The One Problem With The Witcher Franchise...

[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.

 

[endtherapture]

I find it

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.

I found it very hard to side with Iorveth. Roche isn't a noble, so he doesn't have his blood to protect him or Foltest anymore. He's pretty much putting his life and livelihood on the line to gamble with Geralt and take a chance on helping him. He puts himself out so much for Geralt, and just betraying him for Iorveth feels incredibly wrong.

 

[Chaosut]

You're reaction is basically the trope 'Darkness-induced Audience Syndrome'. Not sure if that helps to point it out though.