Things that make no sense [Minor Spoilers?]

[korytoombs]

So I'm currently playing the Witch 3 (Still trying to find Ciri...) and some things aren't adding up. Keep in mind that I have played and completed the first 2 games and I know that a book series exists.

1) Gerarlt died = how is he alive? (This is an event that never happens in the game. This is an event that actually happened in the book, but the info is repeated many times.) They should have just gone with lost memory, bcause the devs never explain Geralt's ressurection. The book is sort of cannon but it sort of isn't as well?

2) Triss / Hell, Geralt's other freinds never tell Geralt about Yenefer and Ciri in the first 2 games= does everyone have amnesia? Triss may have a hidden agenda, but what about everyone else Geralt knows. The devs oviously didn't know where this was going for the third game.

[MaximumEffort]

Originally posted by korytoombs:

So I'm currently playing the Witch 3 (Still trying to find Ciri...) and some things aren't adding up. Keep in mind that I have played and completed the first 2 games and I know that a book series exists.

1) Gerarlt died = how is he alive? (This is an event that never happens in the game. This is an event that actually happened in the book, but the info is repeated many times.) They should have just gone with lost memory, bcause the devs never explain Geralt's ressurection. The book is sort of cannon but it sort of isn't as well?

2) Triss / Hell, Geralt's other freinds never tell Geralt about Yenefer and Ciri in the first 2 games= does everyone have amnesia? Triss may have a hidden agenda, but what about everyone else Geralt knows. The devs oviously didn't know where this was going for the third game.

1) Its explained in the 3rd game, as well as the 2nd game.

2)They did not know the particulars, plus they like Triss, as much as one likes every Geralt friends. Also, power of plot.


Actual mystery:

Geralt a master witcher and the best swordsman in the game (no question) can't jump a foot high fence, a table, a stool and the occasional box.

[korytoombs]

Shani should be a choice considering she was in the first game. I seem to remember choosing her over Triss too because she wasn't as manipulative as Triss was. The second game seemed to have me chase Triss throughout the entire game without ever mentioning Shani. I heard she's in the thrid game's epansion, but more of a fling.

[Seb081]

Also the lack of emotions is never explained

[DrNewcenstein]

Originally posted by Seb.Virual:

Also the lack of emotions is never explained

Yes, it is. The mutations strip them of emotions.

[korytoombs]

The lack of emotions is mentioned frequently, it's hard to miss.

[Lambert]

also, the thing that dissapoints me is that when Ciri left Geralt and Yen at the isle of Avalon (Lady of the Lake book) she went to King Arthur legends, 90% of the book set in this time, i also know the game took place after this book but they didn't mention a bit about it, and if you found Ciri, Geralt will ask to Ciri where did she go, but i won't spoil it to you

kinda dissapoints me tbh, i know the Author left Ciri in the Arthurian legends, then CDPR didn't mention it a bit instead jumped her out to be chased by Eredin, i had hope the game explains what happened to Ciri and Galahad (her lover) in the Arthurian legends, but nothing..

[Seb081]

Originally posted by DrNewcenstein:

Originally posted by Seb.Virual:

Also the lack of emotions is never explained

Yes, it is. The mutations strip them of emotions.

Not true, they still feel love, happiness and many others.
How do you explain that Geralt loves a person or that he feels bad for someone?
He only acts as a depressed person not as a machine.

[Living Broscillograph]

Originally posted by Seb.Virual:

Also the lack of emotions is never explained

Because it's a convenient lie.

[Seb081]

Originally posted by Living Broscillograph:

Originally posted by Seb.Virual:

Also the lack of emotions is never explained

Because it's a convenient lie.

They never mention that.

[spectre199]

about the the whole mutations strip witchers of emotions that is not true cause in the novels Geralt shows emtion to Yen and other people. To Yen he shows actual love and other emotions to other people

[Living Broscillograph]

Originally posted by Seb.Virual:

Originally posted by Living Broscillograph:

Because it's a convenient lie.

They never mention that.

Burden of proof lies upon a person making claims, so nobody bothers to argue with a lie that doesn't stand against what everyone sees when really meets a witcher.
Even Professor in TW1 states the opposte proving a need of a new generation of witchers that actually lack emotions and ability to feel, think and make assumptions.

[deidian]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

But the problem lies with constantly jumping into and out of various worlds, alternate realities and time frames because it creates a bit of a mess. You pick up and drop themes at will. Confuse issues and threads of stories until they simply become a jumble of ideas.

Is personal opinion but I like the way ToS and LotL are structured, I actually like that constant jump between times and POVs because it forces you to read with the head in the book to not lose track of what's going on. Also is not a mess for a reason, even with all the jumps of POV and time the story is still in linear structure: the events flow as they happened through the pages of books, not disordered. That a particular scene is set 100 years later with another characters means nothing when the point of that entire scene is providing you with information about the present of the narrative.

[Lambert]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Originally posted by Millian:

also, the thing that dissapoints me is that when Ciri left Geralt and Yen at the isle of Avalon (Lady of the Lake book) she went to King Arthur legends, 90% of the book set in this time, i also know the game took place after this book but they didn't mention a bit about it, and if you found Ciri, Geralt will ask to Ciri where did she go, but i won't spoil it to you

Thing is the entire series of stories is set in alternate realities. Wherever CIri went, and she went to several different worlds -- the one with Galahad was just one -- doesn't mean they were set in our reality. So what is it that's disappointing you?

kinda dissapoints me tbh, i know the Author left Ciri in the Arthurian legends, then CDPR didn't mention it a bit instead jumped her out to be chased by Eredin, i had hope the game explains what happened to Ciri and Galahad (her lover) in the Arthurian legends, but nothing..

Again, not sure why you are assuming that Ciri remained there. She tells Geralt the Wild Hunt was pursuing her and that she had to flee to many different worlds. There's nothing to indicate that she remained long in Galahad's world. Each time she uses her magic, they can track it.

She then tells Geralt about seeing a world that sounds very much like it would be Night City from Cyberpunk 2077, which is self-serviing, of course, since it's promotional for CDPR's hopefully next game.

You wanted the game devs to provide closure for Ciri and Galahad when not even Sapkowski seemed interested in doing so. He is/was content enough with leaving it where he did. His latest book, published five years ago now, Season of Storms, is set much eaerlier, between the short stories in The Last Wish. But it also offers some different theories about what happened on that island where Yen and Geralt were left by Ciri.

In a lot of ways, the book felt like a bunch of isolated bits that Sapkowski had always intended on using in his other books but never got around to or decided against at the last minute, then threw them all into this 400 page novel. It's kind of all over the place, covering history, relating tales third-person, jumping around so much that it can give one whiplash. Coral, Nimue, and a bunch of adventures felt like they'd be better served as short stories than as part of a rambling novel.

As Nimue, her meeting with Geralt a hundred years after Avalon may have been just a dream, a convenient way for the author to acknowledge the games in some small way by insisting that there will always be a need for witchers. That Geralt should have survived Avalon and still be alive after a hundred years is not impossible since Vesemir was over three hundred years old. But it's the glancing over the details that makes it seem less likely that he would have survived the Rivian riot. I think Sapkowski was just covering his bets.

If he decides to write another book, he could always set it in the past once again but my guess is that with his involvement in the Netflix TV series, he probably won't have much time to write. Then again, creative consultants are reknown for not actually getting their hands dirty in the weekly scripts needed for TV series so it largely becomes a job in name only. He just doesn't seem all that interested in continuing the Witcher story in any way, shape or form these days.

The real problem, as far as I'm concerned, is all the jumping around. Fantasy does indeed mean creating a world which does not exist but could given the familiar things within the confines of the story itself. But with the Witcher series, particularly a short story called Something Ends, Something Begins, which Sapkowski wrote for a friend and which is considered non-canon, it takes things to a whole new level. It tells the story of a gathering at Yen and Geralt's wedding, including all of their friends and Ciri and Galahad.

The whole point of The Lady of the Lake was that Ciri had traveled to Galahad's/King Arthur's world and time while escaping the Wild Hunt. There, she related several tales to Galahad about her life and many of Geralt the Witcher. But the problem lies with constantly jumping into and out of various worlds, alternate realities and time frames because it creates a bit of a mess. You pick up and drop themes at will. Confuse issues and threads of stories until they simply become a jumble of ideas.

That Geralt and Yen died at the end of Lady of the Lake is a given. That Ciri is telling it all to Galahad after the fact, is also a given. That CDPR chose to pick up the story at a specific point and ignore the rest is the basis for the three video games. Could they present as an argument that they're using an alternate reality in which Geralt and Yen survived -- just gets messy. And that's why it's probably best to just leave well enough alone. Fantasy should never be too closely examined or it will fall to pieces.

As for Ciri and Galahad living happily ever after in Camelot, who the hell knows. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the Wild Hunt shows up and ruins their wedding. When two stories diverge, it's nearly impossible to try and bring them back together again without tons of issues.

you don't need to explain everything in that book because i already read it and you just wasted your time explaning, like i said, the game inspired by the books and i don't need them to explain everything about the Lady of the Lake book, just wanted them to mention a bit or two because the game took place after that book, i simply don't care about Ciri and Galahad, i just thought they would mention it a bit or two, and how many times i have to say this? it's clear how i got a little dissapointed because i read the book first then play the game.
to be honest, all your time explaning to me is just a waste of your time.
i state a simple dissapoinment and you just went full throttle againts me by explaing the book which i already read several times, and that book left an empty hole.

[korytoombs]

The game should really explain everything. It shouldn't have to rely on poeple's knowledge of the books. I think this is the important part.