And I could agree to that, yet it also is important to me that the whole storyline remains consistent.

And for me, this was just not a given. As I have said, I have no problem with Shani being excluded in general, even though I don't understand it, yet the devs could have dealt with it better with some small changes in the intro. They could have hand-waved Shani's disappearing with one line of dialog, and it would have been more bearable for me.

As it was, it turned out as a huge immersion-breaker for me and my first real disappointment of the game.

I actually played the Witcher2 with a Triss-help-the-elves-save-import, rather than "my" neutral-Shani-one, which I still perceive to be my "real" Geralt ;)

I explicitly said it is a slap for Shani-mancers.

I agree it's a slap in the face (even though I haven't chosen Shani before). Imagine you watch a movie which has one heroine, and you watch the sequel and that heroine just disappeared without a trace, not even a brief mention - this would constitute a WTF moment for me, regardless of whether the heroine was true or not according to the lore, or regardless of how hot the new heroine is.

Actually it's not Bullcrap. The devs stated several times that the books are basically their encyclopedia where they look stuff up (if they have to) and so on... That's why the games are so rewarding for someone who has read them and there are references everywhere.
Also, the amnesia is much more of a "fish out of the water"-thing, so new people can be introduced into this world alongside Geralt. They didn't want to confuse people.



Yeah, why bother about anything. Oh wait...


I think the game does reflect that. Shani is a lot less integral to the story, than Triss is. Shani helps with the autopsy and that's pretty much it. Triss is there at the beginning at Kaer Morhen, helps in the fight, is involved in the search for Salamandra, helps Geralt several times, locates Alvin, locates Radovid, makes contact with Leuvaarden, teleports Geralt several times, gives him the pass to move freely inside the Trade Quarter, gives Geralt the amulett for Alvin, conjures things up, can be your companion in the neutral witcher path... And probably even more I just forgot to list, but I guess I've made my point. Bottom line is, the story of Witcher 1 would work without Shani, it wouldn't work without Triss.

Yeah but that's already writing you own story in your head. That's good I guess, most players do that, but in my version the ring was just a gift for a special lady friend. No one ever used the words fiance let alone marriage. Not that I recall at least.

Dude what is this about, I dont get your point? I mean, it's not there, what's the point of trying to justify it?

Imagine you are in a restaurant. The staff tells you that you can obviously order anything on the menu. You like a steak, so you order it and after some time, they bring you pasta instead. Would you be content with an explanation why it didnt make sense to bring you the meal you wanted?

You are like the guy "no more patches CDP Red, the game runs fine on MY computer".

The books serve as the background, yes. But should the books define how the story should play out? IMHO: Noooooo! That's what the player is for. It's a RPG alright?

It is true that TW1 had quite a few inside jokes that only worked if you knew the books, but yet, you didn't have to know the books in order to enjoy the game.

And in retrospect I would even claim that you could enjoy TW1 more on a different level if you didn't know the books at all.

Esp. Triss' character comes to mind, if I knew the books (or CDProject's character description on their website -.-) I never would have doubted her integrity. But since "I" had amnesia, I had to decide whether to trust her or not, and I chose not to. Realizing that this was a "wrong" decision even elevates the awesomeness of TW1 for me.

Speak for yourself. To me, it was the perfect excuse of the devs to give the player the allowance to shape Geralt in one's own image.

Whatever he may have been in the books, it absolutely doesn't count anymore.

YOU "became" Geralt, and YOU define what he is like.

The OP does bother, alright. Just not about things you deem relevant.

Again, speak for yourself.

One also could say that Triss served as a McGuffin who just advances the plot, yet this doesn't make her necessarily important to the player.

It doesn't matter if the story of TW1 would work with or without Shani, but it's a fact that Shani featured pretty prominently in it, and was kicked out of TW2 without any explanation at all. Which is very bad storytelling.

A character doesn't need to play an important role in order to be important to the player.

(Just ask the crowd of Alpha-Protocol-players what they think of Sis. And the fact that they cannot date her ^^)

There were quite a few scenes were you could specify what your Geralt saw your love-interest as, esp. when talking with Alvin when he follows you around. My Geralt stated to him that he was in love with Shani and that he wanted to settle down with her.

I don't know about you, but I don't need to hear the word fiance or marriage in such a case, the state of relationship is pretty much obvious.

So now I am asking you again: How does it make any sense for a Shani-romacing-Geralt to wake up next to Triss in the second game? It surly was a very hard thing to overcome for me in order to even play beyond the intro.

As I see it, Geralt is starting to regain his memory, so now he is seeing Shani for what she really is, just a side fun, so he has lost any serious interest with her. But I do agree, it should be worded out clearly.
Now he is supposed to gradually return back to his obssesion with Yennefer, I think.

CDPR is really gonna need to built up a rapport between Geralt and Yennefer for the player in TW3 if they want to go down that route. It could be easily done by having the third game played as a bunch of flashbacks where Geralt is adventuring with Yennefer in the past. And in between, the player continues to play Geralt in the future with Triss/Shani/whoever. That way, when the time comes at the end for Geralt to decide who he wants to be with, they can make a decision based on whoever their heart feels strongest for. :)

That would be scripting the events to extreme, including deciding what relations he (and by extensions us) can or cannot hold and that would go against what role playing is about... doing so is more fit for a book than a game...

Let's not forget that this is a video game and leave a physical offences, generally associated with anger, disregard for other person and similar very negative emotions/expressions out of this.
I would really suggest looking up the definition of the term before using it to describe supposed state of mind and actions of the developers... (who you do not know and have not meet).

In the end, what you are asking for was not in a game, a disappointing turn of events, yes... an aimed and deliberate offence? no...

I was thinking about it. There should be another game between Witcher 2 and TW3. The game where you play as Yennefer. Regaining her memory in Nilfgaard, etc.
Or even better, TW3 should have two separate pathes. Path of the Witcher and Path of the Sorceress. It would be interesting to meet Geralt as NPC. But I doubt CDPR going that route, as it would mean developing two games for the price of one.

Is it a literal slap? No. Do I think that the expression neatly covers the WTF-moment I had when I played the intro? Hell yes!

Do not forget that I am a fan of TW1. And fan is derived from fanatic, right? ;-)

I really would love to hear the official rational behind this decision to put Shani out of the game from the devs. I am at a state of mind of "What were they thinking? Were they thinking at all?"

Well, deliberate or not, I still feel pissed ;-P

I understand, but since this is the internet and the attitude as well as the state of mind when the comments are made can only be conveyed through text... a huge possibility for misunderstanding and miscommunication exists.

That being said, my Geralt certainly would appreciated a possibility of enjoying a company of more women... (known and new) :)

It would have been nice if there had been just one line of dialogue to recognise Shanni in tw2. AND it wouln't have been difficult either.

I see people trying to explain the disconnect between Shani and Triss as saying the saga the Witcher follows does not revolve around Geralt and his choices, but around current circumstances somehow that discludes his choices. This only has merit within the story of the witcher as conveyed by the books. In 'BOOK-WORLD', you are obviously on rails...at the whim of the writer.

When you put a real person behind Geralt and give him choices, then the story is at the mercy of the player/Geralt...as it is supposedly intended. Thus you cannot REMOVE a possible choice from the game unless you injure/degrade the intended immersion of the RPG experience.

The idea that this saga does NOT revolve around Geralt and his PERSONAL choices is akin to saying that all the Gospels of the Bible are independent of the role of Jesus and stand as individual 'stories'. I personally don't believe in God but I think you get my meaning...it's simply ridiculous. (Example: In one Gospel, Jesus dies and is risen, in another he never dies. In one he has a last supper, in another Gospel he does not...)

I played Elven side-Shani in W-1 and I miss her...even after the 'ancient elven bathhouse scene with Triss in W-2...this is not my reality as a character, it seems forced...this must be a dream...a bad one.

I was searching opinions on the Shani versus Triss storyline, and found your thread. It is interesting, thank you all! I made a choice for Triss because of my thought that Alvin needed someone to train him. He had already had a few women caring for him, and seemed alright with whomever he lived with.

Additionally, it seems to me that SHANI would have chosen Triss, if not for jealousy. She did, after all, send Alvin to Abigail, because he could use a witches guidence.

Sound sensible? I am VERY new at RPG,and am learning a bit each day. At age 61, I have not played games since the Infocom games (excellent for their time, and even now!).

Something I found on the official TW forums: it seems an explanation about Shani was given in EE!

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/541798870763789534/ABCBAD6D81717AA73A5A690594BAABD6DAA2A4BF/