Thats my point? Sorry I meant alone not along. Geralt and Yen seems to make the most sense based of the books. I get people feel sorry for Triss esspessially if they started the series with 1 and 2 but... She never really was that significant in the books. Niether was Shani.I am just gonna put this in spoiler tags for you (Plus I still need to read the last book but I do know in short terms how it ends already, and what the last book is about.) But I am waiting until September for he official translation to be released (in my native language) since I am not such a fan of 'fan translations'. Although it is a nice thing that they are there ofc.
To keep it really short for you, in the last book aka the lady of the lake, Geralt was ready hanging up his swords for good. he actually really wanted to settle down, but as you know he and Yennefer both got killed in Rivia. And so were taken to the island of Avalon by Ciri. So in a way they both did kind of retire forever on that island. Were apple trees bloom eternal. And of course living in the cottage/house they both dreamed of in time of contempt (actually that was Geralt's dream to begin with.) the ending of Geralt and yennefer being together (if one so chooses in Blood and wine) is rather canon to the end of the books
Yes, that's what I wish they had done. As it stands, you either have to tell her Geralt never really loved her in all of those decades or refuse to help her when something she stresses it's important. It does not make our witcher look good, and it is far from a fitting end to their relationship, if the player chooses to go that way.Theoretically, they should have avoided involving Djinn and its supposed "magic" with the breakup and just have a normal conversation where players can chose between a few dialogue options to explain their reasons (an intention to be with Triss would obviously be one of them).
As it stands now, the least awkward/cringey way to do it is to avoid the The Last Wish quest altogether.
I think the person who said that meant that if they made a sequel with Geralt as the protagonist, the Lone Wolf ending would make the most sense. The ending that is most faithful to the books is definitely the one with Yennefer. I doubt there are many people who question that.Thats my point? Sorry I meant alone not along. Geralt and Yen seems to make the most sense based of the books. I get people feel sorry for Triss esspessially if they started the series with 1 and 2 but... She never really was that significant in the books. Niether was Shani.
Well, I hadn't read the books at the time and I didn't... in TW1, anyway, since TW2 didn't really give you a choice.Ah I see.
Well yes but allot of people who played witcher 1 and 2 and never read the books all go for Triss lol.
Oh, like I said, I don't blame the character. I think she is being a little irrational (if you have mostly ignored Triss throughout the trilogy, that is; otherwise her attitude would appear to be justified by Geralt choosing her best friend over her), but I think most people would be in her place. It's just that it is awkward, when you payed little interest to Triss throughout the trilogy, to see Yennefer make such a big deal about it. It's not a problem with the character, but with the way the story plays out. TW3 kind of assumes Geralt had this RELATIONSHIP with Triss even if you avoided all non-mandatory content with her and mostly blew her off at every chance (choosing Shani in the first game, refusing to abandon the hunt for Letho to go live with her, saying goodbye to her in Now or Never, etc.) which is a strange experience.Just dont talk about the bed and its fine. And in a way you cant blame her. One reason I like the character. Sure she is a love intrest but shes still a character who has her own thoughts and feelings.
It is not really close if it removes an important element, the possibility that they are actually dead. One might say, the game's version is "fan service" like that short story mentioned below. Again, it is a different ending, at a different place and time, the books say nothing about Geralt settling down in Toussaint in 1273 with anyone. Thus, it is not an event that is canon to the books, even if it may seem somewhat similar. The only thing that is common is that Geralt and Yennefer are together. Which is what they wanted in the books. But whether that would stay the same 5 years later, after all the events of the games, is already a matter of opinion, the books offer no "canon" for this particular scenario. They tell that Geralt and Yennefer were in a relationship in 1268, but a relationship is not a permanent fact that can never change.I know the games are not canon but the books are, and so my statement is and what I was explaining (and again it is stated in the book and I am relating it how close it is to the end of the canon in books/lore)
If it is non-canon according to the author, then it does not really matter, after all, it is probably non-canon for a reason. It is basically like that wedding quest for Witcher 1.There is even a non-canon story called something ends, something begins were again they end up being together.
It may be "most faithful" in the sense that Geralt is in the same relationship as he was in in the books. One may or may not believe that the events of the games can change that. But my original point was simply that there is no objectively "canon" ending in the game.The ending that is most faithful to the books is definitely the one with Yennefer. I doubt there are many people who question that.
We'll see, chances are indeed that it will include some.I became very spoiled from Witcher 3.
I don`t play any dumb games without story and without lots of romance and love options anymore (best are gothic love scenes). Cyberpunk would not be interesting at all without romance and love scenes, and without interesting characters, and it would become as uninteresting as Deus Ex.
That is not necessarily what he means, but even if we interpret it literally (which disagrees with the outcome of not doing the quest), it still does not imply that he could not love her in the past without the wish, only that he does not in the present. Of course, with the "magic" interpretation, the opposite is also true of the "still love you" option. Perhaps it is best to just skip this quest in the end, the wish was never broken in the books, either.Yes, that's what I wish they had done. As it stands, you either have to tell her Geralt never really loved her in all of those decades
At least he has a good reason to do so. After all, if the djinn could already wait for 20 years, wouldn't it make more sense to rescue Ciri first, and then deal with the djinn later ?or refuse to help her when something she stresses it's important.
I do not think it ends simply because of ignoring the quest, but more as a result of Geralt' s recent relationship with Triss that Yennefer does not forgive easily (as it can be seen in Vizima and especially Kaer Morhen, and is also mentioned in the journal), unless they reconcile at the end of The Last Wish.It does not make our witcher look good, and it is far from a fitting end to their relationship, if the player chooses to go that way.
Well, you had no choice over what happened in the books before the games either, yet it is considered part of the story. The games cannot give choice over everything, and they are admittedly not good when it comes to implementing consequences to choices made in the previous game (or, in this particular case, even two games earlier). So, some parts of them end up being pre-defined.It's always funny, hearing Yennefer's jealous tirade. I couldn't help but wish Geralt could tell her that, really, she was seriously overestimating the extent of the relationship. I cannot help but feel slightly irritated that in a trilogy known for choice and consequence, I seem to get punished for something I, as the player, had absolutely no control over.
Even if you do choose Shani in Witcher 1, it is a short relationship, which is broken up at Shani's choice shortly after the ending. While providing a consistent timeline is a problematic aspect of the games (as this recent example shows), one could very well imagine that Geralt was with Triss until and including the prologue of TW2 for a few months, even if it happened off-screen. Also, he says to Foltest in a conversation before the king is assassinated that what he wants as a reward for his services is to leave and settle down with Triss. Thus, even if you avoid it as much as possible, it is still a relationship more than just a one night stand. That is what the game is trying to show you with the scene in the tent in the prologue, and in the Foltest dialogue.TW3 kind of assumes Geralt had this RELATIONSHIP with Triss even if you avoided all non-mandatory content with her and mostly blew her off at every chance (choosing Shani in the first game, refusing to abandon the hunt for Letho to go live with her, saying goodbye to her in Now or Never, etc.) which is a strange experience.
Want to reply only to this, the comparison cannot really stand because the book is a book, you're reading a story, you cannot choose to shape yours unless you write a fanfic. A game is a game (rpg with choices and consequences). You don't start with predefined choices (from the books) that affect W1 plot anyway while W2 and W3 definitely do so when ignoring what you have chosen in the previous game (and not from the books).Well, you had no choice over what happened in the books before the games either, yet it is considered part of the story.
Who's disputing this? I mean, the games are obviously not a re-telling of the book events, they are a non-canonical sequel to the novels, I haven't seen anyone claiming otherwise. It's clear to me that when people write about lore-friendly playthroughs, canon Geralt and whatnot they mean "faithful to the books".It may be "most faithful" in the sense that Geralt is in the same relationship as he was in in the books. One may or may not believe that the events of the games can change that. But my original point was simply that there is no objectively "canon" ending in the game.
In the game they still love each other even after the Djinn is defeated. Therefore it must be true love (if the gamer makes this decision).One can argue all of it was the Djinn and Geralt cursed them both by momentary infatuation. Seem like a very cynical take on romance to me.
Let's put it this way: Deus Ex, Planescape Torment and The Witcher series are my "Holy Trinity" of video games. Regarding the original Deus Ex (and Human Revolution) - those games have some of the best stories I ever played, they raise some very interesting, thought-provoking questions without preaching the correct answers on them. Calling them "dumb games without the story" because they don't contain the romances is, well... making me react like that poor kid. But, you are almost certainly right about CP2077 having romances, so nothing to fear there.I don`t understand this joke
Exactly this. And there is a lore friendly (close to the canon of the books) play through.It's clear to me that when people write about lore-friendly playthroughs, canon Geralt and whatnot they mean "faithful to the books".