Deadfire and Original Sin 2 are both awesome. All the Witcher games suck.
Speaking the truth! (Actually I haven't played Original Sin 2. Its waaaay outside my budget range.)
What's wrong with the Witcher 3?
The same thing that is wrong with all the Witcher media. The world is a hilarious highxchooler edgelord's idea of "mature". Everyone talk like those guys in class who think swearing makes them sound cool, and sex is treated basically the same way. I just can't listen to someone praise the setting without my eyes rolling so hard that they practicaly fall out of my head.
Amazing. Everything you said is wrong. And note for @ThacoBell and entire internet as a whole, the definition of Mary Sue/Gary Stu/Marty Sue is not 'character I dislike for whatever reason'.
Opinions cannot be wrong. And yes, I know you're quoting the Last Jedi.
If you have a different opinion from someone, express that different opinion and let it stand on its own merits. Introducing a new perspective adds a new idea to the discussion; saying someone is wrong without elaborating on why you disagree adds nothing to the discussion.
a mary sue would be he is the most perfect character and every one loves him. oh whats that he is treated the same way the dwarfs and elves are because witchers are considered sub humans because of the stuff they are infused with.
it does get annoying when people say everything should be like the witcher 3. i enjoyed witcher 2 and i don't see alot of the issues i've been seeing lately. i could easily use the same logic in settings such as dragon age and fallout whitch i enjoy but i'm not that petty.
Deadfire and Original Sin 2 are both awesome. All the Witcher games suck.
Speaking the truth! (Actually I haven't played Original Sin 2. Its waaaay outside my budget range.)
What's wrong with the Witcher 3?
The same thing that is wrong with all the Witcher media. The world is a hilarious highxchooler edgelord's idea of "mature". Everyone talk like those guys in class who think swearing makes them sound cool, and sex is treated basically the same way. I just can't listen to someone praise the setting without my eyes rolling so hard that they practicaly fall out of my head.
*edit*
Oh, and Geralt is a boring Marty Sue character.
So like Michael Moorcock's stories then? I think Geralt is less obnoxious than Elric to be honest. However the fact he bangs every babe he meets does make him a bit Gary Stu.
@O_Bruce Let me clarify a little bit. I don't call Geralt a Marty Stu because I don't like him. There are tons of complex/flawed characters that I don't like, and some Mary Sues that I do. I call Geralt one because he is totally super you guys he is the best fighter and is basically medieval batman who is super prepared for fighting anything, and while this trope has been around since, say, Batman or Drizzt, a character needs a lot more than this to be interesting. The nail in the coffin for me is that Geralt has the personality of wet toast. I've played Witcher 1/seen Witcher 2 and if you ask me, I CANT really tell you anything about him other than his job. His character has no impact and leaves no mark whatsoever for me.
In my opinion, a Mary Sue (and I honestly despise the term itself because of how it got abused in regards to Rey in the recent Star Wars movies) is someone like the comic book character Me'dan in the Warcraft universe. He was literally an amalgamation of a Mage/Paladin/Rogue/Shaman (basically half the original classes of WoW). It was so bad that recently Blizzard just decided to write him out of their lore entirely. But the biggest Mary Sue of all time is.....Superman. There is nothing interesting about Superman because he is 99.99% perfect and invincible. If you don't have kryptonite on hand, he is going to succeed at anything he does.
As for The Witcher series, I guess I can get on board with the idea that the first two games could potentially be considered bad for certain reasons. But 3?? No way. It simply ran roughshod over any of the open world games that have come before it. The DLCs are even more impressive. The Witcher 3 is probably one of the top-10 games of all-time, nevermind RPGs.
Witcher 3 has gotten so many accolades that I'm not even going to argue mechanics wise. They must have done something right. But because Witcher 1 and 2 utterly failed to get me invested in the world or any of the characters (or even take any of them seriously) there is no chance of me ever playing it.
Witcher 3 has gotten so many accolades that I'm not even going to argue mechanics wise. They must have done something right. But because Witcher 1 and 2 utterly failed to get me invested in the world or any of the characters (or even take any of them seriously) there is no chance of me ever playing it.
You probably would have been better off simply starting with the 3rd game in that case. Not only is perfectly playable in isolation, but most of the problems you have with the first two games are alleviated considerably. I honestly think the first game is the worst offender in regards to what you are talking about, as it was the one that literally featured collectible cards signifying Geralt's female conquests. The 3rd game is mostly focused on him finally choosing between the two women he actually LOVES, and his relationship with what is essentially his surrogate daughter. Essentially, the women essential to the story are treated much more respectfully and given many more dimensions. Geralt's whoring around is no longer a primary focus, though it IS an option. As the developers have gotten older and matured, the games have gotten better in this regard.
ThacoBell has already stated multiple times the witcher games are not their thing. this would be like telling me to play this strategy rpg knowing full well i don't like them.
best to stop pushing it and move the topic back to elder scrolls.
In my opinion, a Mary Sue (and I honestly despise the term itself because of how it got abused in regards to Rey in the recent Star Wars movies) is someone like the comic book character Me'dan in the Warcraft universe. He was literally an amalgamation of a Mage/Paladin/Rogue/Shaman (basically half the original classes of WoW). It was so bad that recently Blizzard just decided to write him out of their lore entirely. But the biggest Mary Sue of all time is.....Superman. There is nothing interesting about Superman because he is 99.99% perfect and invincible. If you don't have kryptonite on hand, he is going to succeed at anything he does.
As for The Witcher series, I guess I can get on board with the idea that the first two games could potentially be considered bad for certain reasons. But 3?? No way. It simply ran roughshod over any of the open world games that have come before it. The DLCs are even more impressive. The Witcher 3 is probably one of the top-10 games of all-time, nevermind RPGs.
You should read All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison.
Supes is one of the most human superheroes of them all.
Witcher 3 has gotten so many accolades that I'm not even going to argue mechanics wise.
The camera and movement interplay is awful and clunky as shit and probably the worst I've played in a long, long, time. It actually ruined the game for me.
In my opinion, a Mary Sue (and I honestly despise the term itself because of how it got abused in regards to Rey in the recent Star Wars movies) is someone like the comic book character Me'dan in the Warcraft universe. He was literally an amalgamation of a Mage/Paladin/Rogue/Shaman (basically half the original classes of WoW). It was so bad that recently Blizzard just decided to write him out of their lore entirely. But the biggest Mary Sue of all time is.....Superman. There is nothing interesting about Superman because he is 99.99% perfect and invincible. If you don't have kryptonite on hand, he is going to succeed at anything he does.
As for The Witcher series, I guess I can get on board with the idea that the first two games could potentially be considered bad for certain reasons. But 3?? No way. It simply ran roughshod over any of the open world games that have come before it. The DLCs are even more impressive. The Witcher 3 is probably one of the top-10 games of all-time, nevermind RPGs.
Except it's not really about a character being perfect (though it often is the case), but rather about a character being wishful thinking/self-insertion of the author. I think what makes the difference is the author's writing skill; even a self-insert can be interesting and compelling, if the author has the skill to sell it. If he doesn't, then you end up with a character who is boring and/or annoying.
I found the witcher had such elements to him in the book, e.g. the world views witchers as mutants, shunned by society and yet the ladies are just lining up to have a go with him, in contrast to all the other witchers in the book, who weren't popular with the ladies at all.
Even when talking about a fantasy world, I expect the worldbuilding to be consistent, otherwise your one "special" character sticks out like a sore thumb.
I agree with this as well. Geralt is a huge Mary Stu.
In my opinion, a Mary Sue (and I honestly despise the term itself because of how it got abused in regards to Rey in the recent Star Wars movies) is someone like the comic book character Me'dan in the Warcraft universe. He was literally an amalgamation of a Mage/Paladin/Rogue/Shaman (basically half the original classes of WoW). It was so bad that recently Blizzard just decided to write him out of their lore entirely. But the biggest Mary Sue of all time is.....Superman. There is nothing interesting about Superman because he is 99.99% perfect and invincible. If you don't have kryptonite on hand, he is going to succeed at anything he does.
As for The Witcher series, I guess I can get on board with the idea that the first two games could potentially be considered bad for certain reasons. But 3?? No way. It simply ran roughshod over any of the open world games that have come before it. The DLCs are even more impressive. The Witcher 3 is probably one of the top-10 games of all-time, nevermind RPGs.
You should read All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison.
Supes is one of the most human superheroes of them all.
Also i recommend watching Superman Vs. The Elite. Great animated movie.
Mary Sue definitions can vary pretty wildly, Geralt happens to fit mine. But not other peoples' and that's fine. We like different things,
@jjstraka34 Not possible, Witcher 3 wasn't a thin when I played 1
@Fardragon I agree with every point but number 2. A predetermined character is often allowed to interact with the world FAR more than a variable or silent protaganist.
Done well, you can have both. Baldur's Gate has a pre-determined character, but you get lots of customisation, not just in race/class/skills but, more importantly in how they behave and what kind of person they are. Even PS:T's Nameless One lets you choose how they behave. My objection to Geralt isn't that you have limited customisation of his abilities, my objection is you can't choose to behave in a way that isn't an arrogant tosser.
Trying @ThacoBell give Witcher franchise a try is just like making me appreciate Elder Scrolls or trying to make me not hate what Bethesda did to Fallout. It's just not gonna happen, guys. And it's okay in both cases.
Whatever opinion you guys have on Geralt is up to you, I just want to mention some things that I see haven't been mentioned here (or at least I missed it). First of all, Geralt is not a videogame character, but a character from a literature, from a novel series. He is well established in the world created by A. Sapkowski and that has to be represented properly. This brings me to point two, namely that games fail on that to certain extent, partially due to amnesia plot, partially due to the fact that the player is making the choices, including those that book!Geralt wouldn't ever take, minor and major decisions included.
This brings me to the other point, that opinion based on limited knowledge, while still allowed, is not necessary valid. With the source material ranging from 3 non-canon games (yes, they are not canon) to several books, I do think that majority of people are rather unfamiliar with the source material.
It's not like bashing Geralt triggers me especially. What triggers me is oversimplification of character to easily bash him/her/it, while not being knowledgeable about source material.
The game is different in a sense that Geralt's characterization depends on players input to an extent and that it changes his relationships with other characters.
As for his apparent encounters with monsters - no (which the games fail with, adnittedly). Unless you consider Renfri as one, which she wasn't. For fantasy creatures - Dryads or similar creatures. Which in universe usually mate with humans.
Geralt is percieved as freak mostly by common folk. Unfortunately, theyre majority of his customers. Reaction of educated people varies, some accept him, some are curious, some dislike for different reasons than common people.
As for Casanova, I don't think it is accurate. He doesn't make moves on opposite sex often. More often than not, women are making move at him, and that mostly because of him being different than anyone else. Needless to say, common girls are usually afraid of him, even in instances he saves them from someone or something.
As for wish fullfilment. No, believe me you don't want to na him. Cons aren't worth it.
This brings me to the other point, that opinion based on limited knowledge, while still allowed, is not necessary valid. With the source material ranging from 3 non-canon games (yes, they are not canon) to several books, I do think that majority of people are rather unfamiliar with the source material.
It's not like bashing Geralt triggers me especially. What triggers me is oversimplification of character to easily bash him/her/it, while not being knowledgeable about source material.
Well, I haven't read the entire saga, but I'd say I've read enough source material to form my opinion on this character. And yes, his unconvincing characterization was what turned me off from the books. So I'll repeat my question: is the game really that different in this aspect?
Because what convinced me not to try the game were all the ads on all the romantic conquests (back when the first game came out), including not only human ladies, but also apparently monsters and fantasy beings. And that just doesn't work for me.
Either you have a hero who is perceived a mutant freak, an outcast shunned by the normal folk, or you have a Casanova of the realms, whose fabled charms no lady - human or monster - could ever withstand. But if you combine these two concepts (who are at odds with each other) into one character, then it just doesn't make sense - except as a wish fulfillment trope.
Still more enjoyable than Moorcock's Eternal Champion metaseries. PersonalIy i never much liked Moorcock as a person or a writer because he is pretty much the OG edgy neckbeard and his potshots towards Lord of the Rings and Witcher are pretty pretentious. His only real claim to fame is Elric who is pretty much the original edgy and emo fantasy anti-hero. Though his book series influence is profound in everything from Dungeons & Dragons and Warhammer to Wolverine and Adam Warlock, I never found any real relatable human qualities in any of his characters and frankly can't stomach Moorcock's worldview in any capacity. However, there is something weird and fun about the Eternal Champion stories, which I think serves other media like video games far better than epic fantasy literature made for reading (Gods of Chaos and Law clearly influencing the Daedra and Aedra from Elder Scrolls). I think his ideas are good but he's kind of a sloppy writer, jumping from one scenario to the next in his Elric stories without, interestingly for fantasy fiction, never providing any semblance of conflict or suspense. I don't care about any of his characters enough to care about what happens. We know Elric 'loves' Cymoril, who is supposed to be an 'amoral' and sadistic Melnibonean yet who can somehow behave as if she understands love and loyalty, okay, so Moorcock says..... He never shows us anything that substantiates that love or the Melnibonean traits. His villains and supporting characters are very one-dimensional, as is Elric who has the self destructive ingenuity of a lemming. The most interesting thing about his works are the trippy occult-esque elements. I liked reading about Arioch, and his many different incarnations. I liked reading about sorcery, traveling in between planes of existence. Although his 'Pantheon' is really pretty much just a tweaked version of the Ars Goetia and his set-up of Law versus Chaos is ultimately underdeveloped.
That the character is based on (badly written) books isn't an excuse. They should have allowed the player to be a new character in that universe, with Geralt as an NPC, if they wanted to do an RPG based on that setting.
Comments
*edit*
Oh, and Geralt is a boring Marty Sue character.
If you have a different opinion from someone, express that different opinion and let it stand on its own merits. Introducing a new perspective adds a new idea to the discussion; saying someone is wrong without elaborating on why you disagree adds nothing to the discussion.
it does get annoying when people say everything should be like the witcher 3. i enjoyed witcher 2 and i don't see alot of the issues i've been seeing lately. i could easily use the same logic in settings such as dragon age and fallout whitch i enjoy but i'm not that petty.
However the fact he bangs every babe he meets does make him a bit Gary Stu.
As for The Witcher series, I guess I can get on board with the idea that the first two games could potentially be considered bad for certain reasons. But 3?? No way. It simply ran roughshod over any of the open world games that have come before it. The DLCs are even more impressive. The Witcher 3 is probably one of the top-10 games of all-time, nevermind RPGs.
best to stop pushing it and move the topic back to elder scrolls.
Supes is one of the most human superheroes of them all.
2) You can't create your own character, even the personality is pre-set;
3) Geralt is an obnoxious egotistical git;
4) The world is dreary, depressing and derivative;
For a start.
@jjstraka34 Not possible, Witcher 3 wasn't a thin when I played 1
@Fardragon I agree with every point but number 2. A predetermined character is often allowed to interact with the world FAR more than a variable or silent protaganist.
Whatever opinion you guys have on Geralt is up to you, I just want to mention some things that I see haven't been mentioned here (or at least I missed it). First of all, Geralt is not a videogame character, but a character from a literature, from a novel series. He is well established in the world created by A. Sapkowski and that has to be represented properly. This brings me to point two, namely that games fail on that to certain extent, partially due to amnesia plot, partially due to the fact that the player is making the choices, including those that book!Geralt wouldn't ever take, minor and major decisions included.
This brings me to the other point, that opinion based on limited knowledge, while still allowed, is not necessary valid. With the source material ranging from 3 non-canon games (yes, they are not canon) to several books, I do think that majority of people are rather unfamiliar with the source material.
It's not like bashing Geralt triggers me especially. What triggers me is oversimplification of character to easily bash him/her/it, while not being knowledgeable about source material.
And sorry for mini-rant.
As for his apparent encounters with monsters - no (which the games fail with, adnittedly). Unless you consider Renfri as one, which she wasn't. For fantasy creatures - Dryads or similar creatures. Which in universe usually mate with humans.
Geralt is percieved as freak mostly by common folk. Unfortunately, theyre majority of his customers. Reaction of educated people varies, some accept him, some are curious, some dislike for different reasons than common people.
As for Casanova, I don't think it is accurate. He doesn't make moves on opposite sex often. More often than not, women are making move at him, and that mostly because of him being different than anyone else. Needless to say, common girls are usually afraid of him, even in instances he saves them from someone or something.
As for wish fullfilment. No, believe me you don't want to na him. Cons aren't worth it.