Why didn't CDPR introduce Yennefer's character in the previous games?

+
I'm actually glad Yennefer wasn't present in TW1. This game is such a quote fest I'm afraid that if Yen was there 90% of her interactions with Geralt would've been just copypasted from the books. Though I often wonder how different the plot of the previous games would be with her in them.

TW3 is the only game where I get that vibe, like they're shoe horning stuff from the books in. I personally think it would have been best to introduce her into TW1 right away, and then maybe have her absent in TW2 as she wouldn't fit it all in that game. Or if they did, she could just replace Triss. And then in the final game Geralt they can both be present. It would have given them enough time to flesh out her past and get players comfortable with her quirks.
 
TW3 is the only game where I get that vibe, like they're shoe horning stuff from the books in.

I'm mostly talking about the dialogue. In TW1 the characters were quoting stuff from the books all the time. It was particularly grating hearing Yennefer's words coming from Triss.
 
Well Yennefer seems to be a misunderstood character for some gamers, but she is an iconic character for book readers. And she is a deeply complex character and a very difficult one to write. So I can understand why they would be afraid to do it.
Plus that article is really interesting actually and it has a point : Yennefer is a difficult character to like at first in the books.... and yet most readers end up liking her very much in the end. The way Sapkowski wrote her character arc is very smart. And recreating that in a video game is indeed challenging.
The problem with the witcher games is always the same : on one hand you have book readers, who expect to see the characters they liked at the end of the books. On the other hand you have people who haven't read the books and who should learn about the characters gradually. And it is difficult to "please" everyone. Especially with a character like Yen who is supposed to be difficult to like at first but who is still very much likable once you get to know her.
That and the fact that it would have been really difficult to give a "fresh start" to Geralt with Yennefer around.
But you're right it would have been MUCH easier for them to introduce Yen the right way if they had done that from the start. They would have had 3 games to work on her character development then...

One question that arises when making use of such a well defined character is why do it in the first place. Why Yennefer and not some other woman? What does she bring to the table that justifies reviving her? Do you drag her out of retirement (this can be applied to Ciri as well since they do come pretty much as a package) just because she played a significant part in the books, or do you do it because you have something to say about her and you want to take her places? Because while I was entertained by Yennefer in TW3 and I tolerated Ciri, I still find that we could have done without them, or simply had them as archetypes under different names.

For whatever reason (and the reason is probably the fact that I have read the books and can't help but draw parallels) I feel like there wasn't anything said about or added to these characters that absolutely warranted their resurrection. And that is why, looking back, I am not particularly miffed by their absence from the first two games. I am also of the opinion that CDP is somewhat better at forging their own characters rather than adapting pre-existing ones.

I would have preferred them either starting off with the Geralt-Ciri-Yennefer trio in place and using the space of three games to properly build up their characters and interactions (a more conservative, book-friendly narrative), or just leaving Ciri and Yennefer on the side and instead focusing on original characters and developing some of the more obscure names in the books and maybe go a bit wild. I think the games would have worked just fine as an alternative space for an alternative Geralt, without the "baggage" rather sloppily reattached to him at the end of the trilogy.
 
I'm mostly talking about the dialogue. In TW1 the characters were quoting stuff from the books all the time. It was particularly grating hearing Yennefer's words coming from Triss.

She needed to hit Geralt's subconscious in order to make him fall in love with her, so she imitated Yennefer personality.
Triss really is an evil mastermind. :mean:
 
Lol "to make her likeable" Andrej Sapkowski intended from the start to make her not pleasing (for a reader that is), this reason of his was very unique in it's own way which made me like her. In the game when I first saw her (back then TW3 was my first witcher experience) I loved her because of her not cliché way of behaving.

Back on topic, we'll never know how it would have been if Yennefer was in the first two games (it's fun to discuss it ofcourse but yeah). I still think she made a grant entrance in the last game and how they handled her.
 
One question that arises when making use of such a well defined character is why do it in the first place. Why Yennefer and not some other woman? What does she bring to the table that justifies reviving her? Do you drag her out of retirement (this can be applied to Ciri as well since they do come pretty much as a package) just because she played a significant part in the books, or do you do it because you have something to say about her and you want to take her places? Because while I was entertained by Yennefer in TW3 and I tolerated Ciri, I still find that we could have done without them, or simply had them as archetypes under different names.

For whatever reason (and the reason is probably the fact that I have read the books and can't help but draw parallels) I feel like there wasn't anything said about or added to these characters that absolutely warranted their resurrection. And that is why, looking back, I am not particularly miffed by their absence from the first two games. I am also of the opinion that CDP is somewhat better at forging their own characters rather than adapting pre-existing ones.

I would have preferred them either starting off with the Geralt-Ciri-Yennefer trio in place and using the space of three games to properly build up their characters and interactions (a more conservative, book-friendly narrative), or just leaving Ciri and Yennefer on the side and instead focusing on original characters and developing some of the more obscure names in the books and maybe go a bit wild. I think the games would have worked just fine as an alternative space for an alternative Geralt, without the "baggage" rather sloppily reattached to him at the end of the trilogy.

I agree with that. But I think this only works if you consider that every single player have read the books, which is obviously not the reality. They didn't add anything significant to Yennefer, or Ciri in terms of character development (and as a huge fan of the books in a way I'm kinda glad they didn't actually), but thing is, before adding anything to these characters, you have to explain who they are in the first place. And TW3 was barely enough to even do that...
You're totally right when you say that they should have either worked on the Geralt-Ciri-Yen trio from the start or chosen not to add Yen and Ciri at all. The way it is, it looks like they tried to have it both ways, or wanted to do something and then changed their mind or something....
Let's not forget that writing characters that you "borrowed" from someone else is very very hard if you want to do it right, in my opinion it is harder than to write your own character.



Lol "to make her likeable" Andrej Sapkowski intended from the start to make her not pleasing (for a reader that is), this reason of his was very unique in it's own way which made me like her. In the game when I first saw her (back then TW3 was my first witcher experience) I loved her because of her not cliché way of behaving.

Back on topic, we'll never know how it would have been if Yennefer was in the first two games (it's fun to discuss it ofcourse but yeah). I still think she made a grant entrance in the last game and how they handled her.

I think the reason why many people have a hard time liking Yen is because she is not the typical NPC character you see in video games. Every other NPC in TW3 is, including Triss. They are waiting around for Geralt to decide things. They have their own agenda but they don't seem to be able to do anything about it without Geralt. Even in terms of relationships they are like "Geralt I want to be your friend/lover/whatever", you should decide whether I should be or not.
Yennefer on the other hand.... It's like she doesn't care what the player decide to do. If she has something to do she does it, she doesn't wait for you to help. If she wants to kiss Geralt then she does it, she doesn't need the player's permission. She even makes fun of you like "Geralt come on, who do you think I am? I am not here to give you some "go get me some herbs" quest, I can manage on my own and I have actual business to tend to thank you"
Sapkowski wrote Yennefer as a character who was not there to please the reader. I think CDPR made her a character who is not here to please the player. That is something I had never seen in a video game and that is wonderful.
 
Last edited:


“We avoided introducing her (Yennefer) in the first two games partly because she was such an important character that we were afraid of bringing her to the picture…”

Interesting excuse

Yeah that sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me.
 
One of the core design/story choices by CDPR has always been NPCs that have their own agenda and aren't waiting around for Geralt to do something. Yen is by no means unique in this regard.
 
I'm mostly talking about the dialogue. In TW1 the characters were quoting stuff from the books all the time. It was particularly grating hearing Yennefer's words coming from Triss.

Exactly, that is the most irritating part. When a character's personality is distorted or "stolen".
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
TW series writer meant her character to fill the role of a love interest lost with Geralt's memory, in order to raise a dilemma for Geralt when he finally meets who once was his love in the the series finale, therefore she was introduced wholly in TW1&2. TW3 writers abandoned this premise (along with few other premises) by giving Geralt his entire memory back.

Incorrect, Geralt recovered his memories during TW2. When he speaks to Triss in Nilfgaardian camp, he says he knows exactly how the world worked before Thanedd, after talking with Letho, he remembered fully what happened between the pogrom in Rivia and the Hanged Man's Tree. So, TW3 didn't abandon this premise at all, it was already resolved in TW2.
 
I have a feeling they didn't for some reason. Like with the first game they were probably just trying to make their own story for a series of books they were huge fans of. With the exception of the ending, most of the first game doesn't build up to anything in II and III and instead serves as world building/character development. II, on the other hand, was definitely made with the mindset that there was going to be a third game.

Yes, and there are also some inconsistencies between the first game and the other two which suggest the sequels were not originally planned, or at most only in the sense that they would be made if TW1 was successful, but without concrete plans regarding their content.

While I didn't miss her in Witcher 1 and don't think she needed to be added just because she was a important character in the books, I agree with your second point. Changing the personality from established characters for whatever reason is just bad writing. That's why I was happy they changed her personality "back" in Witcher 2, who is imo the closest- to -the -books- Triss from all three games.

Although it is arguably also bad writing to change the character back in the next game. It might have been better to either continue the series staying consistent with the first game (so no Ciri and Yennefer either, as they do not exist in the world of TW1 beyond an easter egg or two for book readers), or to "reboot" it and ignore TW1 entirely.

I also believe the stories of both previous Witcher games and Hearts of Stone, in which neither Yennefer nor Ciri appeared in person, were far superior to Witcher 3. That's why it's hard for me to argue that their appearance would have benefited the previous games,even if I can't really judge if their heavy involvement in the Witcher 3 plot is at least partly responsible for the game's mediocre (at best) story.

I agree, I do not really like the second and third acts of TW3 (where Ciri and Yennefer were given much of the screen time) myself, compared to Velen and Novigrad in the first part of the game. Also agree with this post, both on the lack of character development compared to the books (which I think is at odds with the approach of not making the games adaptations of the books), and that Ciri and Yennefer were introduced in a sloppy way in the final part of a trilogy. One of the reasons why I would clearly prefer a Witcher 4 with an entirely new cast of main characters.

TW3 is the only game where I get that vibe, like they're shoe horning stuff from the books in. I personally think it would have been best to introduce her into TW1 right away, and then maybe have her absent in TW2 as she wouldn't fit it all in that game. Or if they did, she could just replace Triss. And then in the final game Geralt they can both be present. It would have given them enough time to flesh out her past and get players comfortable with her quirks.

There could have been more Yennefer cutscenes or flashbacks (playable segments in the past where she appears as an NPC) in TW2 as Geralt's memories return, while also giving her less preferential treatment in screen time in TW3. But the first game is problematic, making its world aware of her existence could have required some changes to the story.

She needed to hit Geralt's subconscious in order to make him fall in love with her, so she imitated Yennefer personality.

But why imitate also some other characters, like Philippa, and then suddenly stop doing it in the second game ? That is just weird.
 
“We avoided introducing her (Yennefer) in the first two games partly because she was such an important character that we were afraid of bringing her to the picture…”

Interesting excuse

that's like...the funniest argumentation I've ever seen tbh haha

I think the reason why many people have a hard time liking Yen is because she is not the typical NPC character you see in video games. Every other NPC in TW3 is, including Triss. They are waiting around for Geralt to decide things. They have their own agenda but they don't seem to be able to do anything about it without Geralt. Even in terms of relationships they are like "Geralt I want to be your friend/lover/whatever", you should decide whether I should be or not.
Yennefer on the other hand.... It's like she doesn't care what the player decide to do. If she has something to do she does it, she doesn't wait for you to help. If she wants to kiss Geralt then she does it, she doesn't need the player's permission. She even makes fun of you like "Geralt come on, who do you think I am? I am not here to give you some "go get me some herbs" quest, I can manage on my own and I have actual business to tend to thank you"
Sapkowski wrote Yennefer as a character who was not there to please the reader. I think CDPR made her a character who is not here to please the player. That is something I had never seen in a video game and that is wonderful.

:yes exactly. It hurts..damn it hurts. Especially the strong ego of a gamer ;)
 
Last edited:
Incorrect, Geralt recovered his memories during TW2. When he speaks to Triss in Nilfgaardian camp, he says he knows exactly how the world worked before Thanedd, after talking with Letho, he remembered fully what happened between the pogrom in Rivia and the Hanged Man's Tree. So, TW3 didn't abandon this premise at all, it was already resolved in TW2.
Well in this case it's either a failure in TW2 writing, giving obscure resolution to Geralt returning memories from before WH abduction or a misunderstanding of whether he regained his memories (and which) - We know from very beginning that Geralt didn't lose his entire memory, we just aren't sure since when till when. Remember - not every one went to the Nilfgaardian camp - meaning the game had to show us otherwise how and where he regained his memories
 
If he regained all his memories in TW2, then a hefty flashback cutscene would have been in order, showing the flood of memories and his past life. They never did that. Instead, they stated repeatedly that in TW3 he 'officially' has his memory back. Imo, the scenario was never dealt with in a convincing manner by the writers. They sort of skipped over it like many other plot points.
 
Geralt also mentiones Borch in the dialogue with Saskia (if you save her from Philippa's mind control) so it's pretty clear that he fully regained his memory in TW2.
 
Geralt also mentiones Borch in the dialogue with Saskia (if you save her from Philippa's mind control) so it's pretty clear that he fully regained his memory in TW2.

Could it be partial maybe? I mean even in real life when someone loses their memory sometimes it comes back slowly and not all at once.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Well in this case it's either a failure in TW2 writing, giving obscure resolution to Geralt returning memories from before WH abduction or a misunderstanding of whether he regained his memories (and which) - We know from very beginning that Geralt didn't lose his entire memory, we just aren't sure since when till when. Remember - not every one went to the Nilfgaardian camp - meaning the game had to show us otherwise how and where he regained his memories

That's just how TW2 storytelling worked - in order to fully understand it's story, several playthroughs are required. Some players liked it, some hated it (I liked it). He did lose his entire memory (one of the first sentences he uttered in TW1 was: "I remember nothing"). It was in the La Valette dungeon where Roche triggered the first flashback (massacre in Rivia) and then, the process of recovery from amnesia began. After that, in Flotsam, Cedric (just before his death) prophesied Geralt will recover his memories by lifting the curse from the battlefield and clearing the spectral mist near Vergen. Therefore, we can assume, that after Eternal Battle main quest Geralt got the memory of book events back. The final flashback with Letho was the final piece he was missing for the events that have happened between Rivia and the Hanged Man's Tree. So, apart from his time with the Wild Hunt, Geralt remembers everything at the end of the game).
As you can see, all of this was already explained and resolved in TW2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a very good point and to be perfectly honest they could have saved themselves an awful lot of trouble had they just stuck to one main love interest (be it Yen, Triss or Shani) and ran with it for all three games.
 

Guest 3842753

Guest
Or without Geralt at all. I heard they originally wanted Berengar as the protagonist.

It should've just been "The Witcheress 1" with Ciri as lead and Geralt/Yen as her pot-smoking hippie parents. And love options Galahad and Jarre to kick off the "husbando" wars at least until a sequel introduces resurrected zombie Mistle who rekindles memories of teen love in Ciri
 
Top Bottom