Funny... I actually do remember you having a less than stellar opinion about the series. I- I don't know why, or how...
WAIT. It was probably in one of the DA:I threads when the game just released. Surely there was bashing of the Witcher games and comparing them to Inquisition, or something. I dunno.
OT: I have no idea how this series is supposed to be, or how I'm supposed to feel about it.
I know that the first game was pretty sub par with below average controls, and that juvenile sex deck of cards thing
Witcher 2 wasn't all that great either.
This is the first one I've played, and so far it's surprisingly enjoyable. Though I have complaints, quite a few so far.
I won't list them here, since I'm barely out of white orchard. But on the subject of Geralt, he's better now? Or something?
You say Mary Sue, and I just scratch my head. Most playable characters in games would be considered a Sue by traditional writing standards, especially the ones who are characters unto themselves, and not a creation of the player. But traditional writing standards don't exactly mesh with game writing all that well. At the very least, they become unhelpful when talking about player interactivity and the idea of gameplay. The two things that passive media do not have. Playing a character in a world, being given the powers of the protagonist (and all that would entail), being the center of the story, characters reacting to you differently. Shades of Sue, but sadly out of the author/writer's hands. We players are in control, not them. So, not really helpful. Rather like comparing oranges to Leer Jets.
That said, I'm having a hard time caring about Geralt. His voice is waaaaay too raspy. Does he have throat cancer? I understand he's the white wolf, and there is a history behind him. All well and good. I just wish I could customize him more. Give him more weapons, more spells, more armor variety. Make him carry one sword at his side like a normal person. Every time I start to think about the two on his back I just facepalm. But... it's a game, and I understand the significance of having a silver sword as a monster hunter. Fine. I just want my character to be even MORE of a special snowflake. I want control. I want to give him a spear, or a damn shield that might be useful taking on these huge monsters. The thing that games like Skyrim and others get right is that the world is the main character. Or at the very least, a very important one. You as the player are given agency and a place, sure. But it's all about the world and what you can do in it. Execution of these worlds regarding gameplay and design do vary, true. But ultimately the reason you're playing is to pilot the character through the world, and quest. To experience what the world yourself. To me, putting a character like Geralt there just limits me and what I can do. He's in the way, forcing me to play it a certain way. I don't identify with him. I don't care about him, and that's not likely to change.
As to the Witchers being Pariahs. My buddy loves the series, and he explained this to me. Apparently there is a character in one of the previous games who has dialogue about it. Basically saying that Witchers don't belong in this age, and were meant for an age before. An age where people were living in more primitive times. No kingdoms, no fortresses or large towns with walls, no empires with standing armies for protection. Just little communities and tribes that were being terrorized. Of course, as we see in the game, that is still very much going on today. However, there are a few things to consider.
1) For the griffin quest in the first area, Captain Gwenleve the Nilfgaardian captain ultimately didn't need you. He could have mobilized his small forces and brought down the griffin, but he had reasons he'd rather hire you. It made sense, and having a Witcher is for precisely that. He had the coin, and you were a professional.
2) Ludo narrative dissonance. Look at that! Our favorite term! There are indeed several monsters roaming about the countryside and populating the various maps. Some of them are justified. A swamp? Sure, not many people around. A battlefield with corpses? Fair enough, especially if it's recent. Ghosts, ghouls, other foul things that gather around the dead. Makes sense. But tons of wolves near a populated village? Drowners hanging around near a populated settlement and possibly attacking? Suspension of disbelief taking a few hits. So far the game has done a decent job, but even still there are snags. Monsters nests near villages, and other small things don't make much sense given the world. Those are things that get maybe one person killed, and the town goes to the authority, let's say the Nilfgaardians, and demands they be protected. The Nilfgaardians round up a bunch of soldiers, and kill the monsters. Done. Can't collect taxes from dead villagers. The griffin situation is a larger threat, and might call for a Witcher, sure. But the small stuff not so much.
