Why not.Dutch sounds really cool! I don't understand it, but I like it! :thumbsup:
---------- Updated at 04:50 PM ----------
Good decision! I agree!:wub:
Or her...... perhaps... :evil:
Links don't work
Edit: Ah now!
Links don't work
Edit: Ah now!
It is like I said, it's valid but it is not lore/canon friendly because to get that ending you will have to treat Ciri in a way that Geralt would hardly treat. You're simply throwing that baggage in the trash and it's wrong when we are talking about a continuation from the canon books... If you read the books you should know that.
I never said that and I never said the "happy ending" is the "right" one. Treating Ciri the way Geralt always treated before it is non canon because it passes in a non canon universe, but it is lore friendly and it follows a natural line of the character. The same goes to the main subject here, Triss x Yen... About Triss finaly changing Geralt's mind and conquering his heart, she is doing that with the players not the character. A lore friendly or canon Geralt would finally fall in love for her because she lied, stabbed her close friend, used him while he was with amnesia and sold his daughter to the lodge? And would treat his beloved daughter, the most precious thing in his life in an inappropriate way? I'm sorry but no.
I see you can't understand what I'm trying to say, so live and let die.
Could we just get back to the Yen or Triss question, pretty please?
Why everyone choose like they did, there can be thousands of reasons for that. Someone played the games only and someone read the books too. Someone may always choose Triss because she has red hair and doesn't need any other reasons to do so. That is just as fine as someone always choosing Yen because of the books.
This thread now seems to be a combination of lore/books/games/story/characters/voiceactors/cameras/whatever.
Yen or Triss, should be pretty simple to answer to that.
Why everyone choose like they did, there can be thousands of reasons for that. Someone played the games only and someone read the books too. Someone may always choose Triss because she has red hair and doesn't need any other reasons to do so. That is just as fine as someone always choosing Yen because of the books.
This thread now seems to be a combination of lore/books/games/story/characters/voiceactors/cameras/whatever.
Yen or Triss, should be pretty simple to answer to that.
I agree 1000%.
I personally guess, that the question "Yen vs Triss" or "Triss vs Yen" (and that must be the title in real!) starts to be absolutely senseless, because it's just a matter of taste. And there will be never an agreement between Yen-Fans and Triss-Fans or a clear solution! BTW I respect all the Yen-fans :angry2: and all the Triss-fans :faith: too. We all have a different taste and that's good...
I mean how horrible and boring the world would be if we all are interested only on one kind of men/women...
If everbody would love just guys like Brad Pitt, I would have bad luck, because I would never have found a nice lady, who wants spend her life with me for example... :evil:Well , "if it can't get any better, you/we should stop." Perhaps we should look for new and more interesting themes in future?! Just an idea...
Or you can discuss about this theme to the end of the world... It's your decision...
I personally say "Goodbye" here in this thread and look for more interesting themes which are not soooooooo controversial...
I thank you all... :cheers2:
Last edited:
It is like I said, it's valid but it is not lore/canon friendly because to get that ending you will have to treat Ciri in a way that Geralt would hardly treat. You're simply throwing that baggage in the trash and it's wrong when we are talking about a continuation from the canon books... If you read the books you should know that.
I never said that and I never said the "happy ending" is the "right" one. Treating Ciri the way Geralt always treated before it is non canon because it passes in a non canon universe, but it is lore friendly and it follows a natural line of the character. The same goes to the main subject here, Triss x Yen... About Triss finaly changing Geralt's mind and conquering his heart, she is doing that with the players not the character. A lore friendly or canon Geralt would finally fall in love for her because she lied, stabbed her close friend, used him while he was with amnesia and sold his daughter to the lodge? And would treat his beloved daughter, the most precious thing in his life in an inappropriate way? I'm sorry but no.
I see you can't understand what I'm trying to say, so live and let die.
Canon smanon...it's fiction...a game...each individuals' personal dream..
I agree 1000%.
I personally guess, that the question "Yen vs Triss" or "Triss vs Yen" (and that must be the title in real!) starts to be absolutely senseless, because it's just a matter of taste. And there will be never an agreement between Yen-Fans and Triss-Fans or a clear solution! BTW I respect all the Yen-fans :angry2: and all the Triss-fans :faith: too. We all have a different taste and that's good...
I mean how horrible and boring the world would be if we all are interested only on one kind of men/women...
Well , "if it can't get any better, you/we should stop." Perhaps we should look for new and more interesting themes in future?! Just an idea...
Or you can discuss about this theme to the end of the world... It's your decision...
I personally say "Goodbye" here in this thread and look for more interesting themes which are not soooooooo controversial...
I thank you all... :cheers2:
Probably the best and most useful post in this whole Thread!
Props to you Boromir2015
:thumbsup:
@GreyMatter You keep talking about canon and non canon choices in the game and I simply don't believe something like that exists. But yeah, we won't reach an agreement so to each their own
More on topic, a bit about her amnesia abuse. I don’t think it even up for debate that Triss abused Geralt’s amnesia. In my opinion, she clearly did.
Triss has been obsessed with Geralt for quite some time and seeing him return from the dead and with no knowledge of Yennefer and whether she is even alive, Triss seized the opportunity to seduce Geralt. Geralt wasn’t forced to be with her, nor did she used any spells or magic, he willingly started a relationship with her (TW2 start did neglected some players choice though).
However, at the beginning of TW2 Geralt slowly starts to regain his memory. During their boat trip to Flotsam, he forces Triss to tell him the whole truth. She tells him all about Yennefer and Ciri, so by the time they reach Flotsam, which is very early in the game, Geralt is completely aware of Triss’ actions, although still lacking memories to fully comprehend them. Despite that he can continue to pursue the relationship with her. From that point on, it’s player’s choice, but from the story perspective Geralt is the one who takes the initiative and Triss naturally embraces it. She is still taking advantage of his amnesia, but he is no innocent little boy for Triss to use as she pleases. He reciprocates to Triss’ affection and can be seen as genuinely falling in love with her, depending on the choices each player makes. He is not a puppet for evil manipulative Triss to control, he plays an active role in their relationship and more often than not is the one who decides to engage Triss romantically.
After Flotsam, he can also distance himself from Triss as much as possible if the player controlling him wishes so, not proposing the bath, not saving her, or saving her and accusing her of working with the Lodge and expressing distrust.
Either way Triss’ amnesia abuse is mostly done in TW1. The reasons for that maybe also have something to do with CDPR not knowing whether their game is going to be successful, not planning the story of the whole trilogy, and sticking to their decision to exclude Yen and Ciri. Considering that Geralt wasn’t even supposed to be the main protagonist at first, it’s reasonable to assume they made many changes to the story. It is also worth mentioning that on a few occasions in TW1 when Triss starts talking about some events from the past, Geralt interrupts her and says he is not yet ready to talk about it.
Whatever the reasons may be, I think Triss’ amnesia abuse, whether that was the intention or not, was well in line with her book character and is something that gave her more complexity and a nice arc in the games no matter the perspective from which you look at it.
More on topic, a bit about her amnesia abuse. I don’t think it even up for debate that Triss abused Geralt’s amnesia. In my opinion, she clearly did.
Triss has been obsessed with Geralt for quite some time and seeing him return from the dead and with no knowledge of Yennefer and whether she is even alive, Triss seized the opportunity to seduce Geralt. Geralt wasn’t forced to be with her, nor did she used any spells or magic, he willingly started a relationship with her (TW2 start did neglected some players choice though).
However, at the beginning of TW2 Geralt slowly starts to regain his memory. During their boat trip to Flotsam, he forces Triss to tell him the whole truth. She tells him all about Yennefer and Ciri, so by the time they reach Flotsam, which is very early in the game, Geralt is completely aware of Triss’ actions, although still lacking memories to fully comprehend them. Despite that he can continue to pursue the relationship with her. From that point on, it’s player’s choice, but from the story perspective Geralt is the one who takes the initiative and Triss naturally embraces it. She is still taking advantage of his amnesia, but he is no innocent little boy for Triss to use as she pleases. He reciprocates to Triss’ affection and can be seen as genuinely falling in love with her, depending on the choices each player makes. He is not a puppet for evil manipulative Triss to control, he plays an active role in their relationship and more often than not is the one who decides to engage Triss romantically.
After Flotsam, he can also distance himself from Triss as much as possible if the player controlling him wishes so, not proposing the bath, not saving her, or saving her and accusing her of working with the Lodge and expressing distrust.
Either way Triss’ amnesia abuse is mostly done in TW1. The reasons for that maybe also have something to do with CDPR not knowing whether their game is going to be successful, not planning the story of the whole trilogy, and sticking to their decision to exclude Yen and Ciri. Considering that Geralt wasn’t even supposed to be the main protagonist at first, it’s reasonable to assume they made many changes to the story. It is also worth mentioning that on a few occasions in TW1 when Triss starts talking about some events from the past, Geralt interrupts her and says he is not yet ready to talk about it.
Whatever the reasons may be, I think Triss’ amnesia abuse, whether that was the intention or not, was well in line with her book character and is something that gave her more complexity and a nice arc in the games no matter the perspective from which you look at it.
This is pathetic. You chose Triss? Hey, but it's non-canon! You should read the books! You chose Yennefer? Hey, it's not canon, but it does not matter, because it's "lore friendly"! Good for you! Our side is the besterest!
If you love your "canon" so much, then stick with the fact that Geralt and Yennefer are both DEAD. Sorry guys! No happy retirement! No hot baths and staying in bed till noon! No happily ever after! All of this never happened, null and void! Just mud, blood and fork in the gut! Read the goddamn books once again!
If you love your "canon" so much, then stick with the fact that Geralt and Yennefer are both DEAD. Sorry guys! No happy retirement! No hot baths and staying in bed till noon! No happily ever after! All of this never happened, null and void! Just mud, blood and fork in the gut! Read the goddamn books once again!
The only reason I clicked on the Youtube video above was to figure out if this comment was a troll / insult. I have rarely been so happy I clicked on a Youtube video.
HA HA HA HA HA!
Nah even better m8, free apple juice and your own private island with a flower garden to tend too
*"sight"
What am I doing that?
Free tastes apart, 2 little corrections:
1. TW1 begining (and Jaskier's Diary note) : Geralt have the odd sensation he had strong feeling with a sorceress (that's why alotof gamers think that Triss abused of Geralt's amnesia)
2 In books Sapko never use the term "dead" reffering about the last moments of Geralt and Yen. Unicorns never use necromancy or black magi, so the author left an open door (awsome well exploted by CDPR) to the reader.
And that's enough. Enjoy everyone of you of your choices,give all the explanation ifyou need it,butdon't try to convince others. I, personally, have my predilection, but I've played the 4 romances options: the black raven, the red one and both-no one. May I advise you to play them too with no prejudices and enjoying the WHOLE game (and scenes and dialogues)?
Meow.
What am I doing that?
Free tastes apart, 2 little corrections:
1. TW1 begining (and Jaskier's Diary note) : Geralt have the odd sensation he had strong feeling with a sorceress (that's why alotof gamers think that Triss abused of Geralt's amnesia)
2 In books Sapko never use the term "dead" reffering about the last moments of Geralt and Yen. Unicorns never use necromancy or black magi, so the author left an open door (awsome well exploted by CDPR) to the reader.
And that's enough. Enjoy everyone of you of your choices,give all the explanation ifyou need it,butdon't try to convince others. I, personally, have my predilection, but I've played the 4 romances options: the black raven, the red one and both-no one. May I advise you to play them too with no prejudices and enjoying the WHOLE game (and scenes and dialogues)?
Meow.
Regardless of whether an individual is more partial to the books or the games, here's the reality:
Books are linear affairs. An author structures stories to create the desired theme and evoke the desired reaction from their audience at the story's conclusion. Even among literary types (like me!), the audience's reaction can be very diverse! Hence the widely accepted belief in "the writer is dead" the minute their piece goes to publication. (This is why almost all writers refuse to comment in any detail on their "intent" behind anything they have written. That's for the masses to decide. It's why literature works.)
Games are becoming ever less linear. Most games are now horizontal or even emergent affairs. Here, we have a problem that has faced all "licensed" games since...forever! Back in the 80's and 90's, players may remember games based on Tolkien's universe. (I love LotR with a passion!) A great example is Lord of the Rings, Vol. I vs. Riders of Rohan (released within a year of each other). While Riders was certainly the more lore-friendly of the two, I really enjoyed LotR, Vol. I more because it offered better gameplay. To be honest, LotR, Vol. I...was absolutely, ridiculously silly. Hobbits fighting wolves every few minutes? You can kill a Barrow Wight with by throwing rocks at it!? I have to rescue Gimli from a ghost...IN RIVENDELL!?!?!?
But you know what? As obvious as it was that these developers had never even read Lord of the Rings...the game was pretty fun. I was challenged and there were some interesting puzzles, and the game actually had far-reaching consequences for actions taken early in the campaign. It was a rewarding game...even if it pooped a bit on the source material. Riders of Rohan, while much more loyal, was repetitive and rather lackluster.
And therein lies the paradox of creating a game based on established literature.
Everyone wishes for books and movies to wow and amaze them, but that only happens if the literature meets or exceeds that individual's desires and expectations. This is why one person might love a certain book or film, while another person hates it.
The Witcher Series...
One thing that I really love about The Witcher games is that they occur outside of the action of the novels. Unlike the games I referenced above, and many other "hammy" attempts at exploiting licenses by "re-creating" the source material...The Witcher games exist as an audience-driven continuation of the story.
Triss or Yen? That's for the audience to decide.
This is the magic that fuels the games. It's not "canon". The canon never reaches this point. This is the chance for each person to conclude the "loose ends" of the novels in the way they believe it should play out. The audience gets to decide how things unfold and wrap up the experiences of Geralt, and Yen, and Triss, and Ciri, and Zoltan, and Dandelion, and etc., etc., etc. the way they feel it should play out.
That's...why there were...options...in the game.
Trying to dissuade someone from one path or the other defeats the purpose of including the options to begin with. It's not about you. It's not about me. It's about every single player being able to fulfill their desires.
Gaming is a medium unto itself, and the experience is meant to be a personal one.
Share. Discuss. Do not assume.
Books are linear affairs. An author structures stories to create the desired theme and evoke the desired reaction from their audience at the story's conclusion. Even among literary types (like me!), the audience's reaction can be very diverse! Hence the widely accepted belief in "the writer is dead" the minute their piece goes to publication. (This is why almost all writers refuse to comment in any detail on their "intent" behind anything they have written. That's for the masses to decide. It's why literature works.)
Games are becoming ever less linear. Most games are now horizontal or even emergent affairs. Here, we have a problem that has faced all "licensed" games since...forever! Back in the 80's and 90's, players may remember games based on Tolkien's universe. (I love LotR with a passion!) A great example is Lord of the Rings, Vol. I vs. Riders of Rohan (released within a year of each other). While Riders was certainly the more lore-friendly of the two, I really enjoyed LotR, Vol. I more because it offered better gameplay. To be honest, LotR, Vol. I...was absolutely, ridiculously silly. Hobbits fighting wolves every few minutes? You can kill a Barrow Wight with by throwing rocks at it!? I have to rescue Gimli from a ghost...IN RIVENDELL!?!?!?
But you know what? As obvious as it was that these developers had never even read Lord of the Rings...the game was pretty fun. I was challenged and there were some interesting puzzles, and the game actually had far-reaching consequences for actions taken early in the campaign. It was a rewarding game...even if it pooped a bit on the source material. Riders of Rohan, while much more loyal, was repetitive and rather lackluster.
And therein lies the paradox of creating a game based on established literature.
Everyone wishes for books and movies to wow and amaze them, but that only happens if the literature meets or exceeds that individual's desires and expectations. This is why one person might love a certain book or film, while another person hates it.
The Witcher Series...
One thing that I really love about The Witcher games is that they occur outside of the action of the novels. Unlike the games I referenced above, and many other "hammy" attempts at exploiting licenses by "re-creating" the source material...The Witcher games exist as an audience-driven continuation of the story.
Triss or Yen? That's for the audience to decide.
This is the magic that fuels the games. It's not "canon". The canon never reaches this point. This is the chance for each person to conclude the "loose ends" of the novels in the way they believe it should play out. The audience gets to decide how things unfold and wrap up the experiences of Geralt, and Yen, and Triss, and Ciri, and Zoltan, and Dandelion, and etc., etc., etc. the way they feel it should play out.
That's...why there were...options...in the game.
Trying to dissuade someone from one path or the other defeats the purpose of including the options to begin with. It's not about you. It's not about me. It's about every single player being able to fulfill their desires.
Gaming is a medium unto itself, and the experience is meant to be a personal one.
Share. Discuss. Do not assume.
Wrong.She start using him from the first game-First-to get in the Alzur tower, get Alvin and then-acess to Temeria court.
It is hard to tell whether a real person with the personality of "book Geralt" could make to those "bad" choices without the benefits of plot armor or meta-gaming, some are not quite obvious.
Yes, Ciri growing up and becoming independent is an important part of the game, even the "bad ending" choices emphasize this, as do the epilogues. However, that also works the other way, given that Ciri is an adult now and will not live with Geralt after the ending, it is understandable that she distances herself more from the witcher's personal life than in the books (if Geralt is with Yennefer, she even says that it "should not be her concern", but she is glad that they ended up together). By the way, I see someone brought up the idea that the game lacks interactions between Ciri and Yennefer to make Triss look more viable as a romance option - this has been denied by developers on the forum more than once.
For Geralt's standards, anything that lasts longer than a few weeks counts as a serious relationship.
But realistically 2 years does, even if much of it happens off-screen, and I do not think the games could have done more within their limited time frame.The books can be considered canon to the games when it does not conflict with information in the games - if book canon could "overwrite" the games in their own context, that would imply the games are not even canon to themselves, which does not make sense. But I think there is some distinction to be made between "lore friendly" and "canon": the former is more subjective (i.e. you play in a way you think is in the spirit of the books), while the latter is about whether something is officially part of a story according to the copyright holder (the games have their "canon" too in their own context, it just does not matter when talking about the books).
I would recommend playing at least The Witcher 2, with only the last game, you are missing out on character development. An interesting fact: if we combine the two "modern" Witcher games (those built on RED engine), then Triss and Yennefer have almost exactly the same amount of content.
If you mean the mage's tower in Chapter 2, he is used by Azar Javed there, Triss does not even appear in the first two chapters, her only role in that plot line is to save the witcher when he is poisoned. Also, I do not see what is "using" about Alvin. And I have already acknowledged the Temerian politics / Lodge stuff in Witcher 1.
You forgot to mention that she stabbed Yennefer, which was her close friend and that she tried to sell Ciri to the Lodge behind Geralt's back, using the "for the sake of the world" excuse. You can argue that she wasn't aware that Yennefer was alive, which I doubt because she was in constant contact with the Lodge and the Lodge knew about Yen, and about Ciri's situation (Yennefer got help from the Lodge to find her). But a fact is that she didn't even tried, she assumed Yen was dead and that Ciri was gone to make the perfect excuse to use Geralt, which also she probably didn't help with the amnesia purposely just to keep him as her puppet, the mages of The Empire didn't have much dificulty to fix Yen's mind... If you consider the canon, which you should because it's a direct continuation, It's heavily implied in the books that Triss used magical mind control to seduce Geralt, which can be considered rape. In the games, it is a relation based on lies considering that it starts with her pretending to be someone else, while he was clearly thinking she was Yen.
Although, I can see a huge evolution from her charcater in the third game and I hold no hate or anything for her. She implies that she feels sorry for her actions in of W and W2 and she shows she still in love for Geralt, but this time she's ready to give up on him and let him go to Yennefer without saying a word besides "thank you", if that is what he wants, I respect that. She loved Geralt in a deep way and used all she could to conquer the man of her life, I can understand that. It is not easy, but it don't erase all her mistakes from the past and I would respect her much more if she gave up her dream to live the life Geralt wanted in the end, that would have shown she really loves him above all.
Last edited:
I am well aware of all Triss' misdoings and for me it only adds to her complexity. It makes her human. She made mistakes, misplaced her priorities in the past, but while her actions are often wrong, her motivations are not malicious or evil. She believed she was acting in the name of greater good, she was wrong.
And I said in my post, I think she abused Geralt's amnesia by withholding info about Yen, I never denied that. We can't know for sure whether she knew about Yen being alive and whether and when did the Lodge inform her about it nor the extent of info she had on Yen, but my point stands either way. Triss is at fault. But like I also said, Geralt wasn't an innocent bystander, he is the one that has to go his way to pursue Triss romantically in TW1, when most of the amnesia abuse takes place, by giving her the ring, trusting her with Alvin, treating him a certain way, there is also that letter he writes her and if the player chooses so it can have a romantic tone and Geralt can even declare love at Foltest's court. Of course this all heavily depends on player choice, but from the story perspective it is Geralt who pushes his romance with Triss.
About her raping him in the books, I don’t think this is true and here are some reasons why. In the Blood of Elves it is only mentioned she seduced him with the help of a little magic, here is the exact quote: “she had seduced the witcher - with the help of a little magic. She had hit on a propitious moment, a moment when he and Yennefer had scratched at each other's eyes yet again and had abruptly parted. Geralt had needed warmth, and had wanted to forget.”
While this is certainly open to interpretation, based on Geralt’s behavior toward Triss I think it is safe to assume he doesn’t feel like he’s been in any way violated by her. First he invited her to Kaer Morhen to help him deal with Ciri, later when she gets sick, he diligently cares for her until she recovers. As he rejects her desperate passes, it is obvious he only sees her as a friend, but one he genuinely cares about.
Another quote from BoE:
'And you, Triss?'
'What about me?' She swallowed with difficulty. 'I'm not important. I let you down. I let you down ... in everything. I was . . . I was your mistake. Nothing more.'
'Mistakes,' he said with effort, 'are also important to me. I don't cross them out of my life, or memory. And I never blame others for them. You are important to me, Triss, and always will be. You never let me down. Never. Believe me.'
He takes responsibility for what has happened between them and doesn’t blame Triss or feel like she took advantage of him. If Triss maliciously used magic on him, he would surely look at her differently, but to me it is clear he sees her as a close friend.
Her past doesn't need to be erased, and Geralt the way I play him is fine with that, he forgave Triss and not only that, but he fell in love with her along the way. I agree about her being ready to let Geralt go in TW3 and I think by the time she and Geralt meet again in Novigrad she pretty much accepted that it's over between them, but if the player wants to, Geralt can convince her that he loves her. That's also the part of their romance I personally like.
About her not wanting to let go her dreams, when talking about Kovir, she offers to drop it all and says she just want them to be together, but Geralt refuses that and agrees to go with her which is another thing I personally really like. I never deny that Triss did a bunch of shady stuff, but that is something I enjoy about her character. This is the Witcher after all and no character is pure and flawless. Despite all her actions, I still consider Triss to be a good person and I enjoy her and Geralt together.
Last edited: