The Witcher

Honestly, Ditching most of that stuff gets a thumb up in my book. Most of the politic stuff Geralt gets involved in both game he has no interest in. And if the main character doesn't give a shit, why would the player? Because Amnesiac or not, Geralt doesn't care for politics and Witchers are supposed to remain neutral. It's one of the biggest flaws of the two first game, that a lot of the plot just feels like Geralt is going along coz, fuck it, what else is he gonna do. Now, I'll admit you could make the same reproach to 90% of the Witcher 3's quest, but framing a lot of this as side jobs and contracts Geralt takes at least for me makes it better.

Witcher 3, at least, most its political stuff ties into Geralt so he has some reasons to be involved - Radovid is a Monster who threatens people Geralt cares about, Emhyr's fate ties with Ciri.

Though I suppose witcher 1 and 2 aren't helped by depicting Temeria and the Northern realms as utter shit holes, then basing their plots on who's making what power play to control said shitholes. Like, I don't care? They are aweful places, why would I be invested on which asshole plots to be king of the dung heap.

edited 30th Mar '18 5:45:29 PM by Ghilz

Well, they ARE utter shitholes, it's just Nilfgaard is worse. It's one of the things which Geralt actually does take a stand in on the novels that both he and Yennefer may hate the Northern Kingdoms but they're both committed to making sure Emhyr doesn't get any further up the river. Mostly because he personally has ruined their lives, hounded them, and killed many-many friends.

Plus Saskia, who doesn't appear in Witcher 3, is a promise of a ruler who ISN'T awful because she's a Gold Dragon.

She's not a Gold Dragon, she's half gold, half green. Cant shapeshift in more than the one form

Of course, the game also tone Nilfgaard the hell down, so they wind up looking by far as the better option. "By all means, occupy this place. It can't possibly get worst."

edited 30th Mar '18 5:59:37 PM by Ghilz

Yeah, which I think is really a warped narrative.

Why are we supporting an imperialist narrative?

IN POLAND?

It's especially bizarre with the Temerian/Ciri as Empress ending where they are going to have a glorious happy new age as the newly conquered and subjugated citizens of the Nilfgaardian Empire that somehow restores them to their former glory.

Who wrote that? George W. Bush?

edited 30th Mar '18 6:03:48 PM by CharlesPhipps

Because the Northern Kingdoms are a violent and brutal place where the kings bicker like children and the Church of the Eternal Fire is allowed to prosper.

Nilfgaard invading allows stability, destroys the Church, kills Radovid, and if your choices are correct, will eventually give Nilfgaard a great and benevolent Empress in the form of Ciri.

Charles isn't disagreeing with that. It's just that portraying imperialism as good, even if that's correct in-universe, has a whole host of Unfortunate Implications. Historically, there hasn't been an example of imperialist expansion in the past few hundred years that ended well for the natives. Hell, there might not be an example in all of human history; I haven't read up on the Roman and Persian Empires recently, so I can't remember how they did. Probably not great, though. And putting this in a Polish work of all places, where there are still people alive who remember the Nazis, is really not good.

The thing is, the Nilfgaard occupation does end well for the natives, too. The Nilfs actually treat elves and dwarves well, don't they?

Well the story does go into a lot of the bad elements of imperialism too, especially with the Nilfs bringing the plague with them which is something that Poland famously managed to dodge the brunt of by sealing their boarders asap for decades.

Even the most 'peaceful' imperialism like say Canada that kind of thing hits indigenous peoples the hardest.

edited 30th Mar '18 6:32:25 PM by Memers

That's true.

There's also the fact that Nilfgaard isn't the Nazis but it IS Rome.

They don't practice chattel slavery in the north. They DO practice it in Nilfgaard...which is mysteriously not mentioned in the Witcher 3.

There's also the fact Emhyrs doesn't keep his promises. Fans have the weird idea that he's this Doctor Doom-esque figure but he gave the elves a homeland—only for them to be forced to eliminate the Scoia'tael who were their entire youth. He also betrayed Letho who was promised a new school for Witchers. Basically, it's weird to assume anything he promises in his treaties will be honored.

Let alone Ciri, who I point out, he wanted to marry.

Plus Poland hasn't just had problems with the Soviet Union or Nazis with Imperialism but other countries trying to conquer it through its entire history.

edited 30th Mar '18 6:54:58 PM by CharlesPhipps

The thing is that in the book, the Nilfguardians are basically straight up nazis.

But the game mentions barely any of the terrible shit they do, while depicting the northern kingdom in an abhorrent light. Which is weird that the guys who are basically Nazies suddenly come across as the good guys.

I do wanna point out that this comes across as mildly condescending. Like, you're the one telling Poles what stories they can and can't write.

edited 30th Mar '18 7:23:52 PM by Ghilz

I'm not telling them, just confused. They can write whatever they want and I'll probably still buy it. I'm just wondering why they did it versus Witcher 2 and Sapkowski's writing.

So it's asking why Poles are doing versus another Pole's writing which inspired theirs.

And divorced of all Polishness, it's a weird narrative choice to whitewash Nilfgaard or not mention Emhyr wants to fuck his own daughter while doing so much other Continuity Porn.

edited 30th Mar '18 7:31:24 PM by CharlesPhipps

The games does a lot of retconing. In the books, Witchers are often struggling for work. It's kinda why everyone can afford to be all racist all the time. Monsters aren't common, and most soldiers can handle those that are (Drowners, Ghouls, etc). Geralt's basically the last great witcher who gets those epic contracts. Most hunt vermin for pocket change. But across three games you can't shake a stick in a village without hitting monster trouble. Which begs the question of why people are so pissy about witchers when there's stuff about to eat your face every 10 inches and how everyone's not all gonna die the moment the last witchers die.

So I shouldn't read any of the replies since my last post, right? I read the first sentences of most of them but then stopped because it all sounds like spoilers.

More like book spoilers. Minor ones too.

There's a great mission where you investigate a Witcher who massacred an entire village. You find they were going to kill him because they didn't want to pay him for killing a monster.

You also find a big room full of gold and art they'd been hording.

Because Humans Are Bastards.

Don't forget the White Orchard story about the witcher from the Viper school.

"Hey, a kid disappeared! That Witcher that's passing through probably did it!"

-One dead Witcher later-

"Oh wait, it was a drowner that killed the kid...oh well!"

edited 31st Mar '18 9:48:03 AM by theLibrarian

Is it a change from one of the patches that Witcher sets now only give their set bonus at Grandmaster level? I recall them doing it at any level so long as you had the full set.

If it is, I approve of the nerf, makes it worthwhile to wear non-witcher armor, at least till the end game

edited 31st Mar '18 5:48:58 PM by Ghilz

Just had the nicest thing. I'm level 15. I'm doing the hidden treasure on the west coast of Oxenfurt. It's guarded by a level 32 Cockatrice. On a whim I hit it as it flied with Aard. It falls into the water. Since it's not coded as able to swim, it just floats as a corpse, despite still being "alive" (It's screeching still).

Queue just looting the treasure.

Yay? XD

Which game was this in?

Witcher 3

Hey, good to know that Cockatrices are allergic to water. The glossary doesn't tell you that. "Weakness: Aard. Hybrid Oil, Rivers"

edited 2nd Apr '18 6:22:34 PM by Ghilz

Countdown until June and me finally getting my gaming computer. I'm very,very happy.

A good omen: I've never gotten a game off GOG.com. My few PC game purchases have solely been through Steam. But I decided to try them out here. And guess what? Witcher 1 was $9.99. I figured I'd just get that for now. But I put it in my cart and see it's only a $1.49. I put Witcher 2 in there, it's like $4.

I got both games for less than the listed price of just the first. I dunno why, I don't really much care. It's just awesome.

That just leaves Witcher 3 later on. (well, to start. I have a long list of games to buy)

edited 3rd Apr '18 1:40:25 AM by Nikkolas

You could have gotten one of them for free if you downloaded Gwent through GOG.

Huh. That's interesting. But I don't mind spending $6 for two games.

I didn't figure you for a Witcher fan, Memers. It's very different from the games we usually talk about.