I feel like Regis is just silly fella. Also higher vampires love shiny things like their lesser cousins and you can fascinate a higher vampire with a piece of jewelry
(I chose yarrow (common yarrow) beacause It grows everywhere here and in Polish the name is krwawnik and it relates to blood (krew- blood) haha funny.)
started ready the witcher books (and by started i mean i’m already of the fourth one) and i’m obsessed so i’m giving a warning in advance witcher shit is gonna start coming
Coming to the fandom this late, I can only assume the relationship between the Witcher games and the original novels has been long since talked to death by others. But I’m far too fascinated by the whole glorious mess that is this canon not to want to get down some of my own thoughts about how it all fits together.
See, on the one hand, the games (Witcher 3 especially) are arguably only too dependent on the novels to stand alone. They do a wonderful job of picking up a number of unresolved plot points the books left hanging, and a woeful job of explaining so much a player coming in cold would really like to know – Ciri’s history with Geralt, Yennefer, her powers and the Wild Hunt itself just to begin with. This is an issue that only increases as the games go along: cliche as Geralt’s amnesia may be, it’s used to good effect to introduce the world to the player in the first game. By the third, Geralt has all his old memories back and two extra games worth of new experience, and good lord is it all alienating to the newcomer.
On the other hand, so much about the games (again, the third especially) contradicts the novels in painfully irreconcilable ways. That wouldn’t necessarily bother me – adaptations are allowed to rework and reinvent, stories can and should evolve in the retelling – except, well, see point one above. So you’re bound to come out of the games with a lot of unanswered questions if you haven’t read the books, and just as many if you have.
Spoilers to follow, of course, for both the books and the games.