Yup😌😌

Yes he will. Master Cavill. Master Witcher. Master Geralt.

I can relate. Time to play the game again to try and fill the void 😂

I’m mad at myself too for binging it all in on evening, I wish the episodes were longer or we got 2-3 more episodes :’(

Same I'm done too 😭🤣

lol literally same, i finished binging it right now and i want more so bad

@@believeume122 WHAT DO WE DO NOW :(

As a homage to the game they should use exactly the same horse.

@@BambooCoffin a war horse with scars to represent the rencarnation of roach

Another? Wasn't roach alive in part 3, when ciri is an adult

@@dreliq981 geralt names all his horses roach

Henry understands that Lauren Hissrich unleashed dogshit, filled with her sick fantasies like Kaer Morhen orgy... Henry is the guy who carry this show.

@@LettisPatt wtf are you talking about

@@NovaNova11. maybe the comment above is too intense, but basically the point is that the scene with hookers in Kaer Morhen, compared with that part of the story in the books is something so out of place and uncharacteristic like if there was a strip club in Hogwarts, or something like that xd in the books Ciri is described much more like a child, witchers are like siblings to her, Eskel plays some childhood games with her, and on top of that is described as the kindest of the witchers. Honestly I could go on and on, and I get it that people might like it and not care about the books, but for someone who read it, and well, suspects at least a little similatity with the original, the whole Kear Morhen bit was a huuge shock. The only part of that scene that felt right for me was Geralt's reaction :')

@@CocoPegasister ah okay, that makes sense. thanks for explaining. What was geralt’s reaction? I watched season 2 but forgot what his reaction was

@@NovaNova11. he asked Vesemir something like "wtf is happening here" and had an exchange with Eskel where he kind of told him to get out when Eskel suggested that Geralt is playing "white knight" with Ciri, when he could do something entirely different. It's just a small hint, but it felt so out of place and disturbing when you think of Ciri as a 12/13 yo girl... (that is her age in the beggining of the saga). Obviously the showrunners must change some things to make it work, but at this point they are really writing a fanfiction, and as far as I know, most people who read the books find it impossible to enjoy, when they know how good it could be

😭

Bad news buddy lol

They have plans to do the entire book series. Obviously if it fails it fails, but I think they'll be fine.

Yeah ;)

Thats a different roach, roach is derived from a polish word meaning like female horse so he has a few over his lifetime

@@azell2913 good to know you have a sense of humor dude 😂

Good take

Good take

I thought season 1 was phenomenal, while season 2 being more of preparing us for season 3.

@@vosk6481 same!

Don’t get this the wrong way, I really liked Season 2, but it wasn’t nearly 50% of book material in there. The original things were interesting though. Ending, even if revealed too early imo, was mind blowing

The Witcher series - hero of our time - bringing communities together eggcv

Good for you, although anyone who is a fan of the games and the books would hate it. To me this is witcher fan fic at best, pathetic writing.

@SlushyBoxx ahh classic boohoo merchants are here xD

@SlushyBoxx has it occurred to you, a human with i guess an above avg iq at best, that this might show up on my recommendations? Gatekeeping a mediocre show xD you dont even know witcher like i do, you see a few 'ooh cool' glimpses and accept mediocre writing. We're not the same pal.

@SlushyBoxx 😂😂😂😂😭😭 you're embarassing yourself. Quit it mate.

This show is a mess. The only good thing about it is Cavill as Geralt. It honestly feels like GOT season 8. Just a pile of hippo sh*t.

I'm not sure if everyone who watched the series knew that Dunny will eventually become Emhyr. Still, the very last scene was perfect.

@@danbalares4818 I think the majority of people knew who Emhyr since most of them have played the games before

@@danbalares4818 I did not know before I watched, it was absolutely surprising. Nothing really leads to that conclusion imo. I think with how popular the show is there are more people like me who havent read the books or played the games (yet)

@@Veraxeon Me too. I only got some facts from official sites. I think it's more better to not knowing anything from books or games to enjoy watching the series. To be honest, those who complain much are those who read the books or played the game.

I watched the first season because of Henry. No back stories at all lol. I was confused with the timeline a lot and then I binge watched the second season in a day. LOVED it!!! Gave me GOT and LOTR vibes. Of course everything surprised me lol❤

the only problem I have this season is they butchered Eskel literally and figuratively. Like damn. Everything else is fine but Eskel????

@@thitran1362 Yens story felt so boring this season

@@brandonmatthew7811 I agree. And her scenes w Geralt was a let down

"They skip a lot of parts in the books" That's an understatement. Season 2 is 5% an adaption of Blood of Elves.

@@brandonmatthew7811 this season didn't really focus heavily on Yen this time around. It was more so Ciri's story that was the main focus point. Next season my guess will be centered around Geralt.

Agreed

It would be cool to se Ciri fighting monsters with Geralt after her completed sword training. But for her powers i really doubt we will se Ciri getting any decent control of her power becouse of how insanely powerful she would get. Limited control with utility spells and possably some basic offensive spells yeah i can se that now when Yen is teaching her. But anything above that and Ciri´s combat power would skyrocket. If Ciri ever gets full control of her powers then that would be in the final season becouse then at that point nothing could ever stop her.

@@Shiftry87 Have you read the books? If not then I won't spoil anything but there are other factors at play if you'd like to know about potential developments of Ciri in later seasons.

@@seanmagnusson2581 since you have read the books, what’s your opinion on the series delving down a rather different road compared to the source material itself? Story writing wise, that is.

@@Mijuel. I honestly understand it, because I get that they want to keep it fresh as a new series for new audiences, but they are straying perhaps a little bit too far from the source I reckon. They can't follow the books 100% because that would be difficult to do ( a lot of book content may not transfer to screen easily), but story wise the way it is currently going doesn't fit as well in to what us fans know about Witchers already, and instead there's more new stuff. It can work, but it won't be as grounded and recognizable I think, also not as fun.

I know what you mean.

Most people who read the books or played the game hate the show. Never read books but the game is too good it spoils you so your expectations to the show get high af and it might disapoint

I’ve read all the books and played the games, and I can safely say I enjoyed the show, yes it’s not the books, but television always will try to figure out a way to “freshen” plot lines, it may not be what you want, but being a die hard fan of all mediums of it, season 2 slapped. I recommend the books as well.

@@klemenkordis8574 can't believe you've met most of the people that played the game or read the books so you can speak for them. Truly amazing!

@@Conflictedhots i mean i did find more negative comments from them than positive ones. I played the games and found the show alright tho, i really liked that they changed triss’ hair color, nilfgaardian armor and the best one, geralt using more signs

@@klemenkordis8574 Its a mixed bag. The show is good on its own but obviously opinions will be mixed since its a book adaptation series.

I hope he sues the crap out of that podcast site, the broadcast partner etc, some of the most ridiculous baseless accusations I’ve heard of, I seriously hope they feel the pain for what they have done!

I don’t mean to discourage you, still definitely play this amazing game (it does include spoilers tho) but Witcher 3 absolutely does not pick up where season 2 (or blood of elves for that matter) leaves off

Yeah season 2 is one hundred percent not related to the games in any manner of time frame. You will not be learning anything about season 3 from the games, other than maybe a few potential hints at stuff that happenned in the books.

Uh, yaaaaa, dude. No. The games all take place after the books. I haven't read the books but I understand the Wild Hunt wasn't much apart of them.

Don't expect the games to develop on the story you've seen in the Netflix adaptation. Games are non-canon and take place after the events of the last book. Nonetheless, still do play the games, they tell an amazing story and the gameplay is fun too.

The first Witcher game (which some say is kind of dated, but imo has the best story, and is the best at maintaining that original Eastern European folklore atmosphere) takes place directly after the end of the last book. All three games follow on from the events of the books and, with some notable exceptions, don't retcon much. The Netflix show is an adaptation of the books, so obviously they take place at the same time, albeit a very loose adaptation, with some major changes to the events and characters.

I know right? That scene would have worked with any other witcher...e.g in witcher 1 when the youngest witcher dies...that would have been better and more heartbreaking, since they can't make more, and had high hopes... But instead they butcher eskel, and turn him into an idiot who puts his family in danger knowingly by hiding his Leshy scar??

Its almost like they are adapting the show rather than telling it frame by frame. The horrors!

@@Biomirth except the show runner said it was to be a faithful adaptation... faithful? I feel sorry for her partner(s)

@@Biomirth All adaptations makes changes. LoTR for example change a lot of thing from the books, GoT in the first 4 seasons (the amazing ones) too. But if instead of changing the army of the dead function or taking out Bombadil, they just killed pippin in moria it will be a fuckin travesty of an adaptation. Eskel is not even important except for a couple of lines in the books, but killing him (when you have already put more nameless witchers in it) is the watermark of the stupid trope of subvert expectations at all cost, wich is trash and is really hurting the media, so yeah, from a fan and writer perspective, it is an horror

@@jamie_d0g978 I think you don't like the adaptation, which is fine. I don't think the death of Eskel was made to be seen as clever or tropey. They had to make quite a few changes to compact the storyline yet still (attempt) to deliver the overall color of the kinds of relationships and history that exist for the characters. Sometimes when you have to compact A, B, and C, you make A the big thing and B and C footnotes. Other times you write a new part D that achieves the necessary function of A, B, and C but is more compact and useful. I'm not saying you should agree with which things were done. As you've said, you don't like the decisions that were made. But I do disagree with the assumptions you've made to reach, bolster, or rationalize these conclusions.

And accuse us to have destroyed the show, the audacity of those people are out of this world

He left himself now.

It's the same in the books. He keeps a steel sword on his back most of the time, and the silver sword is almost always safely tucked away in a pouch on the horse, unless he's actively on the hunt for a monster, in which case it's on his person. I'm guessing the game designers just made him wear two swords on his back for ease of gameplay, so that you wouldn't have to run back to your horse every time you need your equipment. Plus, there was no horse in the first two Witcher games. Technical limitations and all that. By the third game, which was fully open world and they could implement a horse riding mechanic, they'd already established that he wears both swords on his back, something that he doesn't do in the books, to my knowledge.

Well, that specific scene doesn't happen in the books, but Roach's death is irrelevant. Roach is not just *one* horse, it's the name Geralt gives to *all* his horses. And considering he's in his 70s, he's had quite a few horses in his lifetime, all called Roach.

If you can’t say anything positive, don’t say anything at all 🙄 I’ll never understand why people would rather waste time commenting negative things about something instead of just moving tf on to let the people who actually enjoy it just enjoy it

Idk abt that lol

BOO HOO HOO WE LOST THE ELECTION AND HATE EVERYTHING SOB SOB

@@BigDsGaming2022 Pardon? Weird non sequitur.

@@lehelisbored He left now.

Lol