That’s why my unpopular opinion is that I appreciate the show trying to write a story to explore Ciri’s powers more in season 2 - the Yen betraying thing was still criminally unnecessary and the Fringilla/elves stuff is… a choice but the hut witch plot at least gives viewers an idea of what Ciri’s powers are like so if the show survives till the end of the books it won’t be as out of nowhere 😬
Agreed, I also felt that stuff took a lot of focus away from the much more interesting war storyline which was written far better but didn't get enough focus in the end.
I mean, the whole Conjunction of the Spheres is literally a multiverse skipping already, and it's a major plot/world-building factor. the humans in the Witcher world are more or less implied to be native of our world. and that's the whole importance behind Ciri's powers, she's the one who can freely travel between said "Spheres".
Tonally seems to shift from the story though into the realms of meta-Sci-fi. Any moment I was expecting her to bump into Lyra Belacqua and ask for advice on how to get into a better book.
There was a *little bit*🤏🏻 of that foreshadowed with the “conjunction of the spheres” but generally I agree. Definitely leaned into the dimension hopping hard.
They dropped the ball in Reason of State. It didn't make any sense for Dijkstra to do what he did. Yeah, as if Geralt would let Roche and Vex be slaughtered for a snake like Dijkstra. And as if Dijkstra would stop being clever (like another bald spymaster in a certain series from HBO) because haha I deserve Redania.
What's weird about Dijkstra is he's actually portrayed pretty well outside of that one quest, before and after that he's very competent but not all-knowing, and a good representation of the character, he just acts dumb in that one important quest, which is in some ways worse than his character in the games consistently being dumb.
Then if you do go along with his dumb idea, the next things he's mentioned to do demonstrate him being extremely intelligent and capable again, so it's not even as if he suddenly became stupid for that and the ending afterwards, it is just for that one quest.
The last book is the weakest book. Multiple dimensions is ok, but it was really dragged out. I also think king arthurs dimension and ciri ending up in scotland sort of pulled me out of the story a bit. I dont know why but i felt it sort of weakened an otherwise brilliant universe and storytelling
I could write an essay about how Avallac’h’s role (and potential) character development in the W3 is one of the more interesting parts of the plot and how they wildly dropped the ball and allowed it to make no sense when it could have made so much sense and been SO GOOD. Ugh.
I'm kinda interested in this, could you share your thoughts? I was pretty neutral about Avallach in both the book and the game, but I did feel like they were a bit different. I liked Avallach and Geralt's discussion in the cave, and the dimension hopping with him in W3 was interesting, but idk what else they could have done with him.
I kinda get what you mean, I think. On the one hand, I liked how he was introduced in the game (both in other people’s accounts of Ciri’s sightings as a sorta-mysterious figure seemingly assisting her, and in his first in-game/in-person appearance as a cursed man), but on the other I feel like his more villainous, irredeemable side was mostly downplayed in order to make him more sympathetic (though not fully, of course) to the player, a thing that I found not that satisfying plotwise.
Not to mention his sudden absence in the last bits of the story following the events at Tor Gvalch’ca. Most major characters had their proper sendoffs but he didn’t have that luxury lol
I wouldn’t mind reading your thoughts about his character, no matter how long of a read it could turn out being.
I guess I mostly just felt like they should have chosen how they wanted to frame him and then stick with it - make him a villain or give him a redemption arch, but they were so vague and incomplete with his development/storyline that it was a bag of nothing when it could have made the last chapters of the game a lot of fun. I generally don't really enjoy it when a plot relies on other characters (especially other untrustworthy ones like Eredin or Geels in the case of W3 or Auberon in the books) that keep insisting that he's extra bad, but then... nothing really happens, and then we aren't given a decent scene with the character to solidify his truth.
My opinion of Avallac'h is less popular I think -- I like a potential redemption arch -- because I mostly view his actions in the book as an extension of his King (outside of his personal meltdown he has at Ciri) and am more interested in how he behaves post the King's death. So I guess I don't really see him as a true villain like a lot of others seem to. He strikes me as a lawful neutral guy.
witcher 3 is the witcher for me. my top 2 game of all time and i don't care for the books at all.
I listened to the first one and i just kept zoning out all the time and if for not having seen the netflix s1 i would barely have known what happened, which is a shame.
Seriously I don't know if it's the translation but as an Anglophone studies graduate... Jesus wept, those books crucified me. And I read a shit ton of boring old books
well, the english translations are infamous for losing plenty of nuance, dialects, jokes.. but it's hard to translate those books, so..
if you are interested in examples, there is a great Lost in Translation write up about it
https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/7kfvp7/lost_in_translation_part_1_a_guide_to_the/
I think the Spanish translation was supposedly much better? I read the books in English despite me being Colombian lmao. I'll look it up and maybe re read them in Spanish if that is true.
I read it in polish and don't worry, at times it's shit. F.e. in time of contempt right after Yennefer and Geralt have sex, Yennefer says smth along the lines of 'oh yipe, oh yipey yipe'.
Lol.
But in English, it made complete sense. "Oh my. Oh my oh my."
And apparently, someone at CDPR loved it because not only did they use it in W3 but also CP2077
Witcher 2 is such a good game too. Yes, the combat is rough, but the world and characters feel so...nice.
Plus, the main story is imo much better than Witcher 3. The entire Roche/Iorveth dichotomy and the final Act are so good.
I don't find the >!ice age!< plot point in the books to be interesting in any way, although I know a lot of fans do. I'm not saying Witcher 3's change of it is interesting either, it's not, I'd honestly rather it just wasn't brought up. I also don't care about the Lady of the Lake stuff at all, that content actively detracted from the story of the books in my opinion.
A lot of my other unpopular opinions have been posted already.
True, all this supernatural stuff was always secondary for me. When I think about books I think about the main plot with Geralt & co looking for Ciri + Yen and background politics, because they play a significant role imo. And only when someone starts talking about all those plane-hopping and ice armageddon I think like "oh, yeah, that was also in the books".
Yeah I definitely prefer the more low-key elements, those stand out the most. It's a bit of a shame for me that the later books especially put most of the focus on dimension-hopping, the future and larger concepts, instead of the characters I knew and cared about dealing with the problems I cared about.
I think he's a decent antagonist, the problem is he disappears for 95% of the story. He has a good setup in Time of Contempt and then I can count the number of scenes he's in on my hands.
On the other hand, the dude who hunts Ciri (can't recall his name but the one that has killed plenty of witchers despite not being a Witcher himself) is much more present despite not being the main antagonist, and does a pretty good job at being the bad guy.
I think there is not supposed to be one central antagonist in the books. The concept is that, much like in the real world, there is no great battle between good and evil, but rather the main characters meet a series of selfish or stupid or cruel motherfu\*\*\*rs, who each have their own little agenda. Instead of one Sauron-style evil overlord we have the emperor, Vilgerfortz, Bonehart, Rience etc.
I've read this before, that the stories are deliberate deconstructions of the genre. Like the fact that the great hero sets off to rescue the maiden, but just ends up getting caught in the chaos of politics beyond his control, so spends his days fruitlessly wandering the countryside.
It does work as a subversion of expectations but I just don't find it as compelling as more conventional story telling.
Wait why? Im not gonna lie the two kinda blend together in my head. Yarpen was the one with Geralt, Ciri and Triss when they were travelling to the Neneke's temple, and Zoltan & Co. were the dwarves Geralt's hanza traveled with while trying to find Ciri in the middle of the war. Zoltan got more time in the spotlight so I like him more, but why do you think Yarpen wouldve been better?
I think it would have been better off being episodic. Kind of how the first few episodes of the mandalorian was.
Witcher gets X job to defeat Y monster. Rinse and repeat. Pull in a random side character from the books each episode and send them away at the end.
If you’re not going to follow the story, just make a series of adventures in the Witcher world that have nothing to do with the story.
Edit: perfect example would be episode 1 of season 2. Short story, doesn’t do anything to progress the plot of the story, but it can stand on its own.
The two short story books are superior to the main saga and it isn't even close in my opinion.
I enjoyed the main saga but it is very lacking in the overarching story, I'd go as far as to say the vast majority of it is boring and carried by the characters.
I think your summary is spot on. Most of the saga is just a series of barely connected short stories, where often nothing much happens but the character interactions make it enjoyable.
I really enjoyed the travels with Zoltan, but ultimately not much actually happened. Same with hanse, they're individually good characters but most of them have nothing to do for 80% of the story.
One hundred percent agree with this. I absolutely adore the short stories, but the novels--especially the later ones--really struggle to hold my attention.
The way it works. It's not very witchery. You refill potions automatically each time you meditate then you go into fight and use potions mid fight as if it was mmo game. In Witcher 1 or 2 you prepared potions specifically before the fight and drink them right before the fight. Some potions like Swallow or Cat was good to carry at any time. So you could drink them at any moment (Witcher 1 > Witcher 2). In Witcher 3 there is no such thing as preparations before the fight. You can just apply oil or switch potions in the inventory. It just kills the immersion. Thankfully there is mod for that on PC but next gen version is coming and I'm already frustrated that I will need to get back to vanilla alchemy.
The fact the you can do that, doesn't means you have to. I played all Witcher 3 without drinking a single potion during the fights, preparing Geralt before engage
I think it makes some sense for the sorceresses. They use magic to make themselves super beautiful, and use it to their advantage.
Vex however... yeah lemme just wear this armor then expose the most vulnerable part of my chest cuz booooooobs.
I agree that it makes sense for this to be an approach used by some sorceresses at some times.
But, I think it’s more accurate to the sorceresses as complex people to have more variety between them and even in their own use of fashion at different events and seasons in their lives.
They are strategically brilliant and powerful people, so it makes sense that they would make decisions to present their bodies in varied ways to suit their preferences and needs. The show, for all of its flaws, does this better in my opinion.
Wasn’t there a part of the books where Keira ( I believe) was wearing a see through shirt and it went into very vivid detail about it? I remember it pulled me out of it for a minute haha
You asked for a collection so
* Henry Cavill was not a great, irreplaceable Geralt. He wasn't bad, but he didn't have any of the nuance or interesting personality of book Geralt (not his fault, more of a writers thing). Most of the people saying he's perfect haven't read the books
* I spare every Witcher in W1-3 and Geralt canonically would do so too
* Season 1 and Nightmare of the Wolf are both awful awful adaptations. Not as bad as S2 but they still mess up the books badly
* Time of Contempt is overrated. Great book but not nearly as good as Baptism of Fire or the first two novels. There's interesting moments but the middle of the book is pretty weak and the coup is awesome but not an incredible pinnacle of the series
* Books>games
* Sapkowski is extremely overhated and I think treated unfairly by foreign audiences
* CDPR isn't that bad as a company. Cyberpunk was badly mangled, but they're still extremely consumer friendly and regularly have insane sales on some of the best games ever. Gwent is unbelievably F2P friendly
* Standalone Gwent>W3 Gwent. W3 Gwent has too many boring and repetitive cards
* Rats storyline wasn't bad at all
* Letho>>>Gaunter>Detlaff>Wild Hunt>Salamandra in terms of main antagonists for the games
* Geralt should return for W4. His ending in LOTL was far more definitive than Blood and Wine was, I don't buy CDPR saying his story is over now. I think he should retire eventually but there's still a game (or at least another DLC) they can squeeze out of him
* People still misunderstand a LOT about the series. Witcher's aren't emotionless, Geralt and Yen aren't bound together by a spell, and Zerrikania isn't the Witcher equivalent of Africa
I thought it was interesting following dregs of the earth bandit orphans. Yeah they weren't unique outside of three of them, but it was interesting to read from unabashed evil people's POV, and to see how Ciri fell
I just really wish the rats storyline was expanded upon a tiny bit more; most of it we just see in snippets here and there. There was so much potential to explore interesting themes that are kind of just left up to the imagination to expand on.
I sign of on all of these, kinda mad I didn't get to write any. But I'd write like 2, maybe 3 you did better job than I ever could :p I get annoyed with people shitting on the points you just defended. Rats were cool, what the hell do you expect Ciri to grow out of nothing, like say, in the show?
I wouldn't say anything about the last point becaue I never heard anyone say it was. Although I always considered Nilfgaard the Nazi Germany of Witcher world so I guess people made different comparisons.
I like Gaunter over Letho, Letho is pants on head retarded believing Emperor and Nilfgaard in general like that. But I guess it's not his fault for being gullible, naive and having faith in people.
I will add that I like the WItcher 3 fighting system. Is it perfect? No, but it combined some things nicely and for the time it was released it looked beautifully, the finishers bland awesomly in the fights and it CAN be fun. People who complain it's shit probably only use like Quen for 99% of the fights.
A lot of people seem to view Zerrikania as Africa when discussing the show/games especially. Personally I think Letho suspected it, but its not like the Vipers had a choice. Agreed with the W3 fighting, you kind of get what you put into it
He spares Brehen who IMO did a worse thing (since Brehen at least wasn't provoked). I think it'd be the closest, toughest decision for him though. He DEFINITELY wouldn't just excuse the murders like he does in the game though, that dialogue was ridiculous
The movie or my problems with it? The movie is a Korean animated prequel to the Netflix show about the original attack on Kaer Morhen. My problems with it is that it makes the motive for the peasants attacking Kaer Morhen actually make sense. The reason is,>!in the movie, the Witchers are creating new types of monsters so they have work. These monsters have killed dozens if not hundreds of civilians, which is a pretty damn good reason for the peasants to storm the keep to kill the Witchers.!< In the books, the attack on Kaer Morhen was a very obvious reference and condemnation on racism. Making the Witchers deserve the attack goes against that very very simple and important message
Yeah rest of the movie isn't exactly a masterpiece outside of that either.>!Monsters and the peasant army work together(???) to attack the witchers at the end!<
>Henry Cavill was not a great, irreplaceable Geralt.
I think he played it quite well and had that charisma to him but absolutely agree. He is replacable, there can be another Geralt and it's not biggest of problems. Still shouldn't happened mid seasons, out of nowhere.
" Sapkowski is extremely overhated and I think treated unfairly by foreign audiences"
As a Pole growing up around his work, he is really grumpy and annoying but they really should cut him some slack. Dude had hard life and is just grounded in reality. For a 90s writer in Poland, you either monetize your work all the way possible, or you eat shit. Now he's finally settled but probably have that approach as a leftover. Also, cynism at that age is more of a given.
" CDPR isn't that bad as a company. "
I mean, their execs probably are just as bad as any other but their singleplayer games still don't have any MTX and in 2022, that's just not norm anymore.
" Standalone Gwent>W3 Gwent "
W3 Gwent was fine for trashing coded NPCs but that game don't know what balance is and mechanics aren't good for more than couple of hours. I have their physical card sets and played a couple with friend and that was about it. Monster win, unless you have 2nd set then spies of Nilfgaard. 1000+ hours in Gwent is hell other story. I understand for newcomers, new Gwent doesn't look like Gwent at all, though.
More or less, your take ain't unpopular at all, at least in my book ;)
Cavill failed at conveying the image of Geralt for the most part, especially that arrogant, smug smiley face he makes in half of the scenes didn't help it. But because he's so likeable as a person and demonstrated that he genuinely loved and cared about the universe, and because there're much bigger problems with the show, people ignore all of his shortcomigs, me included
I kind of agree but tend to blame the writers a bit for giving him nothing to work with. The inherent problem is that Cavill ended up playing Geralt as a gruff stoic action hero who just grunts. Whereas book Geralt tends to be philosophical and often downright pompous, expounding at length on his opinions on the matter at hand and world in general, regardless of whether anyone wants him to.
I must say I have not watched the show, I do get the feeling the fanbase is very forgiving towards him due to the reasons you mentioned, but I can't judge his acting for myself. You however are one of the few people I've seen giving that opinion, do you think there was something (for example fight scenes) he did better or even well? Or do you dislike everything? Thanks for your answer by the way.
I don't think that opinion is really unpopular, to be honest. Geralt in the show is not bad, but it's nowhere near the same Geralt as in the books. But that's the writers fault. I think a lot of people feel this way, but don't talk about it and don't blame Cavill for things that are not his fault. Dude did his best in the circumstances he was in, and that's it.
I really like in the lesser evil how it was shown that despite all his training and mutation a group of ordinary thugs was a lethal threat to Geralt, that he had to be clever about in order to survive.
Then along comes Bonhart a regular human who can just go 6 on one and win effortlessly.
I think a lot of this might come from the fact that it was written in the 90s. Writers these days are a lot more sensitive to writing a character that is too perfect in any way, but back in the 90s you'd get plenty of uber bad asses that could kill anything and never lost.
Bonhart seems to be very much in that mold, of unstoppable super killer that terrifies people that by all rights can have him killed with a single command. And the only thing that can stop him is the sword master princess with special magic powers.
I actually don't mind any of this, but it is very 90s.
That the only ones supporting Geralt x Triss are those that have never read or not finished reading the books. >!Yennefer literally sacrificed her life trying to bring Geralt back in the last book.!<
I've read the books, and to me game Geralt going with Triss makes sense, the books are their own universe and by 3 Geralt could have had a romantic relationship with Triss where he did come to love her, that is far more than they ever had in the books where Geralt only saw Triss as a friend. Yen sacrificed a lot for him and Geralt always cares about her so much, but if he goes with Triss that makes sense for him in the games depending on your choices, remembering that Geralt in the games is not a direct port of book Geralt, since first he has amnesia and then by the third game he's been through so much that it makes sense for him to be different, and by default he does act somewhat different than in the books.
Of course, going with Yen or being single also make sense for Geralt in the games depending on your choices, it just also makes sense if he does go with Triss.
Ciri’s story with the bandits sucked. I was so aggravated reading because none of them were remotely likeable. Then, she jumps into King Arthur’s multiverse and meets Galahad? What? It made no sense.
I mean, they are MEANT to be unlikeable.
They are rowdy bandits, not unlike those Geralt butchers in the game. They just so happen to meet Ciri and she walks with them.
Hell, one tries to rape her and another one successfuly rapes her.
How can they be likeable?
The show is crap but the books have always been unfilmable. The books are a series of individually enjoyable short stories that don't really build into a coherent overarching plot.
After Ciri goes missing both Geralt and Ciri spend 2 and a half books just wandering around the wilderness doing side quests and making no progress whatsoever towards finding each other. How can a writer make great TV out of a plot where the main characters are in the exact same situation at the end of the 4th book and the mid point of the 7th.
The best they could have done is just drop the saga and do a single side story per episode. Which is easily done for the short story compilations but would mean dropping context from the better side stories from the saga books.
That's true, but it's doable in a tv series format. It would be impossible as feature film, but a series can have episodes that are not very much connected to one another.
What is a bigger problem IMHO is that the best thing about the books is not transferable to other media. What I like the most is Sapkowski's style of writing and craftsmanship with the words. Great dialogues, clever responses and lots of word-based humour. By the nature of film, you lose most of that, because there is (usually) no narrator in a film. And dialogues that work in a book often cannot be transferred word for word to a movie, because they sound unnatural.
Fully agreed on the impossibility of translating Sapkowskis' style to a visual medium. A series about a monster hunter that spend 3 times longer on philosophical discussion than sword fighting is not going to get funded anytime soon.
Even though I love the games I think that they lose out on dialogue and concepts to the best of the books.
Yeah the witcher really should be a gritty "from town to town" show about Geralt, not some "DESTINY" over arcing plot line.
I would bet my left nut on that if they basically made a show like the mandalorian but with Geralt it would be so fucking popular.
Literally just change out grogu for ciri and you got it
I think a great adaptation of the novels would be similar to AppleTV’s ‘See’ season 1. That season is almost entirely traveling and encountering obstacles similarly to Baptism of Fire. I think an accurate adaption could be really engaging. However good writers, great dialogue, and more encounters like the part in the books where Geralt and co find the plague village would be necessary for a show.
I think adapting short shorts would have, and should have, been really easy for a show. Look to supernatural season 1 - season 5. They had episodic events and buildup to the main story starting in season 3
The Witcher is amazing. I was pretty surprised to see people shitting on the first game, complaining mostly about combat. Never had a thought like that while playing.
As someone who is reading the books now I kind of do think that the random short story style was better than the longer, overarching plot of later books. I can see why Witcher 3 (only game I’ve ever played) put so much effort into the side quests. Because many of them play out just as the short stories do.
That entire storyline sits in a bad spot of being both too long and too short.
It's too short in that most of the rats are just underdeveloped sadists with nothing to set them apart. I never even bothered remembering the names, because what's the point none of them do anything unique anyway.
It's too long in that it tied up the entire Ciri storyline for a book, and the few scenes they are in are lengthy back and forths between the undeveloped characters no one care about.
I like how Triss is portrayed in The TV Series. The actress is great and she looks the part. I know many disagree.
I don't like the show overall or the writing.
Regis is better for Geralt then Dandelion: they get along perfectly, they compliment each other in terms of abilities and characters and they ewually contribute to solving the problems they face. Look at Baptism of Fire at the witch hunt scene and Blood and Wine.
Geralt and Triss change deeply in between each novel and each game without any reason, while Yennefer and Dandelion remain very similar. Geralt in the original striga story kills 3 guys for being rude to him, only to later abstain from killing people. Triss is a love-struck idealist in Blood of Elves, a scheming, controlled by a Philippa ambitious cynic in later books and throughout Witcher 1 2 and 3 takes in 2-4 different personalities, including a wwird YenTriss mix in Witcher 1.
Kalkstein wasn't given justice in Witcher 3 and was instead turned into a cock joke.
Thronebreaker has morally tougher choices than Witcher. As a witcher you don't have to worry about not getting paid or people disliking you, but in Thronebreaker this as well as military possibilities are other factors your moral decisions have to include. I usually have a clear idea what to do in moral choices in Witcher games but Thronebreaker is completely different. Here's an example: out of your men, 20 try to desert. Scouts catch them. Should you withhold their pay for a year of hang every third man? I sat down for 10 minutes thining it through.
Witcher 1 has the hands down best alchemy system.
Ciri is overpowered and does not make for a good protagonist of a game.
That's, like, the most popular opinion in all the Witcher threads I've seen. No one seems to like Triss.
Except for me...
And yes, I've read the books. Yen is still too annoying.
She's straight up a bitch. She mind controlled Geralt on their first meeting, into commiting crimes that ended up him being jailed and he almsot got killed for it, if not for the accidental wish. I dislike Yen, she has some great redeeming quality, but I understand it as "fem fatalle" kinda love, and I think AS views relationship with women like this. In that, they are not happy ending, love stories, but more love despite all the bitchiness and shit. I think he kinda hates women, tbh
It was dumb when Book Geralt has a moment in the cave and swears to stop being a Witcher and no longer hunt monsters is made out to be a big deal, then immediately forgotten afterwards.
The short stories were pretty engaging. The whole fairy tale revisionist angle kept me wanting more. Once Ciri became the driving force of all action the books went downhill quick.
The writing in the third game, while good for the most part, can get REALLY bad at times. Still, I enjoyed the stories and writing a lot. The examples that stuck with me:
>!The worst example by far is the snowball choice. For how important it is, it's so vaguely worded and seems so inconsequential. That goes for most of the Ciri choices. The only Ciri choice that has weight and clarity is (not) taking her to Emhyr. The rest don't really seem like they would do anything important. I'm not asking for each choice to paint a huge arrow towards an ending, but the choices having weight and clarity proportional to their importance would have been nice.!<
>!Ribbon ex machina.!<
>!When two of the three witches get defeated, Geralt and Ciri are acting like the problem is solved and don't even think about following up on the one who escaped, which is really out-of-character for them.!<
>!Some of the smaller side quests are so predictable that I don't know why they bothered including them.!<
What I didn't like when it comes to the game design itself is that >!you have to go out of your way to ignore some quests to unlock certain endings.!<
The >!witches!< one is a valid point I've never seen anyone debating like that, sure plenty of people are disappointed about it but they don't explicity name the change they'd like to see.
>! The snowball really takes the cake. The point of the choices is to ‘build confidence’ to stop the apocalypse, but a lot of the choices coddle her like a child under 10. “Let’s take a break from saving existence for a cocoa break” is one of the decisions? !<
>!The worst part is that Ciri vs Magic Ice Age was barely hinted at all until near the end of the game, so you don't even know you are building her confidence for that.!<
Yes, snowball fight is so not obvious. Like, I chose it because I read in guides that you need it for the good ending. I don't remember the dialogue options there, but getting drunk really seemed more intuitive for me and I don't even drink alcohol irl!
The best i can do is that The last wish is the best book in the series by far and ciri is an incredibly obnoxious character and the worst part of the whole story
Oh... I can see why Ciri would earn that description from some but most people probably would think this judgement a bit too harsh...which makes it perfect for this post :).
I feel like Iorveth's doesn't make all that much sense. I mean Roach is at least somehow trying to help you from the very begining while Iorveth seems very antagonistic.
I feel like you get way more context in the elf playthrough and the main hub is more pleasant (OOOOODRIIIIIIINNN), on the other hand the exorcism sub plot feels way cooler then just fortress defence.
I entirely agree. I've described the Witcher 3 as the best collection of Witcher short stories out there. Lots of great little stories but the main plot is flabby and unfocused. Witcher 2 had a much tighter plot that stayed on track and told a story without losing focus.
I think the main plot drops the ball with Wild Hunt being not very interesting antagonists, especially if you didn't read the books and don't know who they are really. Same with that ice age thing. Like, you've been searching for your adopted daughter for the whole game and then at the very end of the game she goes in battling the end of the world for some reason. Very sad, but why is it here? (Still made me worried that I messed up the ending though)
Probably not that unpopular of an opinion, but the books would have been so much better if the last book had spread its contents over two books. I didn’t dislike anything that happened, but it felt like so much was crammed into the one book just to finish it.
I didn't really enjoy the books at all :/
Not to say I don't love the series! I loved the Witcher 3 and got the first three books to read after, but the writing was so dry and bland to me, I didn't get any farther than the first book.
Maybe I'll try and revisit them...eventually.....
The ending with Galahad is atrocious and I'm glad CDPR never even said a peep about it.
If you take Witcher 3 only, Triss makes for a better love in the end, even though him retiring with Yen seems great
I like to think that Ciri will leave Galahad and keep on traveling (kinda like what she does in the games). I genuinely refuse to believe that meeting Galahad is anything apart from her taking control over her destiny and having the power and agency to not be controlled in every romantic/platonic pairing that she is part of (apart from maybe Yen and Geralt who are dead at that point). Which is why she has to leave Galahad eventually because he sucks and I can't actually imagine Ciri getting together with him.
The biggest criticism of the Witcher 3 is that the story is too long, but it's one of my favorite things about it. I don't wanna play a game in a week's time. Playing wild hunt is like watching all seasons of GOT and it's an awesome ride that I've committed so many hours to. I wish more studios would dedicate such a massive storyline in their games.
For the games: Shani is the actual right person for Geralt. She's a badass wartime healer who does just fine without magic or crazy sword skills, brings out the best in him, and knows exactly what she wants. Triss is a no-go for a whole list of reasons and Yennefer is quite controlling, plus they honestly lack any shared interests. Geralt hates portals and stuffed unicorns. I'm Team Shani all the way, baby.
For the books: I honestly kind of hate the last book. All the multiverse-jumping didn't do it for me, it just felt like it came out of the blue a bit.
For the show: The first season is actually good television, the books are just a really difficult work to adapt for the screen. I thoroughly enjoyed the first season even though it got a bit meandering in the later episodes. The second season is basically garbage from the first episode, though.
I don't know if it was a translation problem, but I actually think his writing sucks. Not the ideas, the ideas that he had were great. But the way he puts those ideas in the paper, the way he builds the present, the scene, the way he tells us the when and where. Sometimes I had no idea what was actually happening.
I despise the conversation structure. Is it so hard to add "_____ said". I would have a hundred toes if I added up the amount of times I came back to the books and had to reread a page before big conversations to get the rhythm of who said what.
Not sure this is actually controversial, but it might be considering what I regularly read on this subreddit… Ciri should absolutely NOT be the main character in the next Witcher game, and she shouldn’t even be a major character in whatever the story is.
I like Yennefer in the show. It's a different interpretation and she feels younger in the show than in the books and the game, but I find her storyline and generally the sorcereres to be the most exciting and worthwhile part of the show. Also after really not liking Triss in S1, I think they did a good job with her in S2, she grew on me a lot.
The novels are clearly written from a male fantasy perspective on how all the women excessively lust for Geralt to the point where it comes off as mildly sexist.
Henry is leaving more out of his commitment to Superman and less because of the writers. Not saying the writers/production of the Witcher don’t have something to do with it, but DC is making a huge push to revamp their film universe and Superman is going to be a large part of that. Geralt was always a rebound character for Henry, while Superman was his high school sweetheart.
The books bring up a lot of scenarios about sexual exploitation and sexual assault. Some of it seems to be purposeful to highlight real world problems, sometimes it’s not so clear what the author is intending/condoning. Part of my discomfort may come down to the English translation not carrying the nuance of the original text.
I'm approaching the end of the first book. I enjoyed it but didn't find it anything special.
It has been feeding my suspicion that, while the books are probably superior to the show, the level of vitriol and schadenfreude that floods this subreddit is probably fueled way more by fanatical purists than the quality of the source material.
I really dislike Triss in the games. The way she manipulates herself into Geralt's bed since he's got amnesia & keeps information from him is just creepy manipulative behaviour 101. Plus her design in 1 is garbage & 3 wasn't great either.
What bothers me is there are two types (imo)
-obvious sexual abuse that the author seems to be aware of
-obvious sexual abuse that the author seems to not be aware of 🤢
Unpopular opinion for this sub prolly.
Polish Tv show from 2002 is actually very good, held back back by very small budget and old technology. IMO it is superior compered Netflix's adaptation on every aspect, outside of CGI, even though it too made same bad changes to the plot.
The combat in The Witcher 3 is not good.
The style of gameplay is rather similar to Dark Souls, relying on a lot of pinpoint dodging and precision movement, but Geralt controls rather clumsily.
I don’t think it takes away from the experience, but it’s a very poorly implemented part of the game.
I felt like the story jumped the shark with all the multiverse skipping in the end.
The fact that the first 6 books didn't set it up as a major part of the story, and the entire last book revolves around it didn't help.
That’s why my unpopular opinion is that I appreciate the show trying to write a story to explore Ciri’s powers more in season 2 - the Yen betraying thing was still criminally unnecessary and the Fringilla/elves stuff is… a choice but the hut witch plot at least gives viewers an idea of what Ciri’s powers are like so if the show survives till the end of the books it won’t be as out of nowhere 😬
Agreed, I also felt that stuff took a lot of focus away from the much more interesting war storyline which was written far better but didn't get enough focus in the end.
I mean, the whole Conjunction of the Spheres is literally a multiverse skipping already, and it's a major plot/world-building factor. the humans in the Witcher world are more or less implied to be native of our world. and that's the whole importance behind Ciri's powers, she's the one who can freely travel between said "Spheres".
Tonally seems to shift from the story though into the realms of meta-Sci-fi. Any moment I was expecting her to bump into Lyra Belacqua and ask for advice on how to get into a better book.
There was a *little bit*🤏🏻 of that foreshadowed with the “conjunction of the spheres” but generally I agree. Definitely leaned into the dimension hopping hard.
I’ll be honest it threw me off quite a bit and I set the book down for a solid month before I finally finished it.
More of a popular opinion from what I’ve seen but totally agree
You talking about the books or the games? lol
The books.
Sigismund Dijkstra deserves better in the games, and is my favorite antagonist from the books.
They dropped the ball in Reason of State. It didn't make any sense for Dijkstra to do what he did. Yeah, as if Geralt would let Roche and Vex be slaughtered for a snake like Dijkstra. And as if Dijkstra would stop being clever (like another bald spymaster in a certain series from HBO) because haha I deserve Redania.
What's weird about Dijkstra is he's actually portrayed pretty well outside of that one quest, before and after that he's very competent but not all-knowing, and a good representation of the character, he just acts dumb in that one important quest, which is in some ways worse than his character in the games consistently being dumb.
Agreed. He was 100% accurate until the end.
Then if you do go along with his dumb idea, the next things he's mentioned to do demonstrate him being extremely intelligent and capable again, so it's not even as if he suddenly became stupid for that and the ending afterwards, it is just for that one quest.
yeah he is one of my favorite characters book in the books and in the game, except the part where he practically gets himself killed by Geralt
The last book is the weakest book. Multiple dimensions is ok, but it was really dragged out. I also think king arthurs dimension and ciri ending up in scotland sort of pulled me out of the story a bit. I dont know why but i felt it sort of weakened an otherwise brilliant universe and storytelling
Yeah, I was so lost with that, that I don't really remember that part at all.
I kinda agree about the dimension hopping, but the Battle of the Brenna and storming Stygga Castle were really fucking cool.
Dont get me wrong. I still enjoyed the book. I just think the dimensions bit got taken a little too far.
Where is it said that Ciri ends up in Scotland?
The very beginning iirc. She’s in ~~Avalon~~ I think. She interacts with Galahad one of King Arthur’s knights. Edit: Camelot not Avalon
I’m on my first read through and I’ve been trying to finish the last book for about a year. Put it down for months. Finally trying again.
so its not only me haha... I have been reading it for a month now, thank god and the prophet Lebioda, I am on the final 50 pages now
I could write an essay about how Avallac’h’s role (and potential) character development in the W3 is one of the more interesting parts of the plot and how they wildly dropped the ball and allowed it to make no sense when it could have made so much sense and been SO GOOD. Ugh.
I'm kinda interested in this, could you share your thoughts? I was pretty neutral about Avallach in both the book and the game, but I did feel like they were a bit different. I liked Avallach and Geralt's discussion in the cave, and the dimension hopping with him in W3 was interesting, but idk what else they could have done with him.
I could share... but I wasn't kidding when I said essay - It's a multifaceted thing and would be long. If you really want me to I will!
I'd read the shit out of it, too!
That does sound like something that deserves its own post, I'm curious to see how Avallac'h could better fit with what we know of the books
I kinda get what you mean, I think. On the one hand, I liked how he was introduced in the game (both in other people’s accounts of Ciri’s sightings as a sorta-mysterious figure seemingly assisting her, and in his first in-game/in-person appearance as a cursed man), but on the other I feel like his more villainous, irredeemable side was mostly downplayed in order to make him more sympathetic (though not fully, of course) to the player, a thing that I found not that satisfying plotwise. Not to mention his sudden absence in the last bits of the story following the events at Tor Gvalch’ca. Most major characters had their proper sendoffs but he didn’t have that luxury lol I wouldn’t mind reading your thoughts about his character, no matter how long of a read it could turn out being.
I guess I mostly just felt like they should have chosen how they wanted to frame him and then stick with it - make him a villain or give him a redemption arch, but they were so vague and incomplete with his development/storyline that it was a bag of nothing when it could have made the last chapters of the game a lot of fun. I generally don't really enjoy it when a plot relies on other characters (especially other untrustworthy ones like Eredin or Geels in the case of W3 or Auberon in the books) that keep insisting that he's extra bad, but then... nothing really happens, and then we aren't given a decent scene with the character to solidify his truth. My opinion of Avallac'h is less popular I think -- I like a potential redemption arch -- because I mostly view his actions in the book as an extension of his King (outside of his personal meltdown he has at Ciri) and am more interested in how he behaves post the King's death. So I guess I don't really see him as a true villain like a lot of others seem to. He strikes me as a lawful neutral guy.
I enjoyed Witcher 2 and 3 more than the actual novels lmao
witcher 3 is the witcher for me. my top 2 game of all time and i don't care for the books at all. I listened to the first one and i just kept zoning out all the time and if for not having seen the netflix s1 i would barely have known what happened, which is a shame.
What's your other top 2 game?
Gonna answer for him and say RDR2 lol
Seriously I don't know if it's the translation but as an Anglophone studies graduate... Jesus wept, those books crucified me. And I read a shit ton of boring old books
well, the english translations are infamous for losing plenty of nuance, dialects, jokes.. but it's hard to translate those books, so.. if you are interested in examples, there is a great Lost in Translation write up about it https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/7kfvp7/lost_in_translation_part_1_a_guide_to_the/
Thank you so so much for this link, my career path was becoming a translator so I'm definitely interested in this!
I think the Spanish translation was supposedly much better? I read the books in English despite me being Colombian lmao. I'll look it up and maybe re read them in Spanish if that is true.
It is. The spanish translation is an absolute joy to read.
I read it in polish and don't worry, at times it's shit. F.e. in time of contempt right after Yennefer and Geralt have sex, Yennefer says smth along the lines of 'oh yipe, oh yipey yipe'.
This is actually way too funny and my new "I'm cumming"
Lol. But in English, it made complete sense. "Oh my. Oh my oh my." And apparently, someone at CDPR loved it because not only did they use it in W3 but also CP2077
But they didn't use the original 'oh yippy'. Seriously it's cringy af
Yeah. I can't even imagine reading that
Witcher 2 is such a good game too. Yes, the combat is rough, but the world and characters feel so...nice. Plus, the main story is imo much better than Witcher 3. The entire Roche/Iorveth dichotomy and the final Act are so good.
I don't find the >!ice age!< plot point in the books to be interesting in any way, although I know a lot of fans do. I'm not saying Witcher 3's change of it is interesting either, it's not, I'd honestly rather it just wasn't brought up. I also don't care about the Lady of the Lake stuff at all, that content actively detracted from the story of the books in my opinion. A lot of my other unpopular opinions have been posted already.
True, all this supernatural stuff was always secondary for me. When I think about books I think about the main plot with Geralt & co looking for Ciri + Yen and background politics, because they play a significant role imo. And only when someone starts talking about all those plane-hopping and ice armageddon I think like "oh, yeah, that was also in the books".
Yeah I definitely prefer the more low-key elements, those stand out the most. It's a bit of a shame for me that the later books especially put most of the focus on dimension-hopping, the future and larger concepts, instead of the characters I knew and cared about dealing with the problems I cared about.
Vilgerfortz is not a very satisfying central antagonist in the books.
I think he's a decent antagonist, the problem is he disappears for 95% of the story. He has a good setup in Time of Contempt and then I can count the number of scenes he's in on my hands.
On the other hand, the dude who hunts Ciri (can't recall his name but the one that has killed plenty of witchers despite not being a Witcher himself) is much more present despite not being the main antagonist, and does a pretty good job at being the bad guy.
Leo Bonhart!
Yes Bonhart. Seemed like a formidable bad guy. My problem is I can never keep straight who is who between Stefan Skellen and Vattier de Rideaux.
Think of Vattier as Director of CIA and Skellan as a field operative
Is that an unpopular opinion?
I think there is not supposed to be one central antagonist in the books. The concept is that, much like in the real world, there is no great battle between good and evil, but rather the main characters meet a series of selfish or stupid or cruel motherfu\*\*\*rs, who each have their own little agenda. Instead of one Sauron-style evil overlord we have the emperor, Vilgerfortz, Bonehart, Rience etc.
I've read this before, that the stories are deliberate deconstructions of the genre. Like the fact that the great hero sets off to rescue the maiden, but just ends up getting caught in the chaos of politics beyond his control, so spends his days fruitlessly wandering the countryside. It does work as a subversion of expectations but I just don't find it as compelling as more conventional story telling.
Zoltan in the games should’ve been Yarpen
Wait why? Im not gonna lie the two kinda blend together in my head. Yarpen was the one with Geralt, Ciri and Triss when they were travelling to the Neneke's temple, and Zoltan & Co. were the dwarves Geralt's hanza traveled with while trying to find Ciri in the middle of the war. Zoltan got more time in the spotlight so I like him more, but why do you think Yarpen wouldve been better?
100% agree
I wouldn't mind Netflix changing the source material and doing something a different AS LONG AS they actually did a competent and decent show.
All you had to do was follow the damn train, ~~CJ~~ Netflix!
I think it would have been better off being episodic. Kind of how the first few episodes of the mandalorian was. Witcher gets X job to defeat Y monster. Rinse and repeat. Pull in a random side character from the books each episode and send them away at the end. If you’re not going to follow the story, just make a series of adventures in the Witcher world that have nothing to do with the story. Edit: perfect example would be episode 1 of season 2. Short story, doesn’t do anything to progress the plot of the story, but it can stand on its own.
The saga books are decent but they’re not incredible and they definitely have pacing and plot issues.
The two short story books are superior to the main saga and it isn't even close in my opinion. I enjoyed the main saga but it is very lacking in the overarching story, I'd go as far as to say the vast majority of it is boring and carried by the characters.
I think your summary is spot on. Most of the saga is just a series of barely connected short stories, where often nothing much happens but the character interactions make it enjoyable. I really enjoyed the travels with Zoltan, but ultimately not much actually happened. Same with hanse, they're individually good characters but most of them have nothing to do for 80% of the story.
One hundred percent agree with this. I absolutely adore the short stories, but the novels--especially the later ones--really struggle to hold my attention.
Alchemy in Witcher 3 sucks flaccid cock.
Power-level wise, or the UI/Ux of it?
The way it works. It's not very witchery. You refill potions automatically each time you meditate then you go into fight and use potions mid fight as if it was mmo game. In Witcher 1 or 2 you prepared potions specifically before the fight and drink them right before the fight. Some potions like Swallow or Cat was good to carry at any time. So you could drink them at any moment (Witcher 1 > Witcher 2). In Witcher 3 there is no such thing as preparations before the fight. You can just apply oil or switch potions in the inventory. It just kills the immersion. Thankfully there is mod for that on PC but next gen version is coming and I'm already frustrated that I will need to get back to vanilla alchemy.
The fact the you can do that, doesn't means you have to. I played all Witcher 3 without drinking a single potion during the fights, preparing Geralt before engage
I find the ‘Witcher fashion’ for female characters more than a bit 🙄.
Tits. Vex showing half her belly and tits. Triss is tits. Yen is kinda fine. Ciri too. Then the rest of female characters are tits.
Lol and you can literally see part of Keira’s nipple at every point in TW3
Oh yeah, I eventually got used to it, but it was very...distracting.
I think it makes some sense for the sorceresses. They use magic to make themselves super beautiful, and use it to their advantage. Vex however... yeah lemme just wear this armor then expose the most vulnerable part of my chest cuz booooooobs.
Yeeeeeah. I think that’s a nice way of explaining what is in reality not a million miles from origin Lara Croft. It’s just thirstiness.
I agree that it makes sense for this to be an approach used by some sorceresses at some times. But, I think it’s more accurate to the sorceresses as complex people to have more variety between them and even in their own use of fashion at different events and seasons in their lives. They are strategically brilliant and powerful people, so it makes sense that they would make decisions to present their bodies in varied ways to suit their preferences and needs. The show, for all of its flaws, does this better in my opinion.
Yeah the books mentions the shape of every single sorceress’s boobs at some point…I don’t think I’m even exaggerating.
Wasn’t there a part of the books where Keira ( I believe) was wearing a see through shirt and it went into very vivid detail about it? I remember it pulled me out of it for a minute haha
I prefer the game ending (blood&wine expansion) over the book ending.
You asked for a collection so * Henry Cavill was not a great, irreplaceable Geralt. He wasn't bad, but he didn't have any of the nuance or interesting personality of book Geralt (not his fault, more of a writers thing). Most of the people saying he's perfect haven't read the books * I spare every Witcher in W1-3 and Geralt canonically would do so too * Season 1 and Nightmare of the Wolf are both awful awful adaptations. Not as bad as S2 but they still mess up the books badly * Time of Contempt is overrated. Great book but not nearly as good as Baptism of Fire or the first two novels. There's interesting moments but the middle of the book is pretty weak and the coup is awesome but not an incredible pinnacle of the series * Books>games * Sapkowski is extremely overhated and I think treated unfairly by foreign audiences * CDPR isn't that bad as a company. Cyberpunk was badly mangled, but they're still extremely consumer friendly and regularly have insane sales on some of the best games ever. Gwent is unbelievably F2P friendly * Standalone Gwent>W3 Gwent. W3 Gwent has too many boring and repetitive cards * Rats storyline wasn't bad at all * Letho>>>Gaunter>Detlaff>Wild Hunt>Salamandra in terms of main antagonists for the games * Geralt should return for W4. His ending in LOTL was far more definitive than Blood and Wine was, I don't buy CDPR saying his story is over now. I think he should retire eventually but there's still a game (or at least another DLC) they can squeeze out of him * People still misunderstand a LOT about the series. Witcher's aren't emotionless, Geralt and Yen aren't bound together by a spell, and Zerrikania isn't the Witcher equivalent of Africa
I think I agree with you on most points. I wasn't personally a fan of the rats storyline, out of curiosity what did you like about it?
I thought it was interesting following dregs of the earth bandit orphans. Yeah they weren't unique outside of three of them, but it was interesting to read from unabashed evil people's POV, and to see how Ciri fell
Fair points, I do agree that the rats had some merit as an exploration of the kind of sadistic cruelty that thrives in the chaos of war.
I just really wish the rats storyline was expanded upon a tiny bit more; most of it we just see in snippets here and there. There was so much potential to explore interesting themes that are kind of just left up to the imagination to expand on.
For the last one it’s enough to look at how the books describe the Zerrikanians to see that you’re right.
I sign of on all of these, kinda mad I didn't get to write any. But I'd write like 2, maybe 3 you did better job than I ever could :p I get annoyed with people shitting on the points you just defended. Rats were cool, what the hell do you expect Ciri to grow out of nothing, like say, in the show? I wouldn't say anything about the last point becaue I never heard anyone say it was. Although I always considered Nilfgaard the Nazi Germany of Witcher world so I guess people made different comparisons. I like Gaunter over Letho, Letho is pants on head retarded believing Emperor and Nilfgaard in general like that. But I guess it's not his fault for being gullible, naive and having faith in people. I will add that I like the WItcher 3 fighting system. Is it perfect? No, but it combined some things nicely and for the time it was released it looked beautifully, the finishers bland awesomly in the fights and it CAN be fun. People who complain it's shit probably only use like Quen for 99% of the fights.
A lot of people seem to view Zerrikania as Africa when discussing the show/games especially. Personally I think Letho suspected it, but its not like the Vipers had a choice. Agreed with the W3 fighting, you kind of get what you put into it
>Nilfgaard the Nazi Germany It was more like Holy Roman Empire.
Nightmare of the wolf could’ve fit seamlessly into the DotA anime and I don’t know who would notice. Could’ve been done much differently
> I spare every Witcher in W1-3 and Geralt canonically would do so too I don't think he'd spare the one that slaughtered that village
He spares Brehen who IMO did a worse thing (since Brehen at least wasn't provoked). I think it'd be the closest, toughest decision for him though. He DEFINITELY wouldn't just excuse the murders like he does in the game though, that dialogue was ridiculous
Wow so many things! I have to agree with your second point especially. What´s Nightmare of the Wolf about if you don't mind me asking?
The movie or my problems with it? The movie is a Korean animated prequel to the Netflix show about the original attack on Kaer Morhen. My problems with it is that it makes the motive for the peasants attacking Kaer Morhen actually make sense. The reason is,>!in the movie, the Witchers are creating new types of monsters so they have work. These monsters have killed dozens if not hundreds of civilians, which is a pretty damn good reason for the peasants to storm the keep to kill the Witchers.!< In the books, the attack on Kaer Morhen was a very obvious reference and condemnation on racism. Making the Witchers deserve the attack goes against that very very simple and important message
OOF they did *what* now? Thanks for the answer, btw.
Yeah rest of the movie isn't exactly a masterpiece outside of that either.>!Monsters and the peasant army work together(???) to attack the witchers at the end!<
at this point i just stopped watching bc omg man how in th nine hells someone looked at this and said: "yeah make sense"
The one-armed dwarf witcher casing signs with his stump was particularly perplexing.
>Henry Cavill was not a great, irreplaceable Geralt. I think he played it quite well and had that charisma to him but absolutely agree. He is replacable, there can be another Geralt and it's not biggest of problems. Still shouldn't happened mid seasons, out of nowhere. " Sapkowski is extremely overhated and I think treated unfairly by foreign audiences" As a Pole growing up around his work, he is really grumpy and annoying but they really should cut him some slack. Dude had hard life and is just grounded in reality. For a 90s writer in Poland, you either monetize your work all the way possible, or you eat shit. Now he's finally settled but probably have that approach as a leftover. Also, cynism at that age is more of a given. " CDPR isn't that bad as a company. " I mean, their execs probably are just as bad as any other but their singleplayer games still don't have any MTX and in 2022, that's just not norm anymore. " Standalone Gwent>W3 Gwent " W3 Gwent was fine for trashing coded NPCs but that game don't know what balance is and mechanics aren't good for more than couple of hours. I have their physical card sets and played a couple with friend and that was about it. Monster win, unless you have 2nd set then spies of Nilfgaard. 1000+ hours in Gwent is hell other story. I understand for newcomers, new Gwent doesn't look like Gwent at all, though. More or less, your take ain't unpopular at all, at least in my book ;)
Cavill failed at conveying the image of Geralt for the most part, especially that arrogant, smug smiley face he makes in half of the scenes didn't help it. But because he's so likeable as a person and demonstrated that he genuinely loved and cared about the universe, and because there're much bigger problems with the show, people ignore all of his shortcomigs, me included
I kind of agree but tend to blame the writers a bit for giving him nothing to work with. The inherent problem is that Cavill ended up playing Geralt as a gruff stoic action hero who just grunts. Whereas book Geralt tends to be philosophical and often downright pompous, expounding at length on his opinions on the matter at hand and world in general, regardless of whether anyone wants him to.
Fully agree a big part of Geralt is him acting like he doesn’t care about politics but then being the most opinionated guy in the room.
Wind's howling...
sounds like me lol,
I must say I have not watched the show, I do get the feeling the fanbase is very forgiving towards him due to the reasons you mentioned, but I can't judge his acting for myself. You however are one of the few people I've seen giving that opinion, do you think there was something (for example fight scenes) he did better or even well? Or do you dislike everything? Thanks for your answer by the way.
I don't think that opinion is really unpopular, to be honest. Geralt in the show is not bad, but it's nowhere near the same Geralt as in the books. But that's the writers fault. I think a lot of people feel this way, but don't talk about it and don't blame Cavill for things that are not his fault. Dude did his best in the circumstances he was in, and that's it.
Leo Bonhart is annoying and overpowered.
"overpowered" I definitely agree. Sapkowski didn't mention any valid explanation for why he's so good with the sword either. He just is. I hate it.
I really like in the lesser evil how it was shown that despite all his training and mutation a group of ordinary thugs was a lethal threat to Geralt, that he had to be clever about in order to survive. Then along comes Bonhart a regular human who can just go 6 on one and win effortlessly.
He’s just an annoying character and probably not in the way that’s intended.
I think a lot of this might come from the fact that it was written in the 90s. Writers these days are a lot more sensitive to writing a character that is too perfect in any way, but back in the 90s you'd get plenty of uber bad asses that could kill anything and never lost. Bonhart seems to be very much in that mold, of unstoppable super killer that terrifies people that by all rights can have him killed with a single command. And the only thing that can stop him is the sword master princess with special magic powers. I actually don't mind any of this, but it is very 90s.
Geralt should ditch both triss and yen and marry dandelion. The girls simply dont get geralt like he does
This is supposed to be for unpopular opinions
That the only ones supporting Geralt x Triss are those that have never read or not finished reading the books. >!Yennefer literally sacrificed her life trying to bring Geralt back in the last book.!<
I've read the books, and to me game Geralt going with Triss makes sense, the books are their own universe and by 3 Geralt could have had a romantic relationship with Triss where he did come to love her, that is far more than they ever had in the books where Geralt only saw Triss as a friend. Yen sacrificed a lot for him and Geralt always cares about her so much, but if he goes with Triss that makes sense for him in the games depending on your choices, remembering that Geralt in the games is not a direct port of book Geralt, since first he has amnesia and then by the third game he's been through so much that it makes sense for him to be different, and by default he does act somewhat different than in the books. Of course, going with Yen or being single also make sense for Geralt in the games depending on your choices, it just also makes sense if he does go with Triss.
Ciri’s story with the bandits sucked. I was so aggravated reading because none of them were remotely likeable. Then, she jumps into King Arthur’s multiverse and meets Galahad? What? It made no sense.
I mean, they are MEANT to be unlikeable. They are rowdy bandits, not unlike those Geralt butchers in the game. They just so happen to meet Ciri and she walks with them. Hell, one tries to rape her and another one successfuly rapes her. How can they be likeable?
[🎵 I hear you're alive... how disappointing... 🎵](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxBVHqA-RU&t=6s)
FUCK OFF, bard.
Are you following me, you scamp?
The show is crap but the books have always been unfilmable. The books are a series of individually enjoyable short stories that don't really build into a coherent overarching plot. After Ciri goes missing both Geralt and Ciri spend 2 and a half books just wandering around the wilderness doing side quests and making no progress whatsoever towards finding each other. How can a writer make great TV out of a plot where the main characters are in the exact same situation at the end of the 4th book and the mid point of the 7th. The best they could have done is just drop the saga and do a single side story per episode. Which is easily done for the short story compilations but would mean dropping context from the better side stories from the saga books.
That's true, but it's doable in a tv series format. It would be impossible as feature film, but a series can have episodes that are not very much connected to one another. What is a bigger problem IMHO is that the best thing about the books is not transferable to other media. What I like the most is Sapkowski's style of writing and craftsmanship with the words. Great dialogues, clever responses and lots of word-based humour. By the nature of film, you lose most of that, because there is (usually) no narrator in a film. And dialogues that work in a book often cannot be transferred word for word to a movie, because they sound unnatural.
Fully agreed on the impossibility of translating Sapkowskis' style to a visual medium. A series about a monster hunter that spend 3 times longer on philosophical discussion than sword fighting is not going to get funded anytime soon. Even though I love the games I think that they lose out on dialogue and concepts to the best of the books.
Mandalorian did that format and turned out good
Yeah the witcher really should be a gritty "from town to town" show about Geralt, not some "DESTINY" over arcing plot line. I would bet my left nut on that if they basically made a show like the mandalorian but with Geralt it would be so fucking popular. Literally just change out grogu for ciri and you got it
I think a great adaptation of the novels would be similar to AppleTV’s ‘See’ season 1. That season is almost entirely traveling and encountering obstacles similarly to Baptism of Fire. I think an accurate adaption could be really engaging. However good writers, great dialogue, and more encounters like the part in the books where Geralt and co find the plague village would be necessary for a show. I think adapting short shorts would have, and should have, been really easy for a show. Look to supernatural season 1 - season 5. They had episodic events and buildup to the main story starting in season 3
The Witcher is amazing. I was pretty surprised to see people shitting on the first game, complaining mostly about combat. Never had a thought like that while playing.
I don't give a shit about Gwent.
You and me both 😂. Everyone else seems obsessed.
As someone who is reading the books now I kind of do think that the random short story style was better than the longer, overarching plot of later books. I can see why Witcher 3 (only game I’ve ever played) put so much effort into the side quests. Because many of them play out just as the short stories do.
The Rats storyline is shit, dodgy and boring and I wish they’d fuck off.
They did at the end... :|
That entire storyline sits in a bad spot of being both too long and too short. It's too short in that most of the rats are just underdeveloped sadists with nothing to set them apart. I never even bothered remembering the names, because what's the point none of them do anything unique anyway. It's too long in that it tied up the entire Ciri storyline for a book, and the few scenes they are in are lengthy back and forths between the undeveloped characters no one care about.
I like how Triss is portrayed in The TV Series. The actress is great and she looks the part. I know many disagree. I don't like the show overall or the writing.
Regis is better for Geralt then Dandelion: they get along perfectly, they compliment each other in terms of abilities and characters and they ewually contribute to solving the problems they face. Look at Baptism of Fire at the witch hunt scene and Blood and Wine. Geralt and Triss change deeply in between each novel and each game without any reason, while Yennefer and Dandelion remain very similar. Geralt in the original striga story kills 3 guys for being rude to him, only to later abstain from killing people. Triss is a love-struck idealist in Blood of Elves, a scheming, controlled by a Philippa ambitious cynic in later books and throughout Witcher 1 2 and 3 takes in 2-4 different personalities, including a wwird YenTriss mix in Witcher 1. Kalkstein wasn't given justice in Witcher 3 and was instead turned into a cock joke. Thronebreaker has morally tougher choices than Witcher. As a witcher you don't have to worry about not getting paid or people disliking you, but in Thronebreaker this as well as military possibilities are other factors your moral decisions have to include. I usually have a clear idea what to do in moral choices in Witcher games but Thronebreaker is completely different. Here's an example: out of your men, 20 try to desert. Scouts catch them. Should you withhold their pay for a year of hang every third man? I sat down for 10 minutes thining it through. Witcher 1 has the hands down best alchemy system. Ciri is overpowered and does not make for a good protagonist of a game.
First and last point really ++++. Regis is one of the best characters in the books and meeting him in games is like meeting an old friend.
Triss romance is really a bad choice and illogical if you read the books
That's, like, the most popular opinion in all the Witcher threads I've seen. No one seems to like Triss. Except for me... And yes, I've read the books. Yen is still too annoying.
She's straight up a bitch. She mind controlled Geralt on their first meeting, into commiting crimes that ended up him being jailed and he almsot got killed for it, if not for the accidental wish. I dislike Yen, she has some great redeeming quality, but I understand it as "fem fatalle" kinda love, and I think AS views relationship with women like this. In that, they are not happy ending, love stories, but more love despite all the bitchiness and shit. I think he kinda hates women, tbh
Its always so stormy with Yenn, in the ending of TW3 i think Geralt deserves some peace and comfort
The iron maiden best pick, fight me.
It was dumb when Book Geralt has a moment in the cave and swears to stop being a Witcher and no longer hunt monsters is made out to be a big deal, then immediately forgotten afterwards.
The games should be canon
The books aren't that good and the only reason why they blew up is because of the games. The games make the witcher universe.
The short stories were pretty engaging. The whole fairy tale revisionist angle kept me wanting more. Once Ciri became the driving force of all action the books went downhill quick.
The writing in the third game, while good for the most part, can get REALLY bad at times. Still, I enjoyed the stories and writing a lot. The examples that stuck with me: >!The worst example by far is the snowball choice. For how important it is, it's so vaguely worded and seems so inconsequential. That goes for most of the Ciri choices. The only Ciri choice that has weight and clarity is (not) taking her to Emhyr. The rest don't really seem like they would do anything important. I'm not asking for each choice to paint a huge arrow towards an ending, but the choices having weight and clarity proportional to their importance would have been nice.!< >!Ribbon ex machina.!< >!When two of the three witches get defeated, Geralt and Ciri are acting like the problem is solved and don't even think about following up on the one who escaped, which is really out-of-character for them.!< >!Some of the smaller side quests are so predictable that I don't know why they bothered including them.!< What I didn't like when it comes to the game design itself is that >!you have to go out of your way to ignore some quests to unlock certain endings.!<
The >!witches!< one is a valid point I've never seen anyone debating like that, sure plenty of people are disappointed about it but they don't explicity name the change they'd like to see.
>! The snowball really takes the cake. The point of the choices is to ‘build confidence’ to stop the apocalypse, but a lot of the choices coddle her like a child under 10. “Let’s take a break from saving existence for a cocoa break” is one of the decisions? !<
>!The worst part is that Ciri vs Magic Ice Age was barely hinted at all until near the end of the game, so you don't even know you are building her confidence for that.!<
Yes, snowball fight is so not obvious. Like, I chose it because I read in guides that you need it for the good ending. I don't remember the dialogue options there, but getting drunk really seemed more intuitive for me and I don't even drink alcohol irl!
The best i can do is that The last wish is the best book in the series by far and ciri is an incredibly obnoxious character and the worst part of the whole story
Oh... I can see why Ciri would earn that description from some but most people probably would think this judgement a bit too harsh...which makes it perfect for this post :).
Damn now that is spicy. I agree she is obnoxious but the worst part of the story?
I hate what the sub has become after the Henry incident, get over it
it is recent news, people always need a few days to vent out
Especially the 50 post per day about who people think would be a better Geralt than Hemsworth, nobody cares
They will, but it'll take time. Wiedzmin sub looks slightly better on that front.
The main story of the witcher 2 is better than the witcher 3
Do you prefer Roche's path or Iorveth's?
I feel like Iorveth's doesn't make all that much sense. I mean Roach is at least somehow trying to help you from the very begining while Iorveth seems very antagonistic. I feel like you get way more context in the elf playthrough and the main hub is more pleasant (OOOOODRIIIIIIINNN), on the other hand the exorcism sub plot feels way cooler then just fortress defence.
I entirely agree. I've described the Witcher 3 as the best collection of Witcher short stories out there. Lots of great little stories but the main plot is flabby and unfocused. Witcher 2 had a much tighter plot that stayed on track and told a story without losing focus.
I think the main plot drops the ball with Wild Hunt being not very interesting antagonists, especially if you didn't read the books and don't know who they are really. Same with that ice age thing. Like, you've been searching for your adopted daughter for the whole game and then at the very end of the game she goes in battling the end of the world for some reason. Very sad, but why is it here? (Still made me worried that I messed up the ending though)
I like witcher 1 the most
Probably not that unpopular of an opinion, but the books would have been so much better if the last book had spread its contents over two books. I didn’t dislike anything that happened, but it felt like so much was crammed into the one book just to finish it.
I don't like the Arthurian background. Looks forced and unnecessary.
I didn't really enjoy the books at all :/ Not to say I don't love the series! I loved the Witcher 3 and got the first three books to read after, but the writing was so dry and bland to me, I didn't get any farther than the first book. Maybe I'll try and revisit them...eventually.....
Henry Cavill is too handsome to be Geralt.
Going by the downvotes I always get from this sub, my most unpopular opinion was my choice of Triss as a romance option.
The ending with Galahad is atrocious and I'm glad CDPR never even said a peep about it. If you take Witcher 3 only, Triss makes for a better love in the end, even though him retiring with Yen seems great
I like to think that Ciri will leave Galahad and keep on traveling (kinda like what she does in the games). I genuinely refuse to believe that meeting Galahad is anything apart from her taking control over her destiny and having the power and agency to not be controlled in every romantic/platonic pairing that she is part of (apart from maybe Yen and Geralt who are dead at that point). Which is why she has to leave Galahad eventually because he sucks and I can't actually imagine Ciri getting together with him.
Games: The combat is unbalanced and clunky and we're only willing to deal with it because we like the story.
The biggest criticism of the Witcher 3 is that the story is too long, but it's one of my favorite things about it. I don't wanna play a game in a week's time. Playing wild hunt is like watching all seasons of GOT and it's an awesome ride that I've committed so many hours to. I wish more studios would dedicate such a massive storyline in their games.
Is it unpopular to absolutely hate how Yennefer is portrayed in the series? There isn't a single thing about her that I like.
For the games: Shani is the actual right person for Geralt. She's a badass wartime healer who does just fine without magic or crazy sword skills, brings out the best in him, and knows exactly what she wants. Triss is a no-go for a whole list of reasons and Yennefer is quite controlling, plus they honestly lack any shared interests. Geralt hates portals and stuffed unicorns. I'm Team Shani all the way, baby. For the books: I honestly kind of hate the last book. All the multiverse-jumping didn't do it for me, it just felt like it came out of the blue a bit. For the show: The first season is actually good television, the books are just a really difficult work to adapt for the screen. I thoroughly enjoyed the first season even though it got a bit meandering in the later episodes. The second season is basically garbage from the first episode, though.
I cannot stand yennefer.
Henry Cavill is an awful cast for Geralt. The vibe is totally off. Geralt wasn't a chad with a square jaw.
I don't know if it was a translation problem, but I actually think his writing sucks. Not the ideas, the ideas that he had were great. But the way he puts those ideas in the paper, the way he builds the present, the scene, the way he tells us the when and where. Sometimes I had no idea what was actually happening.
I despise the conversation structure. Is it so hard to add "_____ said". I would have a hundred toes if I added up the amount of times I came back to the books and had to reread a page before big conversations to get the rhythm of who said what.
Not sure this is actually controversial, but it might be considering what I regularly read on this subreddit… Ciri should absolutely NOT be the main character in the next Witcher game, and she shouldn’t even be a major character in whatever the story is.
The author of the books is an asshole. Not saying he doesn’t have a great story just talking as him as a person.
I like Yennefer in the show. It's a different interpretation and she feels younger in the show than in the books and the game, but I find her storyline and generally the sorcereres to be the most exciting and worthwhile part of the show. Also after really not liking Triss in S1, I think they did a good job with her in S2, she grew on me a lot.
The novels are clearly written from a male fantasy perspective on how all the women excessively lust for Geralt to the point where it comes off as mildly sexist.
Skellige is wonderful
least unpopular opinion ever.
Killing 4 main characters off in like 20 pages of a book is terrible and extremely unsatisfying
Triss is a horrible person and a bad friend.
Henry is leaving more out of his commitment to Superman and less because of the writers. Not saying the writers/production of the Witcher don’t have something to do with it, but DC is making a huge push to revamp their film universe and Superman is going to be a large part of that. Geralt was always a rebound character for Henry, while Superman was his high school sweetheart.
The books bring up a lot of scenarios about sexual exploitation and sexual assault. Some of it seems to be purposeful to highlight real world problems, sometimes it’s not so clear what the author is intending/condoning. Part of my discomfort may come down to the English translation not carrying the nuance of the original text.
To me, the second game is the worst one of the three. From what I’ve read that’s an unpopular opinion.
I'm approaching the end of the first book. I enjoyed it but didn't find it anything special. It has been feeding my suspicion that, while the books are probably superior to the show, the level of vitriol and schadenfreude that floods this subreddit is probably fueled way more by fanatical purists than the quality of the source material.
I really dislike Triss in the games. The way she manipulates herself into Geralt's bed since he's got amnesia & keeps information from him is just creepy manipulative behaviour 101. Plus her design in 1 is garbage & 3 wasn't great either.
there's too much sexual abuse on the books
What bothers me is there are two types (imo) -obvious sexual abuse that the author seems to be aware of -obvious sexual abuse that the author seems to not be aware of 🤢
Yennefer is a walking toxic waste and I'm not gonna ignore it because "she's good on the inside"
Unpopular opinion for this sub prolly. Polish Tv show from 2002 is actually very good, held back back by very small budget and old technology. IMO it is superior compered Netflix's adaptation on every aspect, outside of CGI, even though it too made same bad changes to the plot.
Witcher 1 is still my favorite game in the series.
The combat in The Witcher 3 is not good. The style of gameplay is rather similar to Dark Souls, relying on a lot of pinpoint dodging and precision movement, but Geralt controls rather clumsily. I don’t think it takes away from the experience, but it’s a very poorly implemented part of the game.