The One Problem With The Witcher Franchise...

[Racecarlock]

I can't be the only one who finds this whole realism excuse stupid when your world includes but is not limited to magic, dwarfs, elves, trolls, witches, and fucking monsters. Realism is not needed in a fantasy world. I haven't even played the damn game and I know this.

 

[LadyRhian]

I haven't played the games, but I did read the two books released here in the US, and I have to say that this is pretty much what medieval people were like. You didn't trust anyone outside your home village, outsiders were both accepted (traveling merchants, because they brought news from far away and new stuff) and hated/treated with extreme suspicion (anyone else). Even the nobility tended to look down on the peasants and foreigners. Yes, women were a bit more equal in some areas: women could be craftmasters and work jobs, but that tended to be because their father or mother was in a craft, and then they married another person in the same craft and took over when their husband died. Wise women and midwives existed and were more respected... until the church got involved, because they thought all women must be ruled by a male. If not your father, huband or brother (or more distant male relative), then your lord, especially if you were noble and rich.

Let's just say that women were both more and less free, depending on who they were. The closest thing you got to a woman of real power in Medieval times was Eleanor of Aquitaine, who basically owned half of France, was married to King Louis, went on the Crusades with him (and went with her own bodyguard of women in armor, and she wore armor as well), then got fed up with her weak, cowardly husband and divorced him to marry Henry of England. And even she ended up imprisoned by some of her sons as she got older.

The best thing I can recommend to see how medieval life really was is Terry Jones' Medieval Lives. He was a member of Monty Python, yes, but he is also a medieval scholar and really punctures the myths most people take for granted.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/medieval-lives/

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

Same for Dragon Age 2, but for different reasons. Actually, I liked DA2 a hell of a lot more.

I must be unsophisticated or something, eh?

lol troll/fanboys

You win my friend. You just win.

 

[Norrdicus]

You notice the racist asshole the most because they are ones causing problems.

Yeah, the racists are the loud minority (not a minority by much, but still) essentially, and their existence in Flotsam makes sense as they have Scoia'tael troops right outside their walls.

Plus, Dandelion comments how the city of Flotsam is disturbingly corrupted and desensitized and greedy to the core. If he had just said "this is a town like any other", there'd be more reason to say that the people are no less jerks in Flotsam than anywhere else.

Any ruler that?s not a walking penis? What?

Let's go with this description for a moment, actually.

Spoiler

It does fit King Henselt, that racist warmongerer and rapist prick, but people not in his military really dislike him. Doesn't make him any less intelligent though, just far too confident of his diplomatic immunity

It fits Loredo about half as much, but he's more greedy.

Foltest? Screwed his own sister and a baroness, so I think the insult fits somewhat, but the man has enough good points to redeem himself for the most part. In neither case does it seem like the affection was one-sided and the Nilfgaardian ambassador calls him "a true Northern monarch"

Prince Stennis is a schemer with more bark than bite, not a walking penis.

Cecil Burdon, the head of Vergen, is an all-around decent man, the insult doesn't fit him at all.

King Radovid the Stern? An incredibly young ruler with massive potential and ambition to spare

 

[Thoric485]

I thought the game would get some points for being one of the few where both males and females have a variety of body types outside of "fit 25-year old", or pushing the sex to the beginning, so that your further decisions about a female character don't have the promise of boobies weighing over them.

And yet the talk is still sexist this, misogynist that.

 

[hazabaza1]

Having only played the first game, I can tell you that that isn't the only problem with that game, at least.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Really the only character I found lacking was Foltest (He kinda did the Ned Stark thing, which as much as I love Sean Bean Ned Stark did get on my nerves the further I got into the book.)

Foltest is like Ned Stark? The same Foltest who screwed his sister, then proceeded to go to war with her over custody rights to the children? The same Foltest who deliberately targeted a single man (a noble, even) with a ballista simply because he didn't like him very much? Foltest is more like Robert, if Robert was actually a competent king (and lost about 80 pounds). John Natalis, there is your Ned Stark character.

Nearly all the characters in the game have their good and bad sides, which is something I really enjoyed about the game. With the exception of the obviously villainous characters and one-off bad guys like

Spoiler

Dethmold! Who would trust a guy named Dethmold anyway?

nearly every character and faction has a good reason for both siding with or against them. The story really encourages you to take a long view of things, and going the standard "heroic" route actually puts the world in a worse position than if you had been more pragmatic, even if Geralt himself may have gotten more satisfaction. It was nice being able to weigh the results of "me vs. some vs. all" without any decision being labeled as the "good" or "correct" one. Dragon Age 2 kind of did this, but it didn't carry nearly the same weight.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Gerald is some sort of Mutated freak with magic by the name of "Witcher", a supposed organization of some sorts. He saved an incest-loving king who, thanks to screwing someone other important person, is currently at war. A possible "Witcher" or someone resembling one with similar abilities has been hired to assassinate the king. That is what I have figured after a good 10 minutes of roaming around the beginning of the game.

Please don't spoil anything, but tell me: Is the game longer than it seems? From the Achievements and how fast things are going now, it seems the game is no longer than 12 to 15 hours with a full playthrough (similar to the original Mass Effect Length).

His name is Geralt. Witchers are professional monster slayers. They kill monsters for money. That's about it. Most people don't like witchers.
King Foltest had an affair with a baroness who gave birth to 2 children. But because he's not married to the baroness those are bastard children with no claim to the throne. But Foltest doesn't care for that. Her son thought that Foltest disrespected and humiliated his mother so he organized a rebellion against Foltest. As for the assassin, if you played the first game you'd have a better idea of what's going since the story is set a couple of weeks after the events of The Witcher 1. Playing The Witcher 1 isn't necessary for understanding why someone is killing off kings, it's important for understanding the deeper plot that Geralt actually cares about. This isn't exactly a spoiler but some might disagree

Spoiler

Geralt hates politics. He's basically forced into those conflicts. He only cares about clearing his name and restoring his memory. Also he wants to learn about The Wild Hunt

I finished the game in 40 hours on normal difficulty. I've done every side quest.

 

[endtherapture]

Really the only character I found lacking was Foltest (He kinda did the Ned Stark thing, which as much as I love Sean Bean Ned Stark did get on my nerves the further I got into the book.)

Foltest is like Ned Stark? The same Foltest who screwed his sister, then proceeded to go to war with her over custody rights to the children? The same Foltest who deliberately targeted a single man (a noble, even) with a ballista simply because he didn't like him very much? Foltest is more like Robert, if Robert was actually a competent king (and lost about 80 pounds). John Natalis, there is your Ned Stark character.

The woman he went to war with wasn't his sister. He ploughed his sister and she gave birth to Adda. The woman he went to war over was the La Valette woman who is completely different.

Foltest was a dick but he was probably the most decent king we met. True to his word and actually loves his family, as shown in the reunion scene. I honestly believe he would've treated her fairly. He seemed more disgusted with the nobles using his children and his ex lover to their advantage as opposed to it just being a war of vengeance.

John Natalis isn't exactly like Ned though, he's VERY politically shrewd and probably has ulterior motivations, like wanting to rule Temeria. He's still a better option than Radovid though.

 

[Shocksplicer]

There are loads of nice people. Iorveth, Roche, Triss, Shani, Dandylion, Zoltan - granted, not all of those are what one would consider friendly, but its 6 people.

Iorveth and Roche are both pretty awful people (Iorveth murders countless Humans because he hates humans and Roche kills and tortures countless Non-Humans because the king told him to.)

Just out of interest, did you complete the game? If not, how far did you get? And if you did complete the game, how much attention did you pay to detail? Because it really does sound like you never got past chapter 1.

I've finished it with both of them, and while I admit they aren't as two-dimensional as I made them out to be, they are still both mass murderers with flimsy justifications.

 

[Emiscary]

There are loads of nice people. Iorveth, Roche, Triss, Shani, Dandylion, Zoltan - granted, not all of those are what one would consider friendly, but its 6 people.

Iorveth and Roche are both pretty awful people (Iorveth murders countless Humans because he hates humans and Roche kills and tortures countless Non-Humans because the king told him to.)

Just out of interest, did you complete the game? If not, how far did you get? And if you did complete the game, how much attention did you pay to detail? Because it really does sound like you never got past chapter 1.

I've finished it with both of them, and while I admit they aren't as two-dimensional as I made them out to be, they are still both mass murderers with flimsy justifications.

Multiple murderers, technically. If they were mass murderers it'd mean killing large volumes of people all at once, not killing small numbers of them on a regular basis. That being said, Iorveth's an insurgent and Roche runs the medieval equivalent of black ops.

Killing lots of people is kind of par for the course for both jobs >.>

 

[endtherapture]

There are loads of nice people. Iorveth, Roche, Triss, Shani, Dandylion, Zoltan - granted, not all of those are what one would consider friendly, but its 6 people.

Iorveth and Roche are both pretty awful people (Iorveth murders countless Humans because he hates humans and Roche kills and tortures countless Non-Humans because the king told him to.)

Just out of interest, did you complete the game? If not, how far did you get? And if you did complete the game, how much attention did you pay to detail? Because it really does sound like you never got past chapter 1.

I've finished it with both of them, and while I admit they aren't as two-dimensional as I made them out to be, they are still both mass murderers with flimsy justifications.

Geralt kills loads of people too. And Commander Shepard. And pretty much any gaming character in a game ever. They're just doing their job.

 

[VulpesAqua]

Really the only character I found lacking was Foltest (He kinda did the Ned Stark thing, which as much as I love Sean Bean Ned Stark did get on my nerves the further I got into the book.)

Foltest is like Ned Stark? The same Foltest who screwed his sister, then proceeded to go to war with her over custody rights to the children? The same Foltest who deliberately targeted a single man (a noble, even) with a ballista simply because he didn't like him very much? Foltest is more like Robert, if Robert was actually a competent king (and lost about 80 pounds). John Natalis, there is your Ned Stark character.

Foltest was a dick but he was probably the most decent king we met. True to his word and actually loves his family, as shown in the reunion scene. I honestly believe he would've treated her fairly. He seemed more disgusted with the nobles using his children and his ex lover to their advantage as opposed to it just being a war of vengeance.

This is exactly the Stark quality I meant, caring about his bastard children, remebering the Arbalists name, offering Geralt relationship advice. He was all around a decent guy and fairly Ned Starky.

 

[endtherapture]

Really the only character I found lacking was Foltest (He kinda did the Ned Stark thing, which as much as I love Sean Bean Ned Stark did get on my nerves the further I got into the book.)

Foltest is like Ned Stark? The same Foltest who screwed his sister, then proceeded to go to war with her over custody rights to the children? The same Foltest who deliberately targeted a single man (a noble, even) with a ballista simply because he didn't like him very much? Foltest is more like Robert, if Robert was actually a competent king (and lost about 80 pounds). John Natalis, there is your Ned Stark character.

Foltest was a dick but he was probably the most decent king we met. True to his word and actually loves his family, as shown in the reunion scene. I honestly believe he would've treated her fairly. He seemed more disgusted with the nobles using his children and his ex lover to their advantage as opposed to it just being a war of vengeance.

This is exactly the Stark quality I meant, caring about his bastard children, remebering the Arbalists name, offering Geralt relationship advice. He was all around a decent guy and fairly Ned Starky.

He was a really decent guy, the definitely my favourite King in the game, and he was gonna let Geralt leave at the end. His death was one of the best done moments in the game, closely followed by his reunion with his children. Really emotional.

 

[Woodsey]

Right, so your problem with the game is that it lets you decide on your own motivations?

Most characters are dicks in some way or another, but plenty have endearing qualities. That's the point. Most characters are a muddle - some lean more towards good or more towards bad, but it's infinitely more interesting then one or another.

Not everyone is racist. Most are, but there are some who are normal.

It's pretty realistic. The world is not a nice place. People are more complex than in most RPG's. Nothing is black and white. People hate others but they believe they have justified reasons for that. That's what it's like in the real world. The story of The Witcher 2 is actually a terrific one. It really caught me by surprise how they managed to pull of so many twists and political agendas and how it was all connected into a coherent narrative that unfolds naturally and pleasantly as you progress through the story. And it wouldn't have been possible without all that racism. I don't know any developer besides CD Project that can accomplish such a thing.

Wrong. Every human being is a racist to some extent. Believe it or not, it be true. (Unless you are talking about in-game and not the Human Race in general.)

I haven't played much of the first Witcher as my Computer can barely play it and I can't stand 10 FPS, so I bought the Witcher 2 for 360 and so far I am enjoying my time, albeit being mighty confused on 90% of the characters. Here is what I have figured out from the first 10 minutes:

Gerald is some sort of Mutated freak with magic by the name of "Witcher", a supposed organization of some sorts. He saved an incest-loving king who, thanks to screwing someone other important person, is currently at war. A possible "Witcher" or someone resembling one with similar abilities has been hired to assassinate the king. That is what I have figured after a good 10 minutes of roaming around the beginning of the game.

Please don't spoil anything, but tell me: Is the game longer than it seems? From the Achievements and how fast things are going now, it seems the game is no longer than 12 to 15 hours with a full playthrough (similar to the original Mass Effect Length).

Closer to 30. Plus, there's two Act 2's, and a lot of ending variations, so plenty of reasons to replay.

 

[Kimarous]

I'm just going to say that I personally didn't care for the Witcher franchise. I do not like any of the characters, least of all Geralt. How am I supposed to get invested in a story when I don't feel like rooting for anybody and simply don't give a crap about anything going on? If you like the setting, fine, but I cared for nothing that was happening.

 

[DementedSheep]

There are loads of nice people. Iorveth, Roche, Triss, Shani, Dandylion, Zoltan - granted, not all of those are what one would consider friendly, but its 6 people.

Iorveth and Roche are both pretty awful people (Iorveth murders countless Humans because he hates humans and Roche kills and tortures countless Non-Humans because the king told him to.)

Just out of interest, did you complete the game? If not, how far did you get? And if you did complete the game, how much attention did you pay to detail? Because it really does sound like you never got past chapter 1.

I've finished it with both of them, and while I admit they aren't as two-dimensional as I made them out to be, they are still both mass murderers with flimsy justifications.

Geralt kills loads of people too. And Commander Shepard. And pretty much any gaming character in a game ever. They're just doing their job.

Not the same thing. Yeah Roche is doing his job, nasty job tho it may be. Iorveth however...how many video game charcters go around killing civilians and destroying villages? That?s what the scoia'tael dose.

 

[VulpesAqua]

Really the only character I found lacking was Foltest (He kinda did the Ned Stark thing, which as much as I love Sean Bean Ned Stark did get on my nerves the further I got into the book.)

Foltest is like Ned Stark? The same Foltest who screwed his sister, then proceeded to go to war with her over custody rights to the children? The same Foltest who deliberately targeted a single man (a noble, even) with a ballista simply because he didn't like him very much? Foltest is more like Robert, if Robert was actually a competent king (and lost about 80 pounds). John Natalis, there is your Ned Stark character.

Foltest was a dick but he was probably the most decent king we met. True to his word and actually loves his family, as shown in the reunion scene. I honestly believe he would've treated her fairly. He seemed more disgusted with the nobles using his children and his ex lover to their advantage as opposed to it just being a war of vengeance.

This is exactly the Stark quality I meant, caring about his bastard children, remebering the Arbalists name, offering Geralt relationship advice. He was all around a decent guy and fairly Ned Starky.

He was a really decent guy, the definitely my favourite King in the game, and he was gonna let Geralt leave at the end. His death was one of the best done moments in the game, closely followed by his reunion with his children. Really emotional.

I loved his death scene, very well executed (pun maybe intended), I really loved his daughter peeking back round the corner and seeing it.

My only complaint with Foltest is that he named his son Bousey, that really bugs me XD

 

[endtherapture]

I loved his death scene, very well executed (pun maybe intended), I really loved his daughter peeking back round the corner and seeing it.

My only complaint with Foltest is that he named his son Bousey, that really bugs me XD[/quote ]

I've just replayed the prologue in the EE, and it was a great scene, the slow motion really works. Bugs me that Anais didn't tell anyone that it wasn't Geralt that killed Foltest, but I suppose the nobles probably got their hands on her fairly quickly.

Boussy was cute, and how Foltest treated him was both sincere but stern and reminded me of aspects of Game of Thrones very much.

Spoiler

Shame that someone killed the poor boy

 

[Emiscary]

The only issue I had with the game in terms of story is that Geralt is more or less forced to choose to aid the lesser evil in both games.

In the first game, he has to either help the Flaming Rose or the Scoia'tael.

In the second game, he has to either help Roche or Iorveth.

The thing is, you're never really given any incentive to join the elves, both sides are racist and do things to escalate the situation. But the Scoia'tael are always the worst of the bunch, robbing banks, holding children hostage, etc...

In the second game it really takes the cake, you meet and interact with Roche long before getting a chance to meet Iorveth, and when you do meet him, he tries to kill you. When you finally get the chance to choose sides, he still hasn't given you a good reason to join him, and considering he tried to kill you, why the hell would you join him?

I had little trouble siding with Iorveth. You're obligated to work with him at one point, and if you'd just been left to your own devices you'd have solved the game's plot then and there (IE: when yourself and the Scoia'tael corner Letho and Roche decides it would be a wonderful idea to start an open battle with them right before you finish him off). And seeing as how Iorveth seems perfectly happy to cooperate with you provided you gave him his sword, and his only crimes are killing the jerkoff plebians I made this thread to hate on? Working with him didn't present much of a problem for me. Besides, he's charismatic.

Vernon Roche on the other hand? I met him, saved the king's life *twice* in his presence, and then when it was convenient for him he had me thrown in prison and beaten like dusty rug for 24 hours. Shortly thereafter he press-ganged me into service under the threat of torture and death. And when I told him that both he and his maggot collection of a king no longer concerned me? He got in my face like I was betraying *his* trust. I wish I'd had the option to feed the prick to the Kayran.