Discourses around this stuff always gets bogged down by the same bandwagoning on both ends of the discussion. There are people crying “woke!” because the main character is no longer “Gerald” (because nothing says “the lore is very important to me!” like not being capable of spelling or pronouncing the main character’s name). Then there are people writing off any criticisms as anti-woke incels.
I did see an idea posted elsewhere (I forget where) that Ciri might have pursued Witcher mutations in an attempt to render her Elder Blood inert to subvert Ithlinne’s Prophecy. Given that she is basically a walking time-bomb promised to end humanity, it makes sense she would look for a way to not be the harbinger of the end times. Plus we’ve got the bauk telling her she can’t change fate, and the coin teasers pointing towards armageddon as a theme. I can see a path forward there that respects the lore despite seeming to subvert it at a glance.
To be fair I think there’s a massive boy who cried wolf thing going on there. There’s such a big market of anti-woke grifters out there that it gets tiring trying to find people talking about games without finding people who aren’t familiar with properties complaining about stuff that fits properly (recently I’ve run into Mechwarrior 5:Clans reviews complaining about DEI being shoved into the game because they used 30 year old characters that look exactly like they did in the old rule books, or the Indiana Jones game nailing the feel of the older movies because there’s a strong female lead and Indy on occasion screws up)
Sure, some people go too far the other way, but there isn’t the almost industry of people using games as an excused to push the culture war that way.
1 Like
the game is set years after the Witcher 3, shockingly women do get older and their voice does change. I would expect being out in the elements and fighting monsters to age someone.
Also Geralts look did change in each game. In fact, in the first game he looked like Riff Raff from the rocky horror picture show.
1 Like
There were people that didn’t even notice it was her immediately. Even people who liked the reveal noticed. Her voice didn’t change it’s an entirely new voice actress. I don’t see why this is a controversial topic honestly.
It’s still weird how people are desperate to defend these billion dollar companies over every decision. People are either 100% with them or 100% against them with with no nuance. That’s the problem you can be critical of certain decision’s without falling 100% into either camp.
There’s some weird phenomena where people are viewing this as a political battleground. It’s impossible to discuss it because most people view at as an attack on them and their political beliefs.
Of course people are going to be critical. The Witcher 3 is one of the best RPG’s ever made and people are passionate about it. This game is coming out well over a decade after the previous entry, combined with how poorly cyberpunk launched, as well as the mediocre quality of most AAA RPG’s.
That’s not even getting into the lore about the trial of grasses, women being unable to become witchers, Ciri being ridiculously powerful without being a witcher, how she’s a princess who should be running almost everything. There’s going to be a ton of retconning going on which will piss off a lot of people who are invested in the lore.
I’m withholding judgment until we see the actual product, but I can see why people are not happy about the direction.
1 Like
it’s just as weird as people are desperate to judge a game based on a trailer 2-3 years prior to the game release. I’ll make my opinion on the game when I actually play it but I don’t need to defend or attack the game, it simply exists in an unplayable form and until that changes I have better things to care about.
We’re actually in agreement. It’s hard for me to get worked up over a CGI trailer from something years away.
Well, fortunately the Witcher games have pretty modable in the past and have a huge fan base of modders to draw on… so Ciri’s actual look shouldn’t be much of an issue. As for her voice and the story, I guess we’ll have to wait and see? Though, I did see an article saying the devs claim that the game won’t offend the lore. Didn’t read but who knows?
We’ll have to see but the story is 1000% the biggest concern. Women can’t complete the trial of grasses and become witchers. She’s the lady of space and time meaning she’s ridiculously powerful and has no need to be a witcher in the first place. What about ruling the kingdom? She’s a princess after all.
Instead she’s slumming it as a bum trying to collect a few coins here and there. People are glossing over the fact that the witcher was about Geralt and Ciri, and everything was wrapped up perfectly at 3.
I’ll stand by my original opinion that the series was too big to not get a sequel, but probably shouldn’t have. It needed new characters and stories.
1 Like
not true because drum roll the minute Andrzej Sapkowski says they can then they can as for his opinion on the whole subject it’s pretty clear
Kalemba said CDPR has a strong relationship with Sapkowski, who, he says, is quite happy with the work the studio does. Eurogamer asked what he specifically thinks about making Ciri a Witcher and the star of The Witcher 4, and Kalemba had this to say
“I can actually give you a very good answer, because it’s the answer that Andrzej Sapkowski usually gives: the answer is in the books,” Kalemba said. “And in the books, Andrzej Sapkowski called Ciri a witcher multiple times, and Geralt called Ciri a witcher in the books too. So I think that basically says what Andrzej Sapkowski thinks about the topic.”
The duo said they started preparing the way for Ciri to take over from Geralt by introducing her as a second playable main character in The Witcher 3. The Witcher 4 is her time to shine, and, more importantly, to grow. Weber said that part of what makes Ciri an interesting protagonist is that, unlike Geralt, she’s not set in her ways. She’s still learning.
maybe that’s the story (I don’t know)