• RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Are you serious? The games are basically unofficial sequels to the books. They absolutely have something to do with them lol wtaf.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      The games are basically unofficial sequels to the books. They absolutely have something to do with them lol wtaf.

      So are they faithful to the material, or are they a separate story like the show was?

      The games aren’t the books, the show wasn’t either, and people are mad about that, lmfao.

      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        They’re continuations of the story. They take the established lore and expand on them, just like an additional book would.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Huh, just like what the show was doing…. What’s your point here again?

          That one media can tell a different story than the books, but another can’t? Thats just asinine lmfao.

          • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            You can’t tell the difference between an adaptation and a sequel? The show was not a “different story”, it was a poorly-made adaptation that they didn’t want to make. They wanted Game of Thrones using an unrelated existing IP. If they really wanted a different story entirely, they should have avoided using the characters and events from the books.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              They are both doing the exact same thing, expanding on existing lore. It’s extremely weird that you think there’s a difference here.

              Why is one more acceptable than the other, when they are doing the exact same thing? You can of course make excuses like you did to defend it, but it’s still the same exact thing in the end. Arguing otherwise is just asinine.

              • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I don’t know how you consider an adaptation the same as a sequel. Would you watch yet another movie with the origin story of Spider-man and think it expands the lore of Spider-man? It doesn’t make sense.

                The Witcher TV show is garbage, especially the second and third season. I’m glad that you appear to enjoy it, but it’s not for me. I wouldn’t call an adaptation that bastardizes the source material an expansion of the lore, but you are free to do you. In either case, even if the show was a truly unique story and IP, it doesn’t even follow its own narrative. Characters make nonsensical decisions that go against their character traits established in the show. Pacing is weird, dialogue is not good. Cavil was carrying the entire show on his shoulders.

                If you look at user reviews for season 3, you will see I’m not the only person with this view. S3E5 was the worst episode of any TV show I have ever seen. The franchise deserved better. The showrunner drove this show into the ground. They clearly don’t understand the source material, or how to make an interesting story in the Witcher universe. They need to do better.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  You obviously haven’t read the books, it can’t be a sequel… yennefer and Geralt were dead and ciri fucked off to an alternate reality at the end of the books. Runes basically don’t exist in the books, among basically everything else the games take for liberty.

                  The show was confusing, because Cavill wanted non-canon game stuff with canon book stuff, when the show wasn’t either. You can’t have the person that fucked the entire thing up, be the one “carrying” it lmfao.

                  So yeah… both are doing the exact same thing, using the lore to tell a different story.

                  • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    You obviously haven’t read the books, it can’t be a sequel… yennefer and Geralt were dead and ciri fucked off to an alternate reality at the end of the books.

                    Correct, but thanks for the spoilers I guess? I also haven’t beaten the games either. That’s how I know the show sucks. I’m interested in reading the books and finishing the games, but I don’t give a fuck about the show. I don’t mind if the games are not a perfect adaptation of the books, video–>game adaptations (and vice versa) usually suck, but the game is fun, engaging, and has a great story. The show does not. Stop comparing the games to the show. You might consider them similar as derivative creative art goes, but they aren’t playing in the same league quality-wise. The show will be remembered about as fondly as the Star Wars holiday special.