General gaming talk

[Cult Icon]

 

[Cult Icon]

 

[Cult Icon]

On 11/10/2021 at 6:37 PM, Enrico_sw said:

 

The Regis and Geralt "old buddies' relationship" is a great part of B&W.

 

A nostalgic discussion with a friend on a twilight is one of these rare and great things in life. This scene encapsulates it perfectly. And I like how Geralt breaks the 4th wall in the end.

 

 

great scene (the one in the graveyard is cool too) and nuanced message to the player.  "time for a bit of rest".  The Regis exchanges often refers to the books.  eg. Vilgefortz is a big character in the books but isn't in the Witcher 3.  

 

Currently I am finishing up book 4.  Every so often I rewatch stuff from the Witcher 3 and I see it with new meaning.  In book 4 Geralt meets Keira Metz, so you understand better why she wanted instant sex in Velen : D  Also I understand the previous relationship between Dijkstra and Geralt too.

 

Did you get the Ciri becomes a Witcher or the empress ending?   What kind of ending did you get at the vineyard?

[Enrico_sw]

20 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

 

great scene (the one in the graveyard is cool too) and nuanced message to the player.  "time for a bit of rest".  The Regis exchanges often refers to the books.  eg. Vilgefortz is a big character in the books but isn't in the Witcher 3.  

 

Currently I am finishing up book 4.  Every so often I rewatch stuff from the Witcher 3 and I see it with new meaning.  In book 4 Geralt meets Keira Metz, so you understand better why she wanted instant sex in Velen : D  Also I understand the previous relationship between Dijkstra and Geralt too.

 

Did you get the Ciri becomes a Witcher or the empress ending?   What kind of ending did you get at the vineyard?

 

In my gameplay, Ciri became a Witcher. It seemed more logical to me. Triss visits Geralt at the vineyard (cause she's my favorite female character). My ending in B&W is that the sisters finally get along together and vampires are not happy with Regis cause he killed Detlaff.

 

Regis is supposed to be left for dead in the books right?

[Enrico_sw]

^ I really loved the Witcher 3.

 

Of course, it's not perfect and I guess the biggest complain I'd have is that the gameplay is too easy: you can roll in front of every enemy indefinitely, which basically makes you're a fighter with infinite endurance (you're the flawless soldier...). I prefer a Souls-type gameplay: there's more challenge. I also prefer the Souls weapon system, with each weapon having its personality and fighting style.

[Enrico_sw]

But then again after having tasted a Souls game, every other game seems bland.

[Cult Icon]

15 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

^ I really loved the Witcher 3.

 

Of course, it's not perfect and I guess the biggest complain I'd have is that the gameplay is too easy: you can roll in front of every enemy indefinitely, which basically makes you're a fighter with infinite endurance (you're the flawless soldier...). I prefer a Souls-type gameplay: there's more challenge. I also prefer the Souls weapon system, with each weapon having its personality and fighting style.

 

Yeah, the diverse and customizable gameplay systems of FROMSOFT are basically the best and what they focus on.  The one in the Witcher doesn't match up to it.  Also very good is the system used in For Honor however the franchise doesn't seem to be very popular.  Miyazaki has indicated that their design philosophy with gameplay is "hard but fair/get gud", which is IMHO something that should be adopted more widely in the gaming industry.  They also focus on maximizing gameplay over other factors.

 

I am more familar with Elden Ring now and you can even this philosophy in the horseback riding:  Most games want to make it more "realistic" so they have animation of the character getting off the horse.  In this game the horses of players and NPCs are "spirits" that magically disappear and reappear lol.  

[Cult Icon]

15 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

In my gameplay, Ciri became a Witcher. It seemed more logical to me. Triss visits Geralt at the vineyard (cause she's my favorite female character). My ending in B&W is that the sisters finally get along together and vampires are not happy with Regis cause he killed Detlaff.

 

Regis is supposed to be left for dead in the books right?

 

Yea, that's what he aludes to when you talk to him in the graveyard.  Of the main story books I have finished 3 and almost all of 4 so I haven't gotten up to the Regis stories yet.

 

One of the things I am curious about is the book endings.  (The books take place 5 years before the games) Is Ciri better off as a Witcher or as a Empress?  It's like trading happiness/a free life vs meaning.  With her super-powers she will probably never get killed by a monster.   But if she is empress she would be in a gilded cage, have a stressful life/unhappy but have big impact on the world.  

 

I thought it was interesting that they chose a heartland america voice for Triss, literally the voice of "wife material".  By the end of book 4, Yennefer gradually becomes more likeable, less selfish/egotistical and more motherly & giving.  The way her character (and geralt's) develops is that they become Ciri's adopted parents.  

 

What do you think of the Netflix Witcher show?  TBH I don't really like it.  I appreciate that it was made and the effort put in making it.   I will watch every episode as the visuals add to the Witcher experience but I feel like it is not well written, acted, and directed.  It is also just about 30% from the books and 70% made up by the woke showrunners. Sapkowski was a far superior writer to them and a better director could have followed the books closely and achieved a Game of Thrones level result.  To me the games are much more loyal to the books and are the spiritual successor, so I find the books/games to be canon and the show to be "something else".

 

Do you like the way CDRed ended the games?  I found it pretty simple and clever, they gave multiple options and made it open-ended enough for players to have their own ending in their minds.

[Enrico_sw]

On 11/14/2021 at 2:34 PM, Cult Icon said:

One of the things I am curious about is the book endings.  (The books take place 5 years before the games) Is Ciri better off as a Witcher or as a Empress?  It's like trading happiness/a free life vs meaning.  With her super-powers she will probably never get killed by a monster.   But if she is empress she would be in a gilded cage, have a stressful life/unhappy but have big impact on the world. 

 

They showed her ability to fight and it's good, but they never show her ability to rule. I guess she has a couple of ruler qualities, but her father is really a great ruler (though I prefer the Northern Kingdoms). Maybe she'd have had his qualities. Her father is too stern, but then again that's what their empire needed at the time. Would she have been a ruler of peace times after her father extended the empire? Maybe.

 

On 11/14/2021 at 2:34 PM, Cult Icon said:

Do you like the way CDRed ended the games?  I found it pretty simple and clever, they gave multiple options and made it open-ended enough for players to have their own ending in their minds.

 

In terms  of storyline, this game is one of the best of the best. Hands down.

 

On 11/14/2021 at 2:34 PM, Cult Icon said:

What do you think of the Netflix Witcher show?  TBH I don't really like it.  I appreciate that it was made and the effort put in making it.   I will watch every episode as the visuals add to the Witcher experience but I feel like it is not well written, acted, and directed.  It is also just about 30% from the books and 70% made up by the woke showrunners.

 

I didn't really like the show either. Not just because the Witcher 3 is far superior (in terms of... everything). The Netflix show has some good sides: the visual effects are good (though cheap at some points) and some acting performances are fairly good (Yennefer, Mousesack, Calanthe and Geralt half of the time).

 

The biggest problems of this show is that the storytelling is awful (the timeline is blurry, not well explained) and most of the characters are not well treated.

 

You can see that the showrunner is smitten with Cavill, which makes her behave like a typical smitten woman: she idealises her main actor (Geralt) and belittles the other roles, who are stooges at best. Dandelion (Jaskier) is treated very badly. They made him a fool, a goofy character, while in the game, he's more complex: both excentric/braggart and at the same time compassionate (and not ridiculous). In the game, he's an artist, so of course he's "too much", but not in such a bad way. The show makes him the weakling that is supposed to make Geralt look better by contrast (we call that a "faire-valoir" in French). That's not the initial spirit of the character IMO.

 

Yennefer is pretty good IMHO. They show her as a complex character (more likable than in the game, cause you see her hardships and her fights who seem fair).

 

Cavill acts good half of the time. He's calm, assertive, nonchalant in his attitude. But his voice doesn't fit at all, it's too aggro and sometimes very condescending. Also, it sounds fake (which it is, it's not his natural voice). The game's voice is much better (much more detached/nonchalant and sure of himself without bragging).  Also, as we already discussed, Cavill looks like a bodybuilder which is not how the Witcher should look.

 

I don't like the fight scenes very much. Geralt's bragging in them with his weird grip. The Witcher should be a calm effective soldier, whose main goal is efficiency. Gerlat's gear look crappy too.

 

The show's music is good (in season 1), not as good as the game, but it's good. However, I hate the music in Season 2's trailer. This rap track is awful and out of touch.

[Enrico_sw]

On 11/12/2021 at 7:48 PM, Cult Icon said:

 

 

What do you think of the fact that they added infiltration in Elden Ring's gameplay? I have mixed feelings about this. Maybe it brings something new, but it doesn't feel right in a Souls game. I mean, Souls is about facing the enemy and kick his ass (or try and retry until you git gud enough).

[Enrico_sw]

I like Dragon Age Inquisition (that I'm playing at the moment) but I miss Soul's gameplay... again

 

Any developer that aims to develop a medieval fantasy game (or any game with swords and shields) should draw from From Software's gameplay (or at least, if they want to develop their own thing, they should propose a challenging gameplay, not something where you can get away with spamming the attack button).

[Enrico_sw]

@Cult Icon I wonder what was the development cost for DS3 or Elden Ring. I wanted to look for insights in FromSoftware financial statements or annual reports, but I couldn't find them in English or French (and I'm too lazy to keep searching)

 

BTW, FromSoftware is a relatively small company. Their annual sales is about $50 Million, which is not much, and they're only 332 employees (but maybe they have lots of subcontractors).

https://www.fromsoftware.jp/ww/company_about.html

 

(EA has 10 000 employees and $6 billion annual sales, but their performance is not always very good  - I hate EA's executives, BTW...   EA's business model is despicable)

 

This article tries to consolidate the costs of big games based on some insights, but it's not very professionally written:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

[Enrico_sw]

The Game Awards are going to be poor this year...

[Cult Icon]

remake of a classic 19 year old game with current engine, interesting there's no black female nazis and one armed female assassins! :

 

 

[Cult Icon]

On 11/16/2021 at 3:32 PM, Enrico_sw said:

What do you think of the fact that they added infiltration in Elden Ring's gameplay? I have mixed feelings about this. Maybe it brings something new, but it doesn't feel right in a Souls game. I mean, Souls is about facing the enemy and kick his ass (or try and retry until you git gud enough).

 

I like Dragon Age Inquisition (that I'm playing at the moment) but I miss Soul's gameplay... again

 

Any developer that aims to develop a medieval fantasy game (or any game with swords and shields) should draw from From Software's gameplay (or at least, if they want to develop their own thing, they should propose a challenging gameplay, not something where you can get away with spamming the attack button).

 

I would be interested to see a developer do a mixture of Souls and For Honor gameplay.  I remember that Dragon Age Inquisition was popular around the same time as Bloodborne and the Witcher 3, and before the release of Dark Souls III.  I know that you didn't play Bloodborne but it was very obvious that once the first DS III footage came out that they used the same engine and re-used a lot of the assets, while added a big variety of new content.  In that respect it seemed that Bloodborne was the most original game, and Miyazaki's self-professed favorite so far.

 

I've looked at more Elden Ring content, the infiltration stuff looks weird as knights wearing colorful & noisy armor doesn't look right when they sneak around : D.   However it looks like the infiltration stuff is limited to the enemy convoys & camps.  The Dungeons/castles/caves etc is back to ol' Dark Souls style.   From Cowboy I heard that the network test is  15 % of the map.  So as a sample of the game, it looks to be a unusual mixture of various styles of play.  Few normal enemies outside 1 convoy, 1 dungeon, 1 castle..., lots of mini-bosses, and 1 main story boss.  Open world riding & looting, some open world fights, going to mini-boss to mini boss, going into Castles/dungeons.  The open world is well designed however it is rather empty IMHO.  I heard that the game will not have towns/villages/cities so will stick to gameplay as expected.

 

All the mini-bosses range from OK to good, the main game boss is good too. IT looks like invasions/PVP is pretty fun with all the diverse options and the open space to fight.  I hope however, that when the game is released that there will be more density and depth of content.  The Network test comes across as a bit sparse in some respects.

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7RtZMiaOk8g3Nmd65G81kG_Aydz4HXYu

 

[Cult Icon]

On 11/15/2021 at 4:52 PM, Enrico_sw said:

 

They showed her ability to fight and it's good, but they never show her ability to rule. I guess she has a couple of ruler qualities, but her father is really a great ruler (though I prefer the Northern Kingdoms). Maybe she'd have had his qualities. Her father is too stern, but then again that's what their empire needed at the time. Would she have been a ruler of peace times after her father extended the empire? Maybe.

 

In terms  of storyline, this game is one of the best of the best. Hands down.

 

I didn't really like the show either. Not just because the Witcher 3 is far superior (in terms of... everything). The Netflix show has some good sides: the visual effects are good (though cheap at some points) and some acting performances are fairly good (Yennefer, Mousesack, Calanthe and Geralt half of the time).

 

The biggest problems of this show is that the storytelling is awful (the timeline is blurry, not well explained) and most of the characters are not well treated.

 

You can see that the showrunner is smitten with Cavill, which makes her behave like a typical smitten woman: she idealises her main actor (Geralt) and belittles the other roles, who are stooges at best. Dandelion (Jaskier) is treated very badly. They made him a fool, a goofy character, while in the game, he's more complex: both excentric/braggart and at the same time compassionate (and not ridiculous). In the game, he's an artist, so of course he's "too much", but not in such a bad way. The show makes him the weakling that is supposed to make Geralt look better by contrast (we call that a "faire-valoir" in French). That's not the initial spirit of the character IMO.

 

Yennefer is pretty good IMHO. They show her as a complex character (more likable than in the game, cause you see her hardships and her fights who seem fair).

 

Cavill acts good half of the time. He's calm, assertive, nonchalant in his attitude. But his voice doesn't fit at all, it's too aggro and sometimes very condescending. Also, it sounds fake (which it is, it's not his natural voice). The game's voice is much better (much more detached/nonchalant and sure of himself without bragging).  Also, as we already discussed, Cavill looks like a bodybuilder which is not how the Witcher should look.

 

I don't like the fight scenes very much. Geralt's bragging in them with his weird grip. The Witcher should be a calm effective soldier, whose main goal is efficiency. Gerlat's gear look crappy too.

 

The show's music is good (in season 1), not as good as the game, but it's good. However, I hate the music in Season 2's trailer. This rap track is awful and out of touch.

 

The Witcher 3 writing is excellent, loyal to the books, and far superior to the show.  I re-watch the game and constantly discover new things now that I have read most of the books. 

 

Geralt is the main character in the books, he has by far the most pages dedicated to his journey.  This is especially the case in books 1 and 2, there is comparatively little Yennefer content.  In every book he has the most coverage.  I don't like Cavilli's portrayal of Geralt.  He looks and sounds weird, and is too serious.  The voice he puts on is annoying and fake.  The Geralt character in the books has some differences to the Witcher 3.  He is far more talkative, more emotional, and is also VERY sarcastic/asshole ish.  

 

TBH I actually like the Witcher 3 Geralt the most.  To me he is an older, wiser. His speech is sharp and badass, gets to the point quick.  Fewer emotions.  Also the voice actor is far superior to Caviili.

 

As I posted in the Witcher thread, the Yennefer portion of the show is fan fiction, most of it is not in the books.  The author purposely left the machinations of the Sorcerers' lodge and Yennefer's backstory as a very vague mention.  We know that Yennefer was a hunchback as a youth in short story "Last Wish" and that is the last time we hear of it in the books.  Calanthe is totally fan-fiction and is not present in the books.  She is not a feminist warrior queen at all.  She is long dead (died when Ciri was a child) and was more like a matriach in the traditional sense.

 

TBH I like the show less than you, to me both the Calanthe and Yennefer stories are feminist archetypes, I find this type of character annoying.  I don't like Warrior Queen stories.   However I like how in episode 8 they start emphasizing Yennefer's realization of the shallowness of Yennefer's existence, her pursuit of power and social status, and what she lacks- family and being a mother.  In the book they don't go as far as having her admit that she is ready to die, having lived a superifical life.  The development of her character in the books is actually anti-feminist as she becomes more and more motherly.

 

Also, there are no curse words in the books, while the show keeps on dropping F-bombs etc.

[Cult Icon]

I agree that the fighting in the show is shit, I saw the cowboy Bebop fights and they are shit too. Netflix needs better consultants.. 

 

 I am now well into "Baptism of Fire (book 5)" and have encountered the GWENT game, Zoltan, and soon will meet Regis.  Dandelion has risen back to prominance as Geralt's companion to the point where he rivals Yennefer as the biggest side character.  Your complaints about his character in the series is shared; the actor who plays Dandelion is not really up to the job.  In the books Dandelion is kind of Geralt's foil- comedic relief, does silly things sometimes, is a player-pimp and most of all he is loyal, a big source of information & has traits that Geralt doesn't have, like being highly sociable & musical. 

 

The Emperor Emhir (Nilfgaard) is a machiviellian conquerer/murderer who rises in power in the books.  This is why when you first meet him in Witcher 3, Geralt talks to him like he's a piece of shit.  I rewatched the intro with new eyes recently.  Also in the books you find out what happens to "The Lodge" and why eventually the witches turn into fugitatives in the game.  

 

I find it fitting that they hired Charles Dance to voice Emhir. Tywin was an effective ruler that was brought down by his family problems and poor parenting.  

 

With Ciri you raise an interesting point.  So far, in the books (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8   ) and the games, Ciri is very much a "born" Witcher.  She has been on the run nearly her whole life. Becoming an empress would be going back to who she was as a child.  If they developed the Empress angle in the Witcher 3 it would make the decision a lot harder.  It is notable that her child portrait has her scowling lol:

 

 

Out of the main characters in the show, the only one I like is the girl who plays Ciri.  She has a childish look that makes her look younger than she is in real life.

 

[Cult Icon]

I watched this recently and it was insightful about the Witcher.  Paul Cantor teaches a course about political philosophy in Shakespeare's plays and has several books on cultural analysis.  I enjoyed the course and learned quite a bit.  

 

The talk on the Western emphasizes the history of it, and why it appeals to a global audience.  Also, the close relation between Samurai movies (Kurosawa) and the Western.  And also how the Western form has lived on in many other entertainment genres, like Zombie movies. 

 

What he didn't mention is the Witcher.  Major portions of the Witcher reminds me of a Western, except in a fantasy settling.

 

The reason he gives is that the Western is an escape from the feminized,  middle class, routinized life to a more Homeric, heroic setting that people lack and crave.

 

 

[Cult Icon]

Another thing they removed from the show is two of Geralt's side romances. (not surprising to me that they did this).  Both romances are interesting and well written in the books.

 

I am detecting an undercurrent in the books/games-  as in Geralt and Yennefer both start out as solitary and somewhat monomanical individuals (her obsession with social status and power, his attachment to the warrior-aesthetic life calling of a Witcher) to uncovering something of a family, with their adopted daughter Ciri.  So Geralt transitions more and more into a father and Yennefer more and more into a mother.

 

There is also a theme of increasing interactions with the wider world, and the cultivating of many new friendships and connectedness/social impact.  Geralt starts off being a "purist" apolitical witcher, opening stating that his destiny is to fight to the death, always on the path.  Then he is increasingly woven into the lives of others and impacting events in the wider world, which conflicts with this fanaticism.  This makes his death to have more and more steep of a price.  I suspect that the Blood and Wine ending is meant as a way to diversify and make more rich a life, away from monomanical obsession with honor and a spiritual ideal.

 

It makes sense how in Blood and Wine there are options to bring Yennefer and Geralt together, however one fo the endings is only Ciri and Geralt.  There doesn't seem to be an option for all three at Corvo Blanco.

 

Ciri's journey is still a girl survival/lost in the wild quest by book 5, she becomes more and more of a witcher.

 

Dandelion is a born wanderer/journalist type, who attaches himself to the "Great Man" Geralt, as a friends but also to experience what he experiences and to record it down into ballards.  As the books go by, Geralt becomes more and more famous/legendary as a result of Dandelion's works of poetry and music.

 

The books never reveal how Geralt and Dandelion first met and got attached to each other.  The series does and it's fanfiction.

[Enrico_sw]

On 11/20/2021 at 1:59 PM, Cult Icon said:

The reason he gives is that the Western is an escape from the feminized,  middle class, routinized life to a more Homeric, heroic setting that people lack and crave.

 

And he's right.