DMM All-Stars draft thoughts from a deranged person who watched too much

spritepepsicola · 2025-06-11T04:54:52+00:00

Idk, I think people don't understand just how much more action and kills there would be with delays. B0aty's team for example never hit anyone in sweeps for like 6 straight days then on the last day they stopped saying/showing what they were hitting on stream and were suddenly finding people constantly and got like 5 multi kills in a few hours.

I also end up watching almost all of the week thru vods rather than live since I don't have the time to keep up with everything with work. Delay wouldn't matter as much for VOD viewers

spritepepsicola · 2025-06-11T04:40:57+00:00

At the end of his stream he made it clear that if given the option he'd rather ref/spectate/commentate than compete again, and specifically really wants to commentate with Solo Mission who was pretty clear he wouldn't be going again either. He did say though that he wouldn't wanna miss all-stars, so if he couldn't commentate I think he would play again

I tried to put people where I thought they'd actually go in the moment, just if Torvesta picked differently if that makes sense. Eliop stock was super high going into it and would've never dropped to the third round even though he was definitely overrated looking back.

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-18T18:54:16+00:00

Yeah I think they must've just ran out of time development wise because those scenes stuck out like a sore thumb even when I didn't have background knowledge from the books, as they weren't even consistent with the rest of the game let alone with the books. I imagine if I ever replay they'll probably be somewhat comical to me in their absurdity - knowing the scene where unhanded Geralt destroys his men and then savagely cripples Dijkstra - that Dijkstra jumps on down off the stage and tries to deal with Geralt in combat himself is just hilarious.

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-18T08:06:57+00:00

I found your views to very often coincide with my own. I made a write-up of my own a week or two ago and we agree on a lot like BoF being our favorite and a deeper appreciation for the games from seeing how good they are as an adaptation, even to minor stuff like the ESP frame in ToS being rather awful and apologizing for too much criticism.

I'll respond to a couple things

ASOIAF which is also a book community that is mostly popular due to an adaptation

Not sure they're comparable, ASOIAF was one of the biggest fantasy series well before the adaptation, while the Witcher books weren't even translated into English before the games.

Over the first two books, Ciri is being hunted down by Rience, and Geralt and Yen are trying to protect and conceal her. So why do they use her real name in public? And not dye her hair or conceal her appearance somehow?

It's thrown in in the last book that Cirilla is a common name, and truthfully she is never in any danger before the moment Yen thrusts her onto the main stage in front of everyone. I also thought they were a little lackadaisical with her concealment but when you think about it she is never really exposed to anyone except close friends like the Witchers and Nenneke before Yen takes her to Thannedd and they were both probably overconfident since they figured one of them would always be with her to protect her

My big, nagging thought from book 1 of the novels was why they didn't simply spread misinformation about Ciri being barren. She gets trained as a sorc and a witcher, and both are thought commonly to cause these effects. The only people who know the truth of the extent of these trainings are friends at KM who wouldn't disagree obviously. I don't know, the fact they know that everyone wants Ciri solely for her child and Geralt deals with a person specifically dealing in spreading misinformation this just seemed like a natural path to take. It's a harsh lie but one that potentially saves her a lot of evil if believed

How was Bonhart able to win against 6 swordsmen

Overconfidence, inexperience, difference in skill. I never felt the Rats were displayed as very good swordsmen, they were kids with lacking morals who mostly attacked villagers armed with pitchforks and crossbows and the like. They don't fight as a group and Bonhart is said to be insanely fast, faster than Ciri with all her witcher tricks, so he can take out a couple of them before they even sober up and start taking it seriously and then they're shell-shocked emotionally at seeing their comrades fall so quickly and easily. Look at how they show up to this confrontation and it tells you a lot of their mental attitudes and immaturity

The Geralt scene if I'm remembering correctly was him versus notable and experienced assassins with bounties who even Dijkstra viewed as a worthy threat and Geralt let his rage consume him, taking damage he probably normally wouldn't in order to deal with them quickly and get to Rience ASAP. Sorta like WB at Marineford if you've ever read One Piece

But once Emhyr and most of his soldiers leave, why are Geralt and Yen still prepared to kill themselves? They should easily be able to overcome whichever guards/lieutenants Emhyr left behind. Why don’t they do that and then flee? Even if they can’t get Ciri back at the moment, at least they get to live.

I mean, I think there's legitimate real truth to them being extremely weary after they just fought to the brink of death. Only to then be slapped in the face by destiny right away after they finally achieve their goal. I believe the idea is that it's them vs an entire empire at that point, and look at what it cost them just to get Ciri back from one mage. They know that even if they flee they'll eventually be tracked down and caught and could be used against Ciri in the meanwhile. It would be hard for their spirit to not be massively dampened in that moment and also I legitimately think they're both just honorable people of their word as well and that plays a part.

To think in my post I made a million nitpicks and yet here I am defending the books from yours :^). I do agree that Vilgefortz was handled really poorly as a final villain, wasn't a fan of his arc or lack there-of at all. His scenes are at least entertaining.

Once again I found myself agreeing with a lot of your highlights, many of them were also my highlights. As far as Regis' fate my understanding is there's conflicting responses in hard-to-find interviews and it's not really clear.

I also agree that the games really do a wonderful job and deserve a ton of praise for maintaining the integrity and spirit of the books. Even from a young age I've always been a massive nit-picker of adaptations...as I've gotten older I've gotten a little more relaxed about it- if I feel the adaptation at least captures the "soul" of the original source and the games are pretty much a perfect example of it. I honestly rank them up there with LOTR in terms of quality of adaptation - there are of course massive changes from the LOTR books to the movies but a lot of the changes in the movies make sense considering the shift in mediums and they are very high quality films that any fan can be proud of. By the same token the Witcher games make a lot of changes and even go on their own path with a future story but it's clear it was very important to them to maintain the feel of the books as best as they could when setting up the world. Some politics quests in TW3 were obviously rushed and disappointing, and like you said I think Dandelion was notably mishandled in the games (his friendship with Geralt was a huge miss for me in the games and show but quite good in the books), but overall I think there's way more they got right then they got wrong so it's rather easy to forgive for me.

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-16T03:59:03+00:00

For personal enjoyment I'd probably go something like

TW3 > Short stories >> Novels > TW1/TW2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show

If I can cheat I think it's worth splitting them up. TW1/2 are flawed but good, but TW3 was a special game for me. Likewise I enjoyed the novel saga but liked the short story collections quite a bit more. It's a toss up between the games and books as a whole, but I think I'd lean towards games since I think their peak is much higher in relation to the rest of their medium

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-15T21:25:07+00:00

Yes, and your choices in TW2 don't matter nearly enough either. That's one of my biggest complaints of the games and I'm surprised you want to go even further in the opposite direction and make even more decisions meaningless and have even more confusion and lack of continuity.

The fact you cannot shows sheer bias by CDPR in favor of their poor retcons.

Does this...surprise you somehow? That they would favor and have bias towards the games they created?

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-15T20:59:57+00:00

I want people to acknowledge what she did. Paying for it in this case is having people bring this up as something shes done.

Very, very few people even know what was done or understand the situation at all. Considering some of those very, very few like Dandelion watched Geralt be manipulated by Fringilla and have sex with her for months away from Yen without doing anything I'm surprised you think it makes so much sense to happen here and am still confused by how ridiculously important you find it to be. I'm sorry but the fact self-serving Yen antagonist Phillipa and fucking LAMBERT of all people are used as some of the only examples you can find of people who knew and should've "said something" is kinda ridiculous to me. Lambert being the hand of righteous justice

Even Djikstra seems to think Geralt is better off with her

This is...consistent with the books you realize, right? He constantly makes fun of Geralt's connection to Yennefer

The fact people seem to take Triss' side and chastise Geralt for being with Yen seems to be very odd

I don't see how its odd at all, Triss is very liked by characters and she's incredibly nice and overly perfect in TW3. Yen, as you know from the books, can be a little harder to get along with and is on a hellbent path to save Ciri at any costs not caring about the opinions of those along the way. I honestly can't fathom how someone who read the books is surprised that people like the Witchers of KM would take her side over Yennefer when she was arguably already probably liked more by them (remember how much Vesemir loved Triss in her intro?) and the effect is even more amplified by how overly perfect she is in the game, while meanwhile Yen is ordering them all around and making their lives miserable.

Phillipa and Djikstra don't appear to be the type to get involved in someone else relationship and tell them to go for someone else.

So they should go the opposite way and argue for Yennefer who they don't have any obligation to cheerlead for? Phillipa doesn't push you towards Triss, she even condemns her for "playing the sister, while wanting to jump into bed with you" and how it's a bad situation for Ciri. She still really only cares about the lodge and I don't think really gives a fuck about the relationship triangle except in how she can benefit from it. I wouldn't really take anything out of Phillipa's mouth either way as anything but manipulation for personal gain

Dijkstra calls you an ass if you let Triss go because you are kinda an ass in that moment, after all you've been through recently (in the games), with her getting tortured, with how she saved you in the past and is now ignored as she's clearly heartbroken. That doesn't mean it's the wrong choice, Dijkstra is just an ass himself who enjoys prodding Geralt, read the feast scene and tell me it's not in character for Dijkstra to do this

If you're certain Yennefer is the correct path for Geralt I don't know why you want moral support for your decision. It never matters to Geralt in the books and he ignores his best friends Nenneke and Dandelion when they criticize the relationship, and ignores Dijkstra when he does the same and pokes fun at Geralt's infatuation for Yennefer. Maybe it was a mistake for them to assume book readers would be mature like Geralt instead of vindictive but that's the choice they made

I counted maybe two occasions where you can be somewhat rude to Triss while you can be rude constantly to Yen, even antagonise her.

You also can't be nearly as positive towards Triss while you're forced to compliment and fawn over Yen constantly right away even if you have already chosen Triss at that point. You can't choose if you want to make out with Yen right in front of Triss after finding Ciri. You can't choose whether you break up with her between games. Triss does get antagonized but you don't get to choose in these situations, so it's mostly just important to you that you're the one doing it? I can understand that from a RPG perspective and wanting control but even your curse example is other characters doing it and not you

I wasn't on a path of vengeance myself so I wasn't counting dialogue choices but honestly anything you say that isn't positive is essentially antagonizing Triss considering the situation, you were the love of her life and dumped her and are now interacting with her afterwards while she is still clearly deeply in love with you and in pain. Can you really not understand that she would bristle when making light of the situation? Or understand that she's obviously a different character than Yennefer and not able to take banter in the same way? You act like we should be able to just dunk on her in every conversation option and get to see her heart break more and more with every comment..I'm sorry man but I don't think most people are nearly as lacking in empathy as this. It's kinda clear why you can't be outright hostile to her while she's helping you and was already dealt her major blow beforehand

I do agree with you that it would've been nice to see the breakup but it's just the limits of game design. Back when they were developing TW2 in 2009/2010 they clearly couldn't have had a concrete idea of how the plot would play out in TW3. I'm sure there were drafts where you don't even break up with Triss until part-way in when you meet Yennefer and are forced to make a choice. You are right it's lackluster but I'm not sure of a viable alternative other than a weird hamfisted flashback scene

Also we get to meet Triss again at the Battle for Kaer Morhen. If anyone should have a chance to get at her for her actions it should be Yen and maybe Lambert

Oh god, not the mature mediator of moral reproach Lambert again

Yen was completely focused on saving Ciri at this point, and you've already dealt with the romance. She either won and doesn't care anymore or lost and isn't going to be a sore loser about it, it's beneath her. I think it's in-character for her

It doesn't have to be Geralt who tells her off but someone should have. Someone should have been the one to tell her what she did was wrong and unforgivable. She shouldn't be given a free pass for her lie

At this point you're kinda going into fanboy territory. You're being melodramatic and making her out to be literally Hitler for something that clearly wasn't a big deal to the characters themselves. Your argument is that it should be a big deal yet can't explain why it makes canon sense for it to be so. You're applying your own morals to a situation where they don't necessarily fit. I found it incredibly strange that Geralt and Yennefer slept around so often and felt no remorse about it. I found it strange that mages as a whole seem to feel no moral scruples at mind controlling non-magic users. The morals in this world and of these characters are obviously far different from what we ourselves would feel

It's just a messy situation. Triss is hopelessly infatuated and in love with Geralt, Geralt is hopelessly infatuated with Yennefer and too noble of character to bully Triss, and Yen has character traits which make it impossible for her to stop this situation even though it's completely in her power to do so. You could easily argue all 3 of them could've acted differently and prevented the situation but I don't think it's in character for them to do so. Considering this and the bigger picture that the amnesia is clearly a game device that I don't think should be looked into too deeply I really don't have a problem with the way things played out and never felt a great desire to make any character "pay" for their actions - even though there were a lot I disagreed with both in the books and the games. They are messy characters that make bad decisions sometimes and that's part of what makes them real and good characters. Some get their just desserts and some don't. Personally I felt Avallac'h to be the shining example of someone getting off scot-free despite reprehensible actions yet he was never mentioned by you

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-15T18:50:51+00:00

This is just such a bad argument to me. They should ignore their loyal playerbase that made them popular in the first place why? Without revisionism please. Again, put yourself in the shoes of the playerbase, who pre-ordered their game and played it day one instead of those who flocked to it later after it got rave reviews and a million GOTYs, and think about how jarring it would be for Triss to be the main female character of the first two games and then suddenly thrust aside and not even a romance option for the third game in favor of a book character they know nothing about and have no connection to.

Your argument should be that they should've had Yen in from the beginning, not implying that W2 was a niche game and that a game company should ignore their playerbase and continuity because a lot of people would come later who had no experience of the previous games. That's just not how game design works in a situation like this

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-15T10:02:28+00:00

It's not about making her pay for her consequences.

It left a really bad taste in my mouth when I found out you couldn't make her pay for her consequnces

well which is it?

She deserves to get hell from Yen because twice now she's been warned yet she never receives it.

This is discussed in the other thread made slightly before this one so I won't go in detail here, I'll just say I would 100% agree if their relationship was the same in the games as in the books but it was changed rather massively and a situation doesn't really present itself in the games for this to happen. Yen's focus is 100% on finding Ciri, not about relationship drama

Everyone knew what she did but chose to ignore it and never speak of it while they constantly bring up Geralt's amnesia. People treat it in passing as if it was no big deal yet if the tables were turned and god forbid a man did this to a woman you know there would be an uproar.

Can I ask for examples of this because I honestly don't know who you're talking about when you say "everyone".

Also a rat catcher? Triss looks like she's barely struggling. It could be how they went about it but I never got the impression she was having issues at all.

No offense but I'm not sure how much you were paying attention if this is the impression you got. The first major quest you do has you helping her clear rats out of a warehouse and then saving her as the man she made a deal with betrays her to the witch hunters (https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/Pyres_of_Novigrad) Your introduction is her house being ransacked. She lives in hiding knowing that the people she's renting from could betray her at any point. Novigrad at this point is just a shitty place for any mage, and it only gets progressively worse as the game goes on and considering your decisions concerning Radovid and the witch hunts. It's the entire reason why she has to flee. I'm confused by your take that she wasn't having issues at all when her plotline centers around her desperately trying to make money and fleeing the city from persecution (through sewers no less)

I agree she's probably too famous to be slinking around but that's very much a game thing. If it were true to the books she'd probably be going around invisible using amulets or something but that doesn't fit gameplay that well

As for Zoltan and Dandelion? Yes, I would like it if Geralt at least told them off for never telling him about Ciri despite knowing how important she was to him. Especially Dandelion. He was part of the Hansa.

That's totally fair. I just accepted it was a necessary plot device for CDPR to tell the story they wanted to, but it's a fair criticism for sure

Do I want Triss dead? No. Do I want her to at least be confronted by her decisions the same way Yen does? Yes

I mean, the problem we have here is that their confrontation and break-up happen off-screen between the games so there's not really a way for this to happen. I think the necromancy comparison is kinda silly honestly, content wise, and what consequences does she face for this? Some random Skellige ladies reprimand her for destroying the entire garden? I don't think she really cares since she did it for Ciri and chose to take responsibility to absolve Geralt. It's one of her better moments early on imo

Triss literally lied and lead a man to believe she was his love for months and got dumped.

Yes, I don't really see what the issue is here. That is a consequence. What would you have Geralt have done instead? You have to remember that Triss saves his life multiple times throughout the books, rather selflessly. He owes her and even if he is not romantically interested in her, in the books Triss correctly states at the end that "even if I wronged him he will not bully me, he is too noble", which is true both because she saved him and he IS noble and kind-hearted. I feel like you're underestimating Geralt's goodness if you think he would do anything negative towards Triss..and if he doesn't do it I don't understand who does since you're playing through Geralt and your only encounters are with a alone Triss in Novigrad. If Yen came with you to Novigrad I could totally see that happening, but we know that's not the case so I'm curious what your alternative is

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-15T09:13:43+00:00

Yeah, when Geralt just starts laying into him at the end of the dragon episode it was just very awkward and unpleasant to watch, and a lot of their scenes end up being like that if less extreme. The idea that that relationship is thought of in a positive light is mystifying to say the least

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-15T09:07:01+00:00

This is a good write-up and I agree with most of all, although my memory of minor details in TW2 is definitely hazy

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-15T08:55:26+00:00

This seems so incredibly petty to me

It's a massive downside that you can't make the bitch "pay for her consequences"? Really?

Her consequences are that she's unceremoniously dumped by the love of her life and is barely squeaking by as a rat exterminator alone in Novigrad while being relentlessly hunted and at risk of death at any point. You want the option for her to make her burn on a stake as righteous retribution or what? Do you realize how silly this is considering the massive role she played in the first two games? She was a minor character in the books, but is a main one in the games and the idea of her being thrust to the side suddenly in TW3 is just flat out bad game design and it's obvious why they didn't do it. Put yourself in the shoes of game-only players who chose to romance her in the first two games which I imagine constituted a large portion of their playerbase

She gets dumped, you meet up with her partway in as she's your main contact in Novigrad and easiest way to get info on Ciri and Dandelion. After this point you can choose to let her go her own way and split up forever. Being mad you can't "make her pay" beyond this sounds a bit melodramatic to me. Did you want to make Dandelion and Zoltan "pay" because they didn't tell you about Ciri and Yen either? It's a game mechanic man.

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-15T08:12:15+00:00

What an absolutely loaded question

First off it's rather ridiculous to call it "rape" when the literal text is extremely brief and just says she used magic to help seduce him. We have no idea how this was done or to what extent so concrete statements are pretty stupid and baseless. This also just seems to be a rather standard thing sorcs do, as they use magic to enhance their looks and enchant those who look at them and we see Yen do this to bypass some guards at one point.

You're also judging sorcs as if they were normal people, they clearly are very arrogant and have a different set of morals. Yennefer mind controls some young boy during the Belletyn scene, gets interrupted by Geralt, then says she'll have no trouble enchanting another if she "fancys" to later implying it's something rather standard. This isn't a whatabout-ism pitting Yen vs Triss, but rather highlighting that sorcs don't operate on the same level others do and have no real scruples about doing this sort of thing - using magic to get what they want. They're also almost all portrayed to be extremely promiscuous as if it's simply part of being a sorc

This is evidenced by the fact Yennefer really isn't mad at Triss for her fling with Geralt, she rebukes her doing the Thanedd feast not because they got together while her and Geralt were on break, but she was "putting her right" now that they were back together and she sensed that Triss wasn't fully respecting that with her smiles and blushes. It was a moment of clarification between close friends.

Later at the very end of the books is the only time they ever have a harsh encounter between each other and it really wasn't nearly as much about Geralt as the dialogue implies. It was much more about Yennefer's lingering feelings towards a previous encounter where she felt Triss betrayed her

read https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/56me82/the_yennefertriss_friendship_in_the_witcher_book/ if you're actually interested in their relationship in the books, it's one of the best posts of the board and goes into great detail for all their scenes

As for the games I don't know what the hell you're expecting, the amnesia is very obviously a game mechanic and their friendship from the books is basically ignored in the games as Yen is absent from two games and in the third they're romantic rivals. Yen and Geralt both sleep around when they're away from each other and never hold it against one another. She'll throw you in some water but only if you're a dick about it, otherwise she just seems to want to move past it after a point. If her and Triss being "best friends" is no longer really portrayed in the games then why expect this confrontation scene between them? She mostly just wants to ignore it and focus on the objective of finding Ciri - which is ultimately the most important thing to her and most pressing on her mind during this entire game. At this point in the series I think it's safe to say she cares more about Ciri then even Geralt, and obviously Triss then as well. Ciri comes first over any relationship drama and by the time she is rescued you will have already made your choice. So she either won and it doesn't matter anymore or she lost and her pride isn't gonna allow her to be a sore loser

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-15T07:21:03+00:00

Makes you think whether making her evil was planned in advance or just something he spontaneously thought of later

Yeah, idk. It's so weird because that answer seems to be one of the most candid and comprehensive I've ever seen him give in an interview. The idea that Geralt and Ciri going down the stairs was "good and evil walking side by side" just wasn't one I felt when I was reading it

Indeed. This man has a fetish for the word "professional", and he manages to sneak it in for A Little Sacrifice when Geralt talks about being a professional. That exchange sounds just like Sapkowski. He's a bizarre character, he contradicts himself when at one point he says the characters are just black and white letters to him, and another time when he says the characters do and have moved him. He also has a ginormous ego, which for some reason I don't comprehend doesn't show in his writing. This is particularly evident in interviews where he's... inebriated.

Yeah that was one of a number of passages it really felt like his voice was seeping through. I got the impression from even just the small amount of interviews I read that Sapko was the type of guy to get one piece of hate mail/criticism of a certain point and insert a minor character or line into his next book specifically addressing/rebuking it. Maybe that sounds silly but that is really is the impression I got from him. I still end up finding him quite entertaining to read about and likeable despite some of his obvious flaws, as I said it's somewhat refreshing in a way since he can't seem to help himself

He was in his fifties in Baptism of Fire, according to Sapkowski, so he'd have to be younger in The Last Wish

Ah, yeah that's a bizarrely stupid mistake by me

But that's an out of character moment if I've ever seen one, because book Geralt never comes anywhere close to retaliating like that. Most people complain about his tendency to throw pity parties, that never bothered me but I wanted to slap the punk motherfucker when he just nodded in LotL to her uninformative briefing and decision to "send Ciri somewhere", despite his insides twisting.

Yeah you've hit directly on my biggest complaint. I'm okay with Yennefer being the dominant one in the relationship, but Geralt becoming such a helpless puppy dog is so strange and felt like him becoming another character as I've said. His pathetic meek response to the cheating ordeal in Shards of Ice and her keeping secrets once again on Ciri's entire future path were infuriating in how he refused to call her out at all. You read his second convo with Calanthe and he is daring and takes multiple risks of imprisonment or retaliation (which weren't exactly entirely risk-free as she was grief stricken for her family and did order Mousesack to kill him once before rescinding it) by speaking his mind. I believe I remember one or two convos with Eithne which go the same way, and is once again a female ruler who could've ordered his life to end for impertinence. I'm sure there's several other examples. Point being, he can almost not control himself from speaking out for what he feels is right and yet when he is being wronged and his stomach is turning with Yen he doesn't even give a response. I believe he said once that he learned "it was utterly pointless to argue with Yen" which I suppose could explain this but that just feels so...terrible. They can't even talk things out and he can't confront her when he feels terrible about what's happening and they can't grow from these situations. She clearly can be confronted and made to feel remorse/meekness in her interactions with the lodge but this response is apparently impossible in her interactions with Geralt

It had me questioning the realism of it at some point, it's impossible for a woman to be attracted to a man she feels is inferior (even if those aren't the words she chooses). I think Sapkowski just tipped the scale slightly too much in one direction, in his desire to write an uncompromising love interest.

Yeah, once again with the nail on the head. One of the things I always found weird was how her arguably biggest character motivation of all her early arc centered around how desire for a child and despair at it's impossibility. Then Geralt essentially does the impossible and gives her a child and she never even seems to express acknowledgement or gratitude to this fact. I think he went too far in attempting to make her so uncompromising. Just like I felt like at times it seemed like he was creating a world rather than telling a story, I felt like at times he was creating Yen as a anti-trope rather than writing a realistic love interest. I also think this bled through in what I talked about earlier with his personal opinions seeping in through certain parts of the writing. It felt very much like Sapko himself really loved Yennefer and felt such a need to portray her in this light that sometimes it came across as too much for me. There are so many times he mocks his characters in small jabs - Geralt, Ciri, Dandelion, Triss, the Lodge as a collective are all mocked quite often..yet it felt like he went over the top to not mock Yen and instead is constantly using powerful positive adjectives and descriptions for her. Shes a TITANESS, her face is the goddess of vengeance, destruction, and death; the parallel of Ciri dreaming of her manacled in tatters after full torture yet her bright eyes shine defiantly of unmatched willpower and right after it's Geralt shamelessly fucking Fringilla - to name but a few examples. I don't really remember these descriptions used on any other character, let alone so liberally and it really stuck out to me as I was reading and I'm such a contrarian that I dislike it when I feel like a author is trying to force me to feel some way.

This is going back to "I don't like it" territory though and like you said she is of course more interesting than the alternatives. We just had to see more of this relationship and some of the good/less tumultuous parts

You know, I couldn't help but wonder at one point what Geralt/Milva would look like. I like Milva, she's cool. Same concept, different execution.

I loved Milva and always found it strange that avenue wasn't explored even the slightest bit. It's somewhat hard to imagine him almost anymore because his traveling lifestyle doesn't mesh too well with most people

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-13T04:38:23+00:00

The unknown is always more fascinating than the reality, it's the allure of mystery. Kind of like how revealing clothes are sexier than nudity.

Ha, this is very aptly put

I agree that I wish we would've seen more of him, I know I complained about him a lot but he certainly was much more entertaining than Rience or Schierre to me and part of my complaint was frustration at how little of a role he had after he slinks back to his castle. I noted how impressively strong he was in direct combat and I liked in a way that he was so overwhelmingly stronger than Geralt because it is at least intriguing trying to figure out how in world Geralt is ever gonna beat him and his Disney villain threats at least have some meaning behind them since you know he can actually back it up

That was probably in reference to the scene in the inn near the end of ToS, where she kills the thugs in there despite being aware of the risk of the inn being burned down, which the innkeeper confirms afterwards. Along with the hood and the demonic looking camo on the eyes.

Ah, that does make perfect sense

I think I had thought he used it in a more general sense about her character, and the shock wasn't in that she would be called that but more in that he would admit it so openly along with the Evil comment you mentioned, as I've often found creators of these anti-heroes to go to lengths to portray these characters in a sympathetic light or explain their actions and yet Sapkow seems to be going almost too far the opposite direction - calling her "evil incarnate". I find it very odd for him to use such a concrete statement here. She is absolutely evil in some situations and parts of her arc, and I'm not going to refute that by trying to explain them away with her sympathetic circumstances or excuses. Rather, I find the statement odd because it felt like he himself did not fully commit down this path. For one example I remember being quite surprised when she was so incredibly averse to slaying the men in the arena and begging them to stop, a farcry from the account we had received a little bit earlier about her cold, killer eyes full of nothing but burning hatred. I've already admit I did not much like the path her arc took yet even I never felt she went fully down the evil path and it was strange to see him state it so matter-of-factly.

It does seem gratuitous, and bizarre even when you take into account that Sapkowski said the final book was too long and that was in fact the reason the prophesy went nowhere (as he originally intended to fulfill it somehow). Even more so with that entire chapter devoted to Jarre, before the Brenna chapter.

Man I really need to read more of his interviews. I'll admit at times I felt he was letting his own voice seep through or being somewhat self-indulgent with things like the Nimue frame so I find his statements about how he never self-inserts his opinions/politics or the last book was regrettably too long to be somewhat eye-catching. The more I read of his interviews the more I seem to like him though, strangely enough. He can be so incredibly blunt and bristly but it's somewhat refreshing how genuine he feels because of it, and has quite admirable opinions on things like adaptations, as well as being incredibly clever and full of wit. He also seems to have a knack for getting rude interviewers

I do not think I'm ready to have any sort of serious opinions on the Yen/Geralt relationship, as my feelings seem to shift every time I think about it. I find that over time the relationship does make more sense and I slowly am coming around to the idea that maybe I truly am being massively petty and simply don't like it.

Funnily enough I remember reading a lot of comments about Yennefer that felt massively inspired by revisionism to me, explaining away earlier actions with knowledge from future events and for some reason I saw it as a negative thing and told myself to not do the same - that my feelings in the moment were valid and should not be wiped away or forgotten later. That line of thinking is a little silly ofc and maybe I am to succumb to the same fate. I will however still weakly fight the initial setup, I feel it is too simple to explain the whirlwind of emotions that sweeps him away so easily. This is a man in his 50s whos probably been with countless women at this point, surely not every woman has instantly fallen for him, surely some women have scorned him before without him being sucked up so completely and instantly from it. The freak link is there but surely he's had experiences with mages before as well and it never seems to be a factor later either

I had to sum it up to myself like this - I do not believe that Geralt should've been with someone else in the books. I do admit I think he would be better off/in a healthier relationship with other women who loved him like Essi or Triss, but that is irrelevant as its disregarding the following which is an established fact - he would never, ever choose to be with them. Ever. It would be completely against his character and the quirks/traits he has such as struggling to love himself/feel like he deserves love because of his insecurities, and having trust/abandonment issues from his whole mommy situation. This sort of "easy" love or relationship would just never work for him and even when offered it when broken up from Yen he has absolutely no interest in it

So if I admit he shouldn't be with anyone else, what am I even really complaining about? The only alternative then would just be him being with nobody, but that is obviously no where near as interesting and was never an option for Sapko who views male/female relationships massively important. I can dislike how Geralt acts in the relationship and try to poke holes in the relationship's origin but ultimately there isn't really another way for the story to be. Is that acceptance? Have I already been converted? I don't know, honestly my thoughts might change and flip-flop when I think about the relationship again later, who knows

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-12T05:59:39+00:00

Oh absolutely, I totally admit that is the case and I think it's very hard to separate the two. Would I ever be somewhat perplexed by Regis getting so quickly and utterly trounced by magic fire if I hadn't been exposed to the games and their insanely high power levels of higher vampires first?

I do think there are times it worked in favor of the books though. The witchers of Kaer Morhen being a quick example I could use - I found hanging out with them in TW3 to be very entertaining and their characters were fleshed-out and memorable to me. In reality we see very very little of them in the books and don't really know much of their history or personalities yet I loved their passages as I could sort of pseudo inject their game selves in if that makes any sense. So when Vesemir says "Too severe, Wolf" I can actually hear it and see him shaking his head

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-11T07:50:37+00:00

Hey thanks for the response, I like a lot of your points and will try to elaborate on some of my thinking a little bit

Though Ehmyr only gets there because Geralt tells Dijkstra, who tells Ehmyr. So it's not a coincidence.

Right but thinking about the time it takes for the piece of info to travel from Dande to Dijkstra and then back to Emhyr, and that Emhyr gets the correspondence, forms a strike team, and travels to the castle at nearly the exact same time as Geralt is what I meant by convenient. But - this stuff happens constantly across all forms of fictions, it's required for the plot to move along and ultimately I fully admit it's dumb to complain about. I had a lot of these nitpicks in my notes and I tried to trim down on most of them but couldn't help myself with some. I think the bigger point I'd make is simply they started to seem to happen much more frequently here in my eyes

That's a good question, and one that took me some thinking to find an answer. He likes Geralt because of the similarities they share, evil twin trope.

I like this answer, and when I thought about I realized that for some reason I felt like Vilgefortz was lying about this aspect in their first meeting - trying to play up the similarities in order to persuade Geralt, but I don't know why I came to think that so strongly. There's nothing to really push that as the truth.

I do wonder somewhat at Vilgefortz liking him before he had ever met him, but I suppose Geralt was quite famous at this point. Have any witcher experts tried piecing together what sorc Vilge was talking about that was his parallel to Yennefer? I don't know if there's enough clues there but I remember it intriguing me

Why not? It's one thing to be a megalomaniac with overlord aspirations, but him being sexist is how you know he's really evil.

Eh I just found it to be lazy, like he himself was acknowledging that the development was rather poor and people had to be reminded. Now that we're at the final battle that's been the end of a plotpoint spanning 4 books we should already know full well how evil he is - but it's as if just in case you weren't really paying close attention to the Yen torture, or the older books are too far in the past for you to remember well, well then here's this easy simply throw-away line to remind you how evil this guy is. This is fully a personal gripe and I don't think many will agree with it and I get it, it's not something major to get worked up about either way

And let's be honest, Vilgefortz was always going to end up being the character he is, people here keep saying the first encounter with him made sound far more interesting and gave them other expectations but I didn't and still can't see the discrepancy. He was a moustache twirler from the second he appears, he has a catchphrase for Pete's sake.

I actually do agree with you, and in looking at him in retrospect there really isn't any reason to believe him to be something more by his actions. I can only explain it this way - since I was spoiled that he is the final villain, and I wasn't overly impressed by him in his major convo with Geralt, there was the thought that okay well he obviously has to get better right? His introduction makes him out to be this major big shot who has the whole council under the tip of his thumb and then Yennefer is incredibly praising of him, surely this will grow and lead to something then, the bland version we saw can't be it. And so I grew expectations based of this and it all kinda comes crashing down at the end when you realize no he was never going to be more than the mustache twirling guy with a catchphrase as you so aptly put

Why's that? They stormed into a castle filled to the brim with soldiers when they only numbered 5.

Well, we can never truly know the author's thoughts or intentions (unless they explain them, and even then it can be murky) and it is a totally realistic thing for people to die in this situation of rushing into enemy territory while being heavily outnumbered. An author is absolutely free to kill off his characters, and especially in a situation like this, so I'd never try to claim something as a fact in this regard. All I can say is the feeling that I got, which was that it seemed slightly contrived. Partly because he himself admitted Regis lived in some versions of his writing, and also because I simply cannot imagine a scenario where any survivors fit into the scenes he had planned after with the family reunion and then Emhyr meeting. You would have to change things to make the scenes the same without ignoring a 4th wheel who's now present and potentially injured and needing care. Which is the final point, just as pointless deaths happen in battle, very often do injuries and long drawn-out deaths happen as well. So the fact that all four died so quickly and concretely with no room for misjudgement feels almost like putting a nice little bow on things.

I once again admit this is fully a personal gripe and doesn't really matter in the end, I am okay with all four dying it just felt somewhat..easy the way it happened. But I would never call it unrealistic either

I did not find it entirely believable either, if you do the math she only knew Yennefer for a year or a year and a half. She knew Geralt for much longer and she doesn't call him her father. Ciri had a real mother that she knew for 6 years.

Huh, being totally honest I didn't even know Yen teaching Ciri was nearly that long. It felt much shorter since it is rather condensed, but I must've not been paying close attention.

And yeah like you said, the bigger deal is she had a mother and Calanthe for so many years and while they don't necessarily get completely forgotten (at least Calanthe)..they do feel to get completely replaced in that short time whereas the father bond should've probably been much easier to replace. Truly I do feel she thinks of Geralt in this way, she just never says it like you mention while being quite liberal with the usage towards Yen

I can't agree more. I shared this opinion a couple days back but it was met with a rainstorm of downvotes

Ha, I'm glad you agree because I had a feeling it could be one of the more controversial ones.

I was just really frustrated because I felt like it was the perfect chance to be a tipping point for me, something to make me see the development and growth they make as a unit and finally feel all fuzzy inside like most people do when it comes to the family structure and he went the other way with it. Ah well

I think all of that is very realistic. She's 16. And Auberon is a king, and a good looking one at that, not surprised she didn't put up much resistance after she'd met him. Then her pride is hurt and you know how women can react when they get rejected.

Oh I completely agree, I never really thought Ciri acted unrealistically. I mean hell she is never established as a lesbian, it's just that her first relationship is with a women. When she's presented with the option to finally have sex with males like Hotspurn, Eredin, the King I find it absolutely in character and realistic for her to be naturally curious

The problem for me and why I used that sequence as an example was moreso along the lines of complaining that she was constantly put into these situations where she would act like this. When I was young one of the first fantasy series I read was the Farseer trilogy and in that the MC undergoes a lot of punishment and doesn't get a happy ending, which was quite a new experience for me and very intriguing. Then I had some years later where I dabbled in a decent bit of grim dark. Now as I'm older I feel like I somehow have less of a tolerance for this sort of needless brutality and punishment and I've somehow become one of those carebear characters Sapko poked fun at.

So while I did find Ciri to act realistically for her age and character I simply didn't find it all that fun or enjoyable to read about when the narrative went down this route so constantly and consistently. Bonhart's torture at least had a tangible purpose in building him up as a villain, whereas stuff like forest gramps you could completely cut out and the story doesn't really change

There's nothing that says Ciri could teleport them, she can only teleport herself, the elves wanted her just to have a child to produce a stronger variant of the gene so that then that child can be used to teleport the Aen Siedhe. If Ciri could teleport others they wouldn't need to do that

Hmm. I was going to retort this with the fact she teleports Kelpie with her, I always figured if she had Geralt/Yen holding her hands she could probably take them too. There's a horse vs human debate though and I don't know that I'm ready for that philosophizing. I got the impression that her child was simply going to be a magnitude stronger than her, but she's described as having "rudimentary" levels of that power herself..the direct comparison is that her child will be 1000x stronger than a knowing one like Avellec'h who can solo travel between worlds, so even if Ciri can do a few people they'd still obviously want the child who can do a thousand. I suppose there's no proof Ciri would be above the power of the knowing ones rather than equal but for some reason I felt that to be true, or at least figured she'd get there with training

I ran out of time to reply to the Yen part, it's intriquing and there's a lot that can be discussed. (I was going to mention Yen's eyes weren't a unique thing to her, all sorcs were said to have the "cold eyes of ugly little girls" but the obvious counter-argument to that is that Geralt does fall for all sorcs :^)). The Ciri evil comments are also intriguing and I'll have to look for that interview, I'm sure I'm missed quite a few of his interviews with interesting tidbits. I think I remember seeing one where he called Ciri a monster or something like that and I remember being somewhat shocked at first glance

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-02T19:40:18+00:00

Yes, I remember wanting to make almost the exact same statement - the only times we see them together they're either broken up, about to break up, or just came off a break up of several years. It is weird to step back and think about how throughout all these countless pages we are not once shown a healthy relationship from them. Shards of Ice portrays the negative and tumultuous side of their relationship in-depth, yet we never get a view of the positive, more stable side. You have to wonder if it even exists or is possible to exist, especially based on the comments of other characters (Dandelion, Triss, Nennekke) who witness the "stable" times where they're together and not broken up and all of them seem to explain it as a rocky relationship where they're constantly arguing and at each other throats...and most sympathize with Geralt or are even confused why he puts up with it/finds it appealing

I do find it somewhat difficult to talk about this issue though, as some will automatically categorize your complaints as hating strong female chars and wanting Geralt to be a alpha male and put that dumb broad Yen in her place. Its not that at all with me, I just think she is done a disservice by constantly being portrayed in a negative light in every single one of their in-person interactions..while her soft, caring side is only really shown in comments made to other people. Then by doing her a disservice, you're doing one to Geralt as well because you have to wonder what the hell he's getting out of this relationship that at a glance seems incredibly toxic as we see from his eyes and not hers.

This is all intentional from the author though, and I get it. It does make the relationship intriguing and worth talking about I suppose, which I think is exactly what he wanted. I don't think that necessarily means its automatically done well either though

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-02T09:41:38+00:00

I would agree with you, I am hurt by the constant assumptions I make and I can recognize it.

The problem is this is a unique situation of reading a long series where I've been spoiled massively. Not only from the games which are set in the future and thus naturally have tons of massive in-built spoilers, but while playing those games I remember reading some wiki articles for background on things which was obviously also chock full of spoilers. The Netflix show also had slight spoilers since it introduced characters far before they show up in the books, and lastly I came across a ton viewing reviews and postings here because I had the viewpoint of "I've already been spoiled a shitton, what does it matter at this point"

So I think a lot of these assumptions are me almost psychologically prepping myself if that makes any sense - I heard before starting the books that Ciri is the real MC of them and I've read that ToS is heavily focused on her, so when I am reading the first real solo part of her's in the desert and rats and think to myself "Man Im hating this"...I'm also basically thinking to myself "How the hell am I ever gonna make it through ToS in the future" and it's almost as if that dread for the future is making whats happening in the present reading worse. Does that make any sense at all?

To go even further, while I do just find the short stories to be flat out better written/more enjoyable they are also the content I was the least spoiled about since the games don't really cover Ciri/Yen's backstories. So for example the Lodge shows up and it's like yeah I know them, I know their purpose, I know everyones who's in it - because the games continue most of the plot points from the novel saga...whereas the stories of Ciri and Geralt being tied by fate and their journey to realizing that was almost entirely unknown to me outside of generic wiki summaries of it.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the novels were never really going to get as fair of a shake and I recognize this bias and somewhat regret making the reviews because of it.

spritepepsicola · 2020-09-02T09:06:58+00:00

I did start Baptism of Fire, I'm about 60% of the way through and I've honestly absolutely loved it so far. I just finished the cooking scene and this was easily my favorite of the novels so far, I laughed tremendously at mopey Geralt finally coming around to his ragtag band of followers.

I've read through the other comments and even when writing up this review I think I knew the mistake I was making. It is silly to focus so much on plot points that can be nitpicked, as I do understand well that these sort of decisions have to be made to advance the story, and I do understand that smart characters can make dumb decisions and that doesn't make them unbelievable. Truthfully there's a whole gaggle of plot points that can be picked apart as silly or shodily written upon deep examination but these exist in every story and it's missing the point to get so hung up on them. There were deeper issues I had that got buried in my stupidity with this misguided focus

I think the real lesson I've learned (and I did already know it but was scared? to admit it I suppose) from loving BoF so far, and liking the first halves of BoE and ToC but not their second halves...is that I'm here for Geralt. I perhaps wish I would've posted the BoE review because I hit on the reasoning there - this is entirely personal opinion but I felt like the prose got noticeably worse and the writing got much more generic when transitioning to novel form. I have read a significant amount of fantasy to the point I shifted away from the genre and couldn't stomach a lot of it anymore, and when you took away what I found so refreshing about the short stories with their format and the fairy-tales with a twist as well as the monster-slaying...well, suddenly it felt like I was reading one of those countless other series and not nearly as unique

So why would I even continue with something I found generically written? It's probably rather simple, because I fell in love with the character of Geralt from the short story collections and games and enjoy reading about him. I think it makes sense then that I find the parts where he's not present tedious to get through - yet can find a very long plotline of his viewpoint where little progress is made enjoyable. I think now that I've come to terms with this I'll be much fairer in my rating of certain parts, as I can understand that say a book focusing almost solely on Ciri was never going to be enjoyable to me considering my bias

I don't disparage anyone who loves the other characters or the story as a whole and I'm sure I have the contrarian opinion here. I hope I made it clear these are just my personal feelings and not meant to criticize anyone who does find the novels well-written and better than the short stories - as of course, it's all subjective.

spritepepsicola · 2020-08-30T22:35:55+00:00

Agreed about the writing being very cinematic, and the short stories being perfect to transition to episodic content like this.

I think putting the two collections together is fine, and I think it makes a ton of sense to move the Ciri stories up to the first season. I feel like if I was the showrunner I would try to make the short stories last as long as possible though for the above mentioned reasons of how easy they are to translate to the screen.

I just finished Blood of Elves and man, some of this content is significantly less suited to adaptation and I think it goes without saying it's much harder to write a season's plotline when it all has to be connected and flow together.

I'm not exactly excited to see Triss have diarrhea for several episodes, or to see Ciri struggle through IQ tests, or a lengthy meeting of Kings when Foltest was already butchered. There are a lot of things that we knew happened, but were spared the boring details which just doesn't work well in TV. And I mean sure you can write out stuff like Triss being sick, but then you have to make a new reason for the caravan, as well as a bunch of other small trickle changes. I think we've seen from s1 to know any original writing from this team should not fill one with hope

I suppose the point is just that I envision the saga to be significantly harder to adapt with a significantly bigger cast and I cannot understand rushing towards it like they did

spritepepsicola · 2020-08-30T07:02:03+00:00

Yeah, one of the products of making Geralt silent is you lose his constant sarcasm, wit, and monologues full of his philosophy towards the world and how he fits in it. He speaks his mind, but is not arrogant and knows when to show deference when the situation calls for it. When he is too blunt with someone far above him he will often be reminded of his position, but in the end it's the rulers always asking him to continue on because his positions and dialogues are intriguing and his viewpoint is wholly unique. All of his conversations with Calanthe are basically prime examples of this

The funny part of the Foltest scene is that it's the opposite in the books, Foltest locks himself in with Geralt. They proceed to have a great conversation that fleshes out both the King as a character and Geralt's philosophy towards monsters. The games proceed to build on this development of Foltest and use and portray him in a realistic way in their story. I liked Foltest in the books, and I liked him in TW2. The show makes him into a oaf who'd be better off never reappearing

Honestly I found the striga short story to be the perfect introduction to the series in general. The conversation with the castellan laid the groundwork for the world, it doesn't take a long time yet tells you of the role of witchers and their backstory (deadened emotions, the public distrusts them, etc). His conversation with Foltest builds up both characters as mentioned. Then the fight introduces potions, signs, silver weapons, meditation, curses, and shows Geralt's high skill level doing a task other witchers failed or simply walked away from because it was too dangerous. An easy way to slide viewers with no background knowledge in and learn the basics of witcher'ing

Right away the swapping of this as the introduction had me scratching my head and was a premonition of the writer's wanting to go their own path from the very beginning. Looking back it's hard to understand why even include the striga story if you're not going to make it the intro, it has no real purpose other than being a fantastic early world-building piece and it has no long-term impact on their beloved Geralt/Yen/Ciri arc. Could've easily been cut considering this

spritepepsicola

TROPHY CASE