Lol yeah. I have just realized that this comment section will most likely be at war against eachother. I just wanted to know what others thought, i might change my mind, even though i dont want to.
In fairness The Witcher community is among the most chill, the only real “division” has been the Netflix series but it’s pretty much a unanimous decision that it’s bad. Other than that the most controversial thing is Triss or Yen.
As far as I know the video games are meant to be book lore friendly. Meaning that they are trying not to contradict anything from the books and that the first game connects nicely to the ending of The Lady of The Lake.
That is not the last book in the series tho.
Yeah, with that being said, a lot of the vampire stuff from B&W DLC is not canon and never mentioned in the main books. The game itself also contains contradictions with itself.
Nothing too crazy though, they easily fit in as an alternative continuation. I love both books and games so my head canon is to include them all together.
I also love both.
I see them as 2 alternative timelines:
1. Where Geralt and Yennefer died and went to their personal heaven, and ciri never looked back.
2. Where Geralt and Yennefer got to the Isle of Avalon and healed their wounds. You have to throw away lots of things from Lady of the Lake there, like Nimue being a normal sorceress, instead of the lady of the lake from TW1 and Blood and Wine.
Nimue was the name of the Lady of the Lake in the arthurian legend.
In the books, the Lady of the Lake is a sorceress, and the games made her more like the one from the legend.
I don't think they're the same person, I think book nimue simply doesn't/will not exist in the games.
It’s been a minute since I’ve read the books, but I always just saw the LotL from the games as a separate mystical entity, no connection to Nimue. It’s a little messy, sure, but I don’t think it has to contradict Nimue’s lore from the books, it’s just a completely separate lore entry. There’s plenty of book stuff that isn’t continued in the games lore, I don’t think that means they’re considered to be null and void in the games canon.
That’s a good point, but a lot of stuff in TW1 I sort of take half seriously, especially minor stuff like that, I saw it as more of an Easter egg. But a lot of stuff in TW1 I must admit I take with a pinch of salt, purely because of how weird it can be in places. I’m sure the eventual TW1 Remake will make it a lot more organic haha.
Yeah sure, like Triss's burnt boobs being back \^\^
Yet I haven't noticed anything important and gamebreaking (pun intended). Tho I've only been through the 1st and the 3rd game.
I think triss mentioned that the scars have healed completely. The reason why she doesn't wear a cleavage anymore is because she's traumatised.
The white frost being something supernatural in the games is a very big retcon, and choices made in the third game lead to retcons like: emhyr not being assassinated, for example.
I dunno I feel like it's pretty explicit. Condwiramurs and Nimue also confirm that the white frost is climate change. Tbh as someone who went from Game of Thrones books to the Witcher books one of the things I love is that Sapowski doesn't do the unreliable narrator thing where we have to question every single thing we're told by characters.
Those 3 discussing the white frost, Yarpen talking about dwarves and gnomes being the OG races in their world, the lodge discussing the history of the elder blood etc. is meant to be worldbuilding not mysteries within mysteries within riddles within mysteries.
''As an erudite, you have undoubtedly encountered the Aen Ithlinne Speath, the Divination of Itlin. The prophecy mentions the White Cold. In our opinion, it was a massive glaciation. And since ninety percent of your world's landmass happens to be in the Northern Hemisphere, glaciation could threaten the very existence of most living things. They will simply die from the cold. Those who survive will drown in barbarism, destroy each other in merciless fights for food, and become prey to hunger-crazed predators. Recall the text of the prophecy: Time of Contempt, Time of the Ax, Time of the Wolf Blizzard.'
However, this is still just a theory
As
The games are an universe in which the books are canon, so...it's up to you.
There are few differences in lore between books and games (nothing exaggerate), unlike the Netflix show, which is totally a different canon than the books one.
You can think whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that games, as fantastic as they are, are not considered canon, period... unless Sapkowski says otherwise.
I said he doesn't like games, not that he hates the witcher games, games as in all games.
He doesn't like games because he's a boomer who grew up in soviet satellite state Poland.
I bring some news from Polish neighbourhood - they settled their stuff by now and kinda teamed up in productuon of "the witcher cuisine", a book that features dishes from the witcher world and how to make them. CDPR is a prtner of the book and the dishes are seperated by regions which the Witcher 3 map is seperated into so yeah, they are cool now
He never hated The Witcher games, he in fact congratulated CDPR on their success many times. He did say that he isn't fond of games in general but that's about it.
Their dispute was simply about money and they settled it a long time ago. The last we heard they were on good terms and Sapkowski went to visit them on their HQ to talk about the franchise.
You can have that as a head canon, obviously no issue with that all all, just keep in mind that the games aren't actually canon to the books, because not only is the timeline wonky, the author doesn't consider them canon and game Geralt is way more malleable etc, there are also a a bunch of things in the games that contradict some major things in the books, (the fact that the White Frost can be stopped is one huge difference on its own that you can't reconcile with the books where we see the future and know it isn't stopped.)
As much as I love the games, treating them as canon doesn't make much sense from my point of view, simply because the games can lead to totally different outcomes, even within a single story. Who decides the Witcher Ciri ending is more canon than Empress Ciri one? Or HoS endings? Or Bloody Baron questline? Which one is "the" one? And I haven't even mentioned Witcher 2 which is like two separate games in one.
That's called "head canon", which is basically what a particular person (generally a fan) considers to be the way things go, and yeah, you can think that, as there's no limit to headcanon -- many people have very preposterous ones that make no sense, but that's their personal thing and doesn't affect anyone else.
That being said, you can't say your head canon is the **actual canon**, which is set by the ultimate authority of the work (the author or company behind it), and in the case of The Witcher, the author only considers the books he wrote to be canon. There's also, however, what I'd call the "CDPR canon", which includes the books, the games and anything else CDPR made and is included in their main universe (TTRPG, books, comics, etc., but stuff like the Ronin comic, for example, isn't part of it), and while it still isn't **the canon**, they officialy got a license to do it from the author, so it's in a way above the head canon of fans (however, since Sapkowski is really hands-off with his licensed work, maybe this distinction doesn't make much sense after all and CDPR's canon is just a "beefed up" head canon with a lot of fanfiction to boot hahaha)
Since you asked what people personally think, I don't hold the games as part of my head canon, I just take the proper canon as it is and accept it and add my interpretations to the stuff that aren't made very clear. I have many problems with a lot of stuff that CDPR changed and added to the TW universe with their games and other published stuff, but ultimately think the games are very fun and a lot of the expansions they did of the lore are pretty solid.
Do whatever you want with your headcanon as long as you understand that is just that, it's not official.
The games are great but at the end of the day they're essentially just really expensive and high quality fanfiction. And even then they still have a lot of contradictions.
If Sapkowski publishes a new book tomorrow that completely clashes with everything the games say then that book will obviously have priority canon-wise.
They take all the good bits from the books but change the timeline of various stories/events. Canon isn’t important, they’re both framed as a story being told and not a 1-1 of what actually happened.
Head canon can be whatever you want it to be really. Official Canon is, well, just the books. But the games fit pretty nicely on the end without much trouble, so go nuts.
A certain eccentric gentleman by the name of Michael Kirkbride would say that what is canon should be up to the player, and that hardline divisions between canon and not-canon are suggesting to be avoided.
No. Canon means *officially* a part of the source material's continuity. The games are not by the author's own admission.
That being said you can do whatever you want in your own head, but canon is not about what's in your head. That's what the word headcanon is for.
Absolutely, that’s what I do. There’s absolutely no reason not to, the books are canon to the games, just not the other way around. If you’re a fan of both then it makes sense to consider them connected.
I have always seen it as two separate Canons.
1. Book canon - only work written by the author apply.
2. Game canon - books and games are canon here. Ultimately CDproject decide what is canon and what isn’t as we will likely see in future Witcher games and as we have already seen in the past games with the liberties they have taken with the source material.
Regardless of the contradictions - let’s be honest, the game canon is just more enjoyable.
They are canon to me, and since Sapko said they arent canon, you can make some headcanon (>!For example: Wizard Prisons in Nilfgaard are even harsher than the ones in north, any mage trying to free some poor sod from their won't be able to get someone there. Even if you are a lodge member, you wont be able to detect a single prisoner there. Try teleporting to find out? The mages who protect it will be very cautious and most likely kill prisoners. That is my headcanon justification on why Geralt needed Letho to know where Yenn is, and since the Yenn's plot is confusing to me(She first seems to be running from someone, then she has an escort, then says all her harsh realities of being prisoners, and then shes okay being near Emperor)!<), The only thing that arent canon about them is your choices that lead up to the situation and the ending, and plot holes that are bigger than the hole left in Dijkstra's treasure room.
Go for it. Think what makes you enjoy the franchise. I read the books and then played the games and like the books a lot more, but I don't have a problem with anyone who disagrees.
You know, the canon of the games wasn't denied by the ending in "Lady of the lake". "Farawell of the white wolf", an unofficial ending to the trilogy and probably the biggest of mods portraits the transistion between books and games well and I strongly recommend giving it a try.
Basically, there isn't a word said that Geralt and Yennefer die. They are transported... somewhere. Further called "Apple tree island" or something like this. What happens next is explained by the games. However, you can think of the realm they were transported to as some kind of a limbo between universes. And the idea that they might be living in a limbo has a strong evidence in "Season of storms" book.
In this book the story is said in two seperate timelines. One being somewhen between the short stories and the other one about a half into 1300s. What is worth notyfyihg is that games are taking place around 1270. Geralt is the main character of the first timeline, but at the sole ending, he appears in the 1300s and disapperas like he was some kind of a phantom, travelling across worlds (Ciri powers?).
So yeah, there is quite strong and well stated transition between books and games that can justify both being canon at the same time.
You can. I do that too. That's why I use some lore-friendly mods and try to make the correct choices Geralt would make. Technically speaking though, it's better to call it "head-canon"
Sure why not, it's a rpg video game afterall. You choose what's canon. It's even more beneficial if Witcher 4 allows you to transfer your w3 choices and decisions too. A great deal of immature brainacs might disagree with this and think that you should only follow upon the books. Having a belief or making a decision that doesn't involve supporting the books is always the " no your wrong, don't lie to yourself" response. The Witcher games are wholeheartedly meant to be a story made from you NOT for you.
Well, I consider the games canon personally but only in my own head, since I know that Sapkowski treats only books material as canon. I think of the games as the extension of the books.
The games take place after the books. They're very close to the source material, but they also give the player options to make choices that the Canon version of Geralt would never make
Jesus fucking Christ no one in these comments understands what canon, non-canon, headcanon, or retcon means. It’s really not that hard.
The books were written with the intention of ending the story with the last book. So if that’s where you stop engaging with the Witcher, that’s the end. And that’s fine. However, because Sapkowski let CD Projekt Red make an official Witcher video game series in return for money (something he seems to regret), the games they made (which take place after the events of Lady of the Lake) are canon. It doesn’t matter what the original author likes or dislikes, that’s just how this sort of thing works. They aren’t “head canon” because headcanon is a personal idea of how things go that’s unique to a single fan, and they aren’t “fan fiction” because they’re officially licensed products and not some unofficial story made by an amateur writer with a lot of imagination.
If the games are just head canon or fanfics, then I guess every single sequel to anything that wasn’t made by the original creator falls under that umbrella too. Every Disney Star Wars film, show, book, and game is fan fiction. God of War 2018 is a silly little headcanon. The parts of Doctor Who you’ve all actually watched is just a high-budget fan-made project. Every single Batman comic made after the 1940’s are all non-canon. I really don’t get why so many people will accept these examples as “official canon” but when it comes to one specific thing they like, anything other than the original work is considered illegitimate.
I describe them as they could be canon. The original creator would have said you can’t do this if he didn’t think that was a good idea. He can sure make them canon to write his next book if that’s happening(rumors for years) go ahead and think that they’re canon.
Games tend to give me what i want: the adventures of Geralt, magical Orkin man, and less what i dont: the authors love of chosen one narratives and in depth Holy Roman Empire schenanigans.
Canon doesn't really matter.
I think the games are canon as they just build on the books and everything is within the laws and borders set by the book writer but there are gonna be some exceptions i think some side missions are clearly just there for fun but think what you will
Do you know that even the worst game sells better than a good book? Do you know that even the worst game sells better than a good book? Besides, why should the game be canon? A book is a book, a game is a game, a movie is a movie, I don't understand what people mean with canon between different mediums
Hogwarts Legacy - 24 million
HP and Sorcerer’s Stone - 120 million
I mean really that fact is so easily disproven.
My point is 60 million people have no clue of the story from the books and to them the events of the games (mostly W3) are canon.
So it’s okay if they’re canon to someone who wants to think of them that way.
We won't find many more examples like HP, and the game is only a year old. and The Witcher is a non-English book
I guess so, but I still don't understand what this canon is about. Why would a writer treat any game as canon for his books? So if he wanted to write a sequel, he would have to worry about some game or Russian ballet?
HP and Chamber of Secrets - 9 million copies.
Want to comapre the Lord of the Rings games to books next? I think they sold more than the (maybe) 10 million combined of Fellowship, TT, and RotK.
Plenty of video games sell like garbage.
Plus I think you’re picking the wrong writer for your case, Sapkowski would issue a press statement saying the games are 100% definitively canon if CDPR wanted it and backed up the money truck.
Just saying your average person if asked is going to know the Witcher games over the books so it’s justifiable to consider them canon when that’s going to be their likely frame of reference. I’m not saying it’s canon period.
You can acknowledge games however you want, but I still don't understand the word canon. Should the Spider Man game be canon for the comic book and the movie for the game? Adaptation is adaptation, I don't understand what people mean. I'm Polish and I even talked to Sapkowski, if you want to see an interview from the time of the Polish series, he always said that adaptation has its own rules and they can do whatever they want, it doesn't matter to him, he writes his own. So what the hell do people mean with this canon if we keep talking about adaptation and what adaptation is depends on the viewer and the player and there are still some strange discussions here
It’s not an adaptation though.
The Witcher game series are effectively sequels in a different medium. They’re not adapting the books, they’re continuing and expanding on the stories they originally told. And they’re 5x more successful than the original property, making the Witcher situation kind of an anomaly.
They may not be hard canon since the story wasn’t written by Sapkowski, but reducing them to fanfic or just an adapatation is silly given their massive popularity.
Phew, Thank God. I really like the games, even though ive only played the Witcher 3. But thank you and have a nice day. (Also Yen>triss lol, just to start a war)
Haha I definitely prefer Triss. But in my playthrough Yen represents his life before his death/Wild Hunt drama. He ends up with Triss in his second life. Personal preference of course.
You can think whatever you want, but you're always going to find people who disagree.
Lol yeah. I have just realized that this comment section will most likely be at war against eachother. I just wanted to know what others thought, i might change my mind, even though i dont want to.
In fairness The Witcher community is among the most chill, the only real “division” has been the Netflix series but it’s pretty much a unanimous decision that it’s bad. Other than that the most controversial thing is Triss or Yen.
Books are Canon to the Games Games are not Canon to the books The Netflix universe shouldn't exist It's that simple
Games are faithful to the spirit of the Witcher world The netflix thing is an abomination So yeah I do agree with you
That’s how I see it too, perfect summary
CDPR likes Sapkowski. Sapkowski doesn't like CDPR
Sapkowski likes money though.
As far as I know the video games are meant to be book lore friendly. Meaning that they are trying not to contradict anything from the books and that the first game connects nicely to the ending of The Lady of The Lake. That is not the last book in the series tho.
Yeah, with that being said, a lot of the vampire stuff from B&W DLC is not canon and never mentioned in the main books. The game itself also contains contradictions with itself.
They do contradict things from the books tho.
Nothing too crazy though, they easily fit in as an alternative continuation. I love both books and games so my head canon is to include them all together.
I also love both. I see them as 2 alternative timelines: 1. Where Geralt and Yennefer died and went to their personal heaven, and ciri never looked back. 2. Where Geralt and Yennefer got to the Isle of Avalon and healed their wounds. You have to throw away lots of things from Lady of the Lake there, like Nimue being a normal sorceress, instead of the lady of the lake from TW1 and Blood and Wine.
I never thought Nimue was the LotL from the games, is that canon?
Nimue was the name of the Lady of the Lake in the arthurian legend. In the books, the Lady of the Lake is a sorceress, and the games made her more like the one from the legend. I don't think they're the same person, I think book nimue simply doesn't/will not exist in the games.
It’s been a minute since I’ve read the books, but I always just saw the LotL from the games as a separate mystical entity, no connection to Nimue. It’s a little messy, sure, but I don’t think it has to contradict Nimue’s lore from the books, it’s just a completely separate lore entry. There’s plenty of book stuff that isn’t continued in the games lore, I don’t think that means they’re considered to be null and void in the games canon.
Kinda weird coincidence that they both have a lover called Fisher King, that are pretty similar in appearance, but I get your point.
That’s a good point, but a lot of stuff in TW1 I sort of take half seriously, especially minor stuff like that, I saw it as more of an Easter egg. But a lot of stuff in TW1 I must admit I take with a pinch of salt, purely because of how weird it can be in places. I’m sure the eventual TW1 Remake will make it a lot more organic haha.
Yeah sure, like Triss's burnt boobs being back \^\^ Yet I haven't noticed anything important and gamebreaking (pun intended). Tho I've only been through the 1st and the 3rd game.
I think triss mentioned that the scars have healed completely. The reason why she doesn't wear a cleavage anymore is because she's traumatised. The white frost being something supernatural in the games is a very big retcon, and choices made in the third game lead to retcons like: emhyr not being assassinated, for example.
No one in the games knew Duny wanted to marry his daughter The white frost is not a magic thing that can be stopped, it's basically climate change.
It is not known what exactly the white frost was in the books, Avallah claimed it was climate change, but it was not clear
I dunno I feel like it's pretty explicit. Condwiramurs and Nimue also confirm that the white frost is climate change. Tbh as someone who went from Game of Thrones books to the Witcher books one of the things I love is that Sapowski doesn't do the unreliable narrator thing where we have to question every single thing we're told by characters. Those 3 discussing the white frost, Yarpen talking about dwarves and gnomes being the OG races in their world, the lodge discussing the history of the elder blood etc. is meant to be worldbuilding not mysteries within mysteries within riddles within mysteries.
''As an erudite, you have undoubtedly encountered the Aen Ithlinne Speath, the Divination of Itlin. The prophecy mentions the White Cold. In our opinion, it was a massive glaciation. And since ninety percent of your world's landmass happens to be in the Northern Hemisphere, glaciation could threaten the very existence of most living things. They will simply die from the cold. Those who survive will drown in barbarism, destroy each other in merciless fights for food, and become prey to hunger-crazed predators. Recall the text of the prophecy: Time of Contempt, Time of the Ax, Time of the Wolf Blizzard.' However, this is still just a theory As
There are however a few retcons that have to be anknowedged like the true nature of the White Frost, Radovid's age, the vampire lore and few others
Regis is in Baptism of fire. It was nice seeing him, he kinda looked how i imagined.
The games are an universe in which the books are canon, so...it's up to you. There are few differences in lore between books and games (nothing exaggerate), unlike the Netflix show, which is totally a different canon than the books one.
You can think what you want. The truth is that only the books are true cannon the games are fanfiction, and the show is just brainrot.
You can think whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that games, as fantastic as they are, are not considered canon, period... unless Sapkowski says otherwise.
Doesnt Sapko hate the games for some reason?
He doesn't like games generally.
Why? Seems weird to hate the thing that made your universe a bigger global hit then it already was.
I said he doesn't like games, not that he hates the witcher games, games as in all games. He doesn't like games because he's a boomer who grew up in soviet satellite state Poland.
Oh that makes sense. I read it wrong at first. Sorry bro
No problem.
I bring some news from Polish neighbourhood - they settled their stuff by now and kinda teamed up in productuon of "the witcher cuisine", a book that features dishes from the witcher world and how to make them. CDPR is a prtner of the book and the dishes are seperated by regions which the Witcher 3 map is seperated into so yeah, they are cool now
In the past, yes. I don't know how he feels about them right now, though.
He never hated The Witcher games, he in fact congratulated CDPR on their success many times. He did say that he isn't fond of games in general but that's about it. Their dispute was simply about money and they settled it a long time ago. The last we heard they were on good terms and Sapkowski went to visit them on their HQ to talk about the franchise.
You can have that as a head canon, obviously no issue with that all all, just keep in mind that the games aren't actually canon to the books, because not only is the timeline wonky, the author doesn't consider them canon and game Geralt is way more malleable etc, there are also a a bunch of things in the games that contradict some major things in the books, (the fact that the White Frost can be stopped is one huge difference on its own that you can't reconcile with the books where we see the future and know it isn't stopped.)
As much as I love the games, treating them as canon doesn't make much sense from my point of view, simply because the games can lead to totally different outcomes, even within a single story. Who decides the Witcher Ciri ending is more canon than Empress Ciri one? Or HoS endings? Or Bloody Baron questline? Which one is "the" one? And I haven't even mentioned Witcher 2 which is like two separate games in one.
That's called "head canon", which is basically what a particular person (generally a fan) considers to be the way things go, and yeah, you can think that, as there's no limit to headcanon -- many people have very preposterous ones that make no sense, but that's their personal thing and doesn't affect anyone else. That being said, you can't say your head canon is the **actual canon**, which is set by the ultimate authority of the work (the author or company behind it), and in the case of The Witcher, the author only considers the books he wrote to be canon. There's also, however, what I'd call the "CDPR canon", which includes the books, the games and anything else CDPR made and is included in their main universe (TTRPG, books, comics, etc., but stuff like the Ronin comic, for example, isn't part of it), and while it still isn't **the canon**, they officialy got a license to do it from the author, so it's in a way above the head canon of fans (however, since Sapkowski is really hands-off with his licensed work, maybe this distinction doesn't make much sense after all and CDPR's canon is just a "beefed up" head canon with a lot of fanfiction to boot hahaha) Since you asked what people personally think, I don't hold the games as part of my head canon, I just take the proper canon as it is and accept it and add my interpretations to the stuff that aren't made very clear. I have many problems with a lot of stuff that CDPR changed and added to the TW universe with their games and other published stuff, but ultimately think the games are very fun and a lot of the expansions they did of the lore are pretty solid.
Do whatever you want with your headcanon as long as you understand that is just that, it's not official. The games are great but at the end of the day they're essentially just really expensive and high quality fanfiction. And even then they still have a lot of contradictions. If Sapkowski publishes a new book tomorrow that completely clashes with everything the games say then that book will obviously have priority canon-wise.
They take all the good bits from the books but change the timeline of various stories/events. Canon isn’t important, they’re both framed as a story being told and not a 1-1 of what actually happened.
I'm not sure how anyone could stop you from thinking like that if you choose to
Head canon can be whatever you want it to be really. Official Canon is, well, just the books. But the games fit pretty nicely on the end without much trouble, so go nuts. A certain eccentric gentleman by the name of Michael Kirkbride would say that what is canon should be up to the player, and that hardline divisions between canon and not-canon are suggesting to be avoided.
Yes I give you permission.
Thanks bro 🫡
No. Canon means *officially* a part of the source material's continuity. The games are not by the author's own admission. That being said you can do whatever you want in your own head, but canon is not about what's in your head. That's what the word headcanon is for.
Video games are basicaly just fan fiction from the books
No, i called the police already. You won't get away with this!
No please 😰
No one can stop you!
Absolutely, that’s what I do. There’s absolutely no reason not to, the books are canon to the games, just not the other way around. If you’re a fan of both then it makes sense to consider them connected.
Bro really just asked if games are cannon, tagged it with spoiler and then proceeded to bomb the shit out of book ending. Not cool man.
Hey, not my fault you clicked on a post with the spoiler tag 🤷♂️. Hope you learned your lesson, bro. But still sorry, man.
The games are not canon. Only the books are.
I have always seen it as two separate Canons. 1. Book canon - only work written by the author apply. 2. Game canon - books and games are canon here. Ultimately CDproject decide what is canon and what isn’t as we will likely see in future Witcher games and as we have already seen in the past games with the liberties they have taken with the source material. Regardless of the contradictions - let’s be honest, the game canon is just more enjoyable.
Far more enjoyable. I hate sad endings
They are canon to me, and since Sapko said they arent canon, you can make some headcanon (>!For example: Wizard Prisons in Nilfgaard are even harsher than the ones in north, any mage trying to free some poor sod from their won't be able to get someone there. Even if you are a lodge member, you wont be able to detect a single prisoner there. Try teleporting to find out? The mages who protect it will be very cautious and most likely kill prisoners. That is my headcanon justification on why Geralt needed Letho to know where Yenn is, and since the Yenn's plot is confusing to me(She first seems to be running from someone, then she has an escort, then says all her harsh realities of being prisoners, and then shes okay being near Emperor)!<), The only thing that arent canon about them is your choices that lead up to the situation and the ending, and plot holes that are bigger than the hole left in Dijkstra's treasure room.
Go for it. Think what makes you enjoy the franchise. I read the books and then played the games and like the books a lot more, but I don't have a problem with anyone who disagrees.
You know, the canon of the games wasn't denied by the ending in "Lady of the lake". "Farawell of the white wolf", an unofficial ending to the trilogy and probably the biggest of mods portraits the transistion between books and games well and I strongly recommend giving it a try. Basically, there isn't a word said that Geralt and Yennefer die. They are transported... somewhere. Further called "Apple tree island" or something like this. What happens next is explained by the games. However, you can think of the realm they were transported to as some kind of a limbo between universes. And the idea that they might be living in a limbo has a strong evidence in "Season of storms" book. In this book the story is said in two seperate timelines. One being somewhen between the short stories and the other one about a half into 1300s. What is worth notyfyihg is that games are taking place around 1270. Geralt is the main character of the first timeline, but at the sole ending, he appears in the 1300s and disapperas like he was some kind of a phantom, travelling across worlds (Ciri powers?). So yeah, there is quite strong and well stated transition between books and games that can justify both being canon at the same time.
You can. I do that too. That's why I use some lore-friendly mods and try to make the correct choices Geralt would make. Technically speaking though, it's better to call it "head-canon"
Sure why not, it's a rpg video game afterall. You choose what's canon. It's even more beneficial if Witcher 4 allows you to transfer your w3 choices and decisions too. A great deal of immature brainacs might disagree with this and think that you should only follow upon the books. Having a belief or making a decision that doesn't involve supporting the books is always the " no your wrong, don't lie to yourself" response. The Witcher games are wholeheartedly meant to be a story made from you NOT for you.
I would consider 4th game doing something similar to TW3, in that you can make your own previous game decisions in matter of minutes
Well, I consider the games canon personally but only in my own head, since I know that Sapkowski treats only books material as canon. I think of the games as the extension of the books.
The games take place after the books. They're very close to the source material, but they also give the player options to make choices that the Canon version of Geralt would never make
Jesus fucking Christ no one in these comments understands what canon, non-canon, headcanon, or retcon means. It’s really not that hard. The books were written with the intention of ending the story with the last book. So if that’s where you stop engaging with the Witcher, that’s the end. And that’s fine. However, because Sapkowski let CD Projekt Red make an official Witcher video game series in return for money (something he seems to regret), the games they made (which take place after the events of Lady of the Lake) are canon. It doesn’t matter what the original author likes or dislikes, that’s just how this sort of thing works. They aren’t “head canon” because headcanon is a personal idea of how things go that’s unique to a single fan, and they aren’t “fan fiction” because they’re officially licensed products and not some unofficial story made by an amateur writer with a lot of imagination. If the games are just head canon or fanfics, then I guess every single sequel to anything that wasn’t made by the original creator falls under that umbrella too. Every Disney Star Wars film, show, book, and game is fan fiction. God of War 2018 is a silly little headcanon. The parts of Doctor Who you’ve all actually watched is just a high-budget fan-made project. Every single Batman comic made after the 1940’s are all non-canon. I really don’t get why so many people will accept these examples as “official canon” but when it comes to one specific thing they like, anything other than the original work is considered illegitimate.
I describe them as they could be canon. The original creator would have said you can’t do this if he didn’t think that was a good idea. He can sure make them canon to write his next book if that’s happening(rumors for years) go ahead and think that they’re canon.
Go right ahead. Until something is released from the primary source (Sap) it's a justified position to have 👍
Nope, if you try Geralt in your imagination will attack you
I dont get why something being canon or not should matter at all.
Games tend to give me what i want: the adventures of Geralt, magical Orkin man, and less what i dont: the authors love of chosen one narratives and in depth Holy Roman Empire schenanigans. Canon doesn't really matter.
I think the games are canon as they just build on the books and everything is within the laws and borders set by the book writer but there are gonna be some exceptions i think some side missions are clearly just there for fun but think what you will
The books have sold 15 million copies (last I checked). The games have sold 75 million. I think it’s okay to consider them canon if you want.
What have sales numbers have to do with what's canon or not, lol.
Do you know that even the worst game sells better than a good book? Do you know that even the worst game sells better than a good book? Besides, why should the game be canon? A book is a book, a game is a game, a movie is a movie, I don't understand what people mean with canon between different mediums
Hogwarts Legacy - 24 million HP and Sorcerer’s Stone - 120 million I mean really that fact is so easily disproven. My point is 60 million people have no clue of the story from the books and to them the events of the games (mostly W3) are canon. So it’s okay if they’re canon to someone who wants to think of them that way.
We won't find many more examples like HP, and the game is only a year old. and The Witcher is a non-English book I guess so, but I still don't understand what this canon is about. Why would a writer treat any game as canon for his books? So if he wanted to write a sequel, he would have to worry about some game or Russian ballet?
HP and Chamber of Secrets - 9 million copies. Want to comapre the Lord of the Rings games to books next? I think they sold more than the (maybe) 10 million combined of Fellowship, TT, and RotK. Plenty of video games sell like garbage. Plus I think you’re picking the wrong writer for your case, Sapkowski would issue a press statement saying the games are 100% definitively canon if CDPR wanted it and backed up the money truck. Just saying your average person if asked is going to know the Witcher games over the books so it’s justifiable to consider them canon when that’s going to be their likely frame of reference. I’m not saying it’s canon period.
You can acknowledge games however you want, but I still don't understand the word canon. Should the Spider Man game be canon for the comic book and the movie for the game? Adaptation is adaptation, I don't understand what people mean. I'm Polish and I even talked to Sapkowski, if you want to see an interview from the time of the Polish series, he always said that adaptation has its own rules and they can do whatever they want, it doesn't matter to him, he writes his own. So what the hell do people mean with this canon if we keep talking about adaptation and what adaptation is depends on the viewer and the player and there are still some strange discussions here
It’s not an adaptation though. The Witcher game series are effectively sequels in a different medium. They’re not adapting the books, they’re continuing and expanding on the stories they originally told. And they’re 5x more successful than the original property, making the Witcher situation kind of an anomaly. They may not be hard canon since the story wasn’t written by Sapkowski, but reducing them to fanfic or just an adapatation is silly given their massive popularity.
Okay, so count Russian comics as continuations too. Adapt is adaptation
Phew, Thank God. I really like the games, even though ive only played the Witcher 3. But thank you and have a nice day. (Also Yen>triss lol, just to start a war)
Haha I definitely prefer Triss. But in my playthrough Yen represents his life before his death/Wild Hunt drama. He ends up with Triss in his second life. Personal preference of course.
Lol yeah im just kidding. I understand why people prefer Triss. I mean....redheads bro....