geralt is dead and there is no Geralt. You can't link in any of her past characteristics so support or deny any motive. Same for Yen and all the other characters.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I think I'll just use this quote from here out:

"Witcher games are fanfictions it shouldn't be mixed with the books story"
 
The belief that Geralt and Yennefer survive in the novels is. like Ciri's statement, wishful thinking. In Sapkowski-written canon, they are in a place of the dead. They are resurrected in the non-canon games (which Sapkowski flatly refuses to admit as canon) and in the short story "Something Ends, Something Begins" (which Sapkowski also denied status as canon).

The books are based on the fanfiction notion that Yennefer was kidnapped from Avallach and Geralt went after her. That does not make them anything like a complete departure from canon, any more than the strikingly similar "Sir Orfeo" constitutes a departure from the Orpheus legend, and arguments that the games have nothing to do with canon are unfounded.
 
Last edited:
Moderator: Post deleted and another edited. Nazi-era and KKK references constitute fighting words and are not welcome on this forum regardless of context.
 
Last edited:
So you never once herad someone say something sarcastically yet it be the truth?

Not to pile on, but while it's arguably ambiguous, I wholeheartedly agree with others that Ciri's comments about Geralt and Yen getting married at the end of the Lady of the Lake are best interpreted as her trying to make up a happy ending that never actually happened. Her statement about the wedding is completely inconsistent with other parts of the books, as at least four persons invited to the wedding are known to be dead. This at the very least calls into question pretty much everything Ciri tells Galahad, and it could be argued that it's difficult to say any interpretation of the final book could truly be seen as canon since a her portions of the book are told by an unreliable narrator ... making most of this argument about the "canon" story moot to an extent. However, having said that, I personally prefer to read it as Geralt and Yennefer die in the ending, Ciri cannot bring them back, and lies to Galahad (and possibly even herself) to keep herself from having to acknowledge the painful truth. That make's for a beautifully tragic ending and is the one I personally accept.

So yes, I think that the games do an imperfect job of remaining consistent with the books. Even the timeline is off by a few years. The games can be be viewed as a continuation of the books as envisioned by Sapokowski, but I do not believe that they are best viewed that way. I prefer to view the games' story as their own entity.


I would like to pitch in that I do think the "empress ending" is the least lore friendly of the three endings if you accept the sections in Lady of the Lake between Nimue and Tilly as true. It is repeatedly said their are no portraits of Ciri that remain in existence. While this does not conclusively contradict the empress ending, it does make that ending less likely than the others. One would think there would be portrait's drawn of Ciri upon her triumphant return to Nilfgaard.

This is not to say that it could not have happened. Maybe Ciri had a portrait made and it was later destroyed. Maybe Ciri refused to let people draw her. Maybe by her actions, Nimue allows Ciri to close a time loop and destroys her entire timeline by creating a new history. The bottom line is there are reasonable hypothesizes that could make the empress ending a potentially canon ending, but it is the most problematic in remaining consistent with the lore established in the books.

It must be acknowledged that Nimue's sections also seem to contradict the idea that it's even possible to defeat the White Frost since they are around many decades after the events of the Witcher games and the world is still cooling and the White Frost viewed as inevitable. So their sections are apparently not given great weight by CDPR.

I also personally like the witcher ending the best. But that's just my taste.
 
Now if what you claim is true that Geralt and Yen are both dead and never come back then that means everything in the games is bogus. No one could ever claim anything from the games mean squat. Ther is no basis for Triss vs. Yen. No basis for a new Nilfgaard war. No basis for Ciri being empress. No basis for the witch hunts. Nothing. Everything is fictitious.

Of course, both the books and the games are fiction in the end. But the games rely on the books for a history of past events until the point when Geralt and Yennefer die in the Rivian pogrom. From then on, they obviously diverge from the books, and have their own separate "canon", with some branching paths due to the player being given choices. In other words, my interpretation is that:
- nothing that happens in the games is canon to the books
- events in the books until the pogrom are canon to both the books and the games
- events and facts in the games are obviously canon to the games themselves, in their version of the universe overwriting the books when there is a conflict
- events in the books after the pogrom (when Geralt and Yennefer are already dead) are in my opinion non-canon to the games

"The American people have said sarcatically that Obama is the best president ever."

Doesn't mean he wasn't a president.

But it means he was not the best president, and that is what the sarcasm refers to. It is also a false statement said ironically, so it agrees with the point I made earlier.
 
Ciri knows they are dead and is being flippant/sarcastic to Galahad. It's the author's way of gently mocking the general desire in most readers for a happy ending. The author has Geralt and Yennefer die because it's the only ending that gives meaning to all the themes he presented throughout the books. Lifted straight from Le Morte d'Arthur. They died. It's the perfect bittersweet terminus to the series.Ciri dies at the end too. Symbolically, not physically.

Ciri after she told Galahad about the wedding she cries...

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 (dead), Milva (dead),
Angouleme (dead)... And Mistle (dead). I was there too, and we were drinking wine and mead. And they,
Yennefer and Geralt, built a house and they live there happily ever after. Like in a fairytale. Do you understand?
Why are you crying, Lady of the Lake?

Also before Ciri took G/Y to the island Triss asked Ciri if she can go with them and Ciri replied to her that she don't know what she is asking for...pretty much this confirms that Ciri taking dead Yen/Geralt to a place beyond...somewhere where mortals cannot be...

Well for me it is pretty clear but of course it is up to interpretation ;)

I always have a dilema wheter they dead for good or not. First of all when Galahad meets Ciri she is singing. It's described that her shirt is still covered in blood (I assume Geralt's), so would she singing just after burying her "parents". She's also saying that she messed up the destiny and she can't go back there for a while. From the very first books Sapkowski gives us hints that Geralt will die so i think that this might be it. There is also the last chapter of the season of storms which of course can be just a Nimue dream but can be a truth also. Of course I agree that G/Y wedding never happend (except non canon short story).


Coming back to the topic, imo Ciri as a witcher is definietly a happy ending but happy endings is not something that happens in Sapkowski prose. However I can't force myself to play game different way.
 
The games are adaptions of the books. They take the setting and background from Sapowski's novels but they do their own thing. Geralt's Signs are weak as hell in the books but in the games Geralt is basically a Jedi. This is done to improve the gameplay, since RPGs need to offer some character customization. Any mage in the books would wreck Geralt, yet in the games Geralt kills multiple mages if he desires.

It's like Shadow of Morder to the LotR books, it's a non-canon adaption that plays loose with book canon in order to make a more fun game.
 
@Goodmongo

It might be worth taking a look at the World of the Witcher Video Game Compendium, which is canon by CDPR standards and has an entire section dedicated Geralt's story and what, according to CDPR, ultimately happens to him, Yennefer and company.

And so, dear reader, we have reached the end of our story. With my inner eye I can see you exclaim in anger, 'The end?' Already? Like that? But there are still so many questions I want you to answer! What happened to Ciri afterward? Did Geralt of Rivia live to see her return from her journey through time and space?And did he find true love? Was it Yennefer, or someone else? What happened to Zoltan Chivay, that incorrigible dwarven altruist? And most intriguingly, how did the further career of the author of the present work unfold? The one who painted for us with words such a marvelous tapestry of long-past moments? Sadly, I must leave you like this, dear reader, full of suspense and speculation. Perhaps you will find answers to some of these questions yourself. Others I myself may answer - but at another time. Now, if you will permit me, I will paraphrase the words of a certain famous philosopher: a good tale should be like a feast, in that it should end at the moment when you can stand up and leave, being neither thirsty nor drunk.

The above quote is excerpted from page 179, and CDPR clearly leaves almost everything ambiguous in order to accommodate player choice. As I said before, the developers have never said that they prefer one ending over the others, nor have they spoken out in support of one ending as "canon." The epilogue which the player is presented with reflects the culmination of their actions, and in that sense, Ciri becoming an empress, a witcher, or dying all hold equal weight.

@GuyNwah

My apologies. I was merely trying to use a historical comparandum to support my argument.
 
Any mage in the books would wreck Geralt, yet in the games Geralt kills multiple mages if he desires.

well, not exacly
Geralt killed Sorel Degerlund who was young but really talented mage, decapitated Artaud Terranova and in the end he killed Vilgefortz (a little bit lucky in last case but hey - results matter :D)
 
Top Bottom