Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Specifically references events in the third game
Deleted line(s) 2 (click to see context) :
* Roche's justification for not defending a village against rampaging Nilfgaardians essentially boils down to: "it's not my job." That may not sit well with more morally righteous players, but it is justified. After all, if he's already working for Nilfgaard at that point, his new boss probably wouldn't be happy about him killing his soldiers, would he? It also explains why he wants to spare that wounded soldier.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* Amnesia is typically a cliche and droll plot device that's still overused to this day. However, The Witcher 1's use of Geralt's amnesia is heralded as Fridge Brilliance. The game is a narrative-sequel to an obscure novel franchise that had already spanned several in-world years. Not only is Geralt's amnesia a way of putting the player in his shoes, its also cleverly taken advantage of by other in-game characters who are effectively tricking Geralt & the player, thus further placing the player in his shoes.
to:
* Amnesia is typically a cliche cliché and droll plot device that's still overused to this day. However, The Witcher 1's use of Geralt's amnesia is heralded as Fridge Brilliance. The game is a narrative-sequel to an obscure novel franchise that had already spanned several in-world years. Not only is Geralt's amnesia a way of putting the player in his shoes, its it's also cleverly taken advantage of by other in-game characters who are effectively tricking Geralt & the player, thus further placing the player in his shoes.
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
* In a fight Geralt seems to have just as much trouble fighting a bunch of people as he does monsters, despite all Witchers proclaiming to have faster reflexes and are much more durable and strong, then it hit me, of course he has trouble fighting people, Witchers are ''monster hunters'', their style of swordplay was designed to confuse fast monsters who tend to circle prey in packs, giving them no angle of attack against a Witcher, you notice Geralt fights with alot of spins and exaggerated thrusts, against a feral monster who has no mind for full-on tactics it works well, but against people? it leaves a ton of blind spots.
to:
* In a fight fight, Geralt seems to have just as much trouble fighting a bunch of people as he does monsters, despite all Witchers proclaiming to have faster reflexes and are much more durable and strong, then it hit me, of strong. Of course he has trouble fighting people, Witchers are ''monster hunters'', their style of swordplay was designed to confuse fast monsters who tend to circle prey in packs, giving them no angle of attack against a Witcher, you notice Geralt fights with alot a lot of spins and exaggerated thrusts, against a feral monster who has no mind for full-on tactics it works well, but against people? it It leaves a ton of blind spots.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
* Geralt very seldom ever uses signs in the books, while the games expand on them and make them a tool you can depend on in every fight. While this could just be chalked up to PragmaticAdaptation and RuleOfFun, there is a justifiable logic to it. If "RPG logic" were to be applied to Geralt as he is portrayed in the books, then it would be safe to say that he put most of his training (or "skill points" as we would call them in a game) into his swordsmanship with maybe a little dabbling in alchemy. Hence, we have a Geralt who's a MasterSwordsman and whose signs are too weak to be of any use against the enemies he typically fights against. However, because he spent the bulk of the first two games with amnesia, he had time to effectively redefine his style, which explains how and why he can be more of a MagicKnight in them.
to:
* Geralt very seldom ever uses signs in the books, while the games expand on them and make them a tool you can depend on in every fight. While this could just be chalked up to PragmaticAdaptation and RuleOfFun, there is a justifiable logic to it. If "RPG logic" were to be applied to Geralt as he is portrayed in the books, then it would be safe to say that he put most of his training (or "skill points" as we would call them in a game) into his swordsmanship with maybe a little dabbling in alchemy. Hence, we have a Geralt who's a MasterSwordsman and whose signs are too weak to be of any use against the enemies he typically fights against. However, because he spent the bulk of the first two games with amnesia, he had time to effectively redefine his style, which explains how and why he can be more of a MagicKnight in them.them.
* In a fight Geralt seems to have just as much trouble fighting a bunch of people as he does monsters, despite all Witchers proclaiming to have faster reflexes and are much more durable and strong, then it hit me, of course he has trouble fighting people, Witchers are ''monster hunters'', their style of swordplay was designed to confuse fast monsters who tend to circle prey in packs, giving them no angle of attack against a Witcher, you notice Geralt fights with alot of spins and exaggerated thrusts, against a feral monster who has no mind for full-on tactics it works well, but against people? it leaves a ton of blind spots.
* In a fight Geralt seems to have just as much trouble fighting a bunch of people as he does monsters, despite all Witchers proclaiming to have faster reflexes and are much more durable and strong, then it hit me, of course he has trouble fighting people, Witchers are ''monster hunters'', their style of swordplay was designed to confuse fast monsters who tend to circle prey in packs, giving them no angle of attack against a Witcher, you notice Geralt fights with alot of spins and exaggerated thrusts, against a feral monster who has no mind for full-on tactics it works well, but against people? it leaves a ton of blind spots.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2,3 (click to see context) from:
----
* Roche's justification for not defending a village against rampaging Nilfgaardians essentially boils down to: "it's not my job." That may not sit well with more morally righteous players, but it is justified. After all, if he's already working for Nilfgaard at that point, his new boss probably wouldn't be happy about him killing his soldiers, would he? It also explains why he wants to spare that wounded soldier.
* Roche's justification for not defending a village against rampaging Nilfgaardians essentially boils down to: "it's not my job." That may not sit well with more morally righteous players, but it is justified. After all, if he's already working for Nilfgaard at that point, his new boss probably wouldn't be happy about him killing his soldiers, would he? It also explains why he wants to spare that wounded soldier.
to:
* Geralt very seldom ever uses signs in the books, while the games expand on them and make them a tool you can depend on in every fight. While this could just be chalked up to PragmaticAdaptation and RuleOfFun, there is a justifiable logic to it. If "RPG logic" were to be applied to Geralt as he is portrayed in the books, then it would be safe to say that he put most of his training (or "skill points" as we would call them in a game) into his swordsmanship with maybe a little dabbling in alchemy. Hence, we have a Geralt who's a MasterSwordsman and whose signs are too weak to be of any use against the enemies he typically fights against. However, because he spent the bulk of the first two games with amnesia, he had time to effectively redefine his style, which explains how and why he can be more of a MagicKnight in them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
----
to:
* Roche's justification for not defending a village against rampaging Nilfgaardians essentially boils down to: "it's not my job." That may not sit well with more morally righteous players, but it is justified. After all, if he's already working for Nilfgaard at that point, his new boss probably wouldn't be happy about him killing his soldiers, would he? It also explains why he wants to spare that wounded soldier.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* Amnesia is typically a cliche and droll plot device thats still overused to this day. However, The Witcher 1's use of Geralts amnesia is heralded as Fridge Brilliance. The game is a narrative-sequel to an obscure novel franchise that had already spanned several in-world years. Not only is Geralt's amnesia a way of putting the player in his shoes, its also cleverly taken advantage of by other in-game characters who are effectively tricking Getalt & the player, thus further placing the player in his shoes.
to:
* Amnesia is typically a cliche and droll plot device thats that's still overused to this day. However, The Witcher 1's use of Geralts Geralt's amnesia is heralded as Fridge Brilliance. The game is a narrative-sequel to an obscure novel franchise that had already spanned several in-world years. Not only is Geralt's amnesia a way of putting the player in his shoes, its also cleverly taken advantage of by other in-game characters who are effectively tricking Getalt Geralt & the player, thus further placing the player in his shoes.shoes.
----
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Amnesia is typically a cliche and droll plot device thats still overused to this day. However, The Witcher 1's use of Geralts amnesia is heralded as Fridge Brilliance. The game is a narrative-sequel to an obscure novel franchise that had already spanned several in-world years. Not only is Geralt's amnesia a way of putting the player in his shoes, its also cleverly taken advantage of by other in-game characters who are effectively tricking Getalt & the player, thus further placing the player in his shoes.
