PDA

View Full Version : BO and Witcher



Linikratyo
11th May 2012, 21:06
Alright so I haven't played the Witcher yet but I thought this might be an interesting topic. ;)

So I believe that this RPG might be the Blood Omen of the new generation games, mainly due to the mature fantasy setting... anyone got comments on this?

The_Hylden
12th May 2012, 02:02
It certainly has similarities. The white-haired supernatural protagonist with catlike yellow eyes, the medieval setting, supernatural powers, enemies, sorcerers, etc. The world is so incredibly detailed and envisioned. I think it's a bit less gothic, especially the architecture, and the overall feel is not quite Nosgoth, but it certainly could be made to be with minor tweaks, in my opinion. The protagonist is certainly not as powerful as Kain, nor should he be, but he has some similar powers like mind manipulation, fire, slow time, etc. The sword combat of course takes longer and is way more nuanced, but again, he's not a vampire than can just wade through enemies like paper, almost, lol. There are dwarves, elves, giant trolls, etc. So, it's more traditional fantasy in that regard. The magic is also based on alchemy and ancient runic symbols, more asking to real world witchery than it is to what we see in Nosgoth (although, Nosgoth does have alchemy); the protagonist has to drink potions, use oils and other concoctions and to meditate to use powers and magic. It's also more crass and far less refined in its language, but then there are few stories outside of Shakespeare that are as nuanced as Legacy of Kain. There's also sex, explicit, which is not really fitting to Legacy of Kain. i mean, there are brothels in Nosgth a plenty, but certainly Kain isn't partaking of the goods and we aren't seeing him, or any female, utterly naked in bed (Geralt can even fight naked, if you simply don't equip any clothing in the menu), if he so chooses :p Kain also doesn't have a girlfriend sorceress that he's out to save in his adventures, so the motivations are different for the character(s). The armor and clothing is incredibly, incredibly detailed for all characters, with layers of chain mail, under-padding, wool, cloaks, rags, neckless and bracelets, and all manner of things so nicely detailed, it almost hurts the eyes, lol. I love the realistic and dark and thick blood and how its rendered and my mind pines for seeing that level of thick viscous liquid drunk by Kain realistically, instead of the brighter red spray that could be rendered in LoK games.

In short, I'd love to see the level of detail in envisioning Nosgoth to life as is seen with bringing this world to life for Geralt of Rivia. I've only played through The Witcher 2, so my statements are regarding that game, and what I've seen of the first in screens and trailers. Let's put it this way, I'd love even to see the world of Nosgoth rendered with the same detail and care as even the first game, but the second one's refined graphical and overall feel and aesthetic detail is unmatched still for any other game. It's truly something to see and play through.

Count D
12th May 2012, 18:16
Well yeah, there are slight similarities, mostly between Nosgoth and The Northern Kingdoms - both are the "dirtier" fantasy, a bit more realistic, with plagues, brothels and such. It's not AS dark as Blood Omen, mind you, but on the other hand, the dark stuff comes from things that exist in real life. I don't think that comparing them is a right thing.

Mr.Milky
6th Jun 2012, 15:03
The "maturity" regarding the LoK series dwell upon the mere brutality and immense intelligence of the characters throughout the series. The "maturity" of the "Witcher" series comes from the portray of the "Medieval" fantasy in a bit more gore style and portray of the nudity with slight apparent occultism.

Games are not comparable, other than the long white hair of Geralt and Kain.

In my opinion the aspects of the Witcher games are nowhere near the book, however the mere technical aspects of the game (graphics, tech etc) are not very appealing to me for any LoK game.

Also, I wouldn't like that LoK tries to follow the steps of the Witcher series, in any way, because LoK universe is far more immense, "epic", name it as you wish, and it does have more "dark" setting regardless of how you look at it.

The Witcher series offer that type of "darkness" that's only appealing to the teenagers and with the superficiality of the characters it leaves a bad, boring experience of railroad "free" choices and the collection of the naked female cards... The Witcher games were meant for the fans of the books. LoK series were made from the scratch. And they deserve much more than to be compared with puny Witcher.

The_Hylden
6th Jun 2012, 20:46
lol, I swear I read your post, Milky, in Arnold Schwarzenegger's voice. :D

"Puny girlie man! You cannot compare with your puny muscles! Your frame is weak and nothing next to me, raaaagh!" hehe

Paradoks
7th Jun 2012, 01:11
I have yet to play the Witcher 2 (due to some event I promised that I'm not buying it until it is noticeably discounted). I have however read the books and played the Witcher 1. CD Projekt's representation of the witcher world is... acceptable. If I had to rate it I would give it 3 out of 5. It's not really bad (and infinitely better than that abomination of a movie/TV series), but it is nowhere near the quality and complexity of the source material. Not to mention some simply idiotic ideas (yes - that embarrassing 'cards').
But I think that the witcher world (and I'm referring to Sapkowski's vision here) is in fact darker than Nosgoth for one main reason - it is closer to the real world.
And besides, Regis is my second favourite vampire ;).

Mr.Milky
11th Jun 2012, 08:19
Actually, vampirism itself is closer to the real world than anything represented in the Witcher books. :D

"Porphyria, sometimes called “the Vampire disease”, is a collection of rare, genetic blood disorders. Extreme cases of the disease can manifest gruesome symptoms where victims accumulate pigments called porphyrins in the skin, bones and teeth."

Anyway, I find the Witcher to be left without any emotions. That doesn't make him very realistic in my eyes. Besides, vampirism itself represents human hunger or thirst for not just power but also life itself.

In Witcher series poetic or philosophic concepts are nearly nowhere to be found. The game's a good setting for wRPG enthusiasts, because it dwells upon banal humor and little to no drama at all (b>0<0>b<z) however 1st part of the game was much better in my opinion. 2nd part was graphics.
Anyway nothing philosophic = nothing dark. That's one of the main reasons why the series aren't appealing to me, even though it shares similarities with my old Slavic mythological lore. There're much more "realistic" games out there with much more gore and psychological, physical and even spiritual pain (for some people) rather than Pokemon Witcher who got to get them all cards :rasp:
True, very realistic. Teenagers like young girls on cards. :lol: at least untill they find an actual girl. :whistle:

Paradoks
11th Jun 2012, 09:32
Have you read the books? Because you should notice that I was mostly referring to them, not the games. About the game - the cards were stupid and unnecessary, I admitted that, but if you think they were even a remotely important part of the game, then you really weren't paying much attention.

Mr.Milky
11th Jun 2012, 12:45
For you. Important for you. Realistic for you.

The Witcher game ain't nowhere "dark" when Geralt goes around and sleeps with prostitutes. Please, don't try to imply to me "If" i took it seriously or not. It's not my fault that the games didn't achieve that level of seriousness and reality for me.
The setting alone doesn't make it "dark", only makes it to be realistically violent.
The books were far superior, however even as a book LoK would still kick Rivia's ass :cool:

Anyway, the topic is about Witcher game. Not a book.

The_Hylden
11th Jun 2012, 17:26
I think you're obsessing a little much over the prostitute thing. First, while you dismissed this fact as only part of what makes this less than worthwhile, you have choice in the game. You can make Geralt as selfish and promiscuous as you wish, or you can choose to have him remain faithful to Trish and more noble in his intent toward others. While I personally do not find the opening with him and Tirsh waking naked in bed necessary, that goes toward his character, who doesn't hold the same values of modesty that regular humans do in their societies. Beyond that point, however, it's up to the player. I don't have any wish to have Geralt sleeping with everything that walks, or crawls, so I choose not to have him partake in brothels, other than to question the people within he needs to to get information from. There are a ton of brothels in Nosgoth, as well. Kain simply was interested in feeding, rather than sexual encounters.

The game and this fantasy series for Witcher is dark, make no mistake. There are reasons why the middle ages are deemed The Dark Ages, and it wasn't because they were dealing with millennia-spanning time and destiny dilemmas, or paradoxical themes :p It's due to the violence, the squalor, the plagues, the lack of liberty and value of life, and the amoral tyrannies and monarchies that these people lived under. It lasted until the age of enlightenment, when these notions of life being sacred and liberty started to appear. And there have been dark themes still beyond that. In today, over various parts of the globe, there are places where an amazing lack of value of life still exists. Anyway, when you're presenting a game, or book, showcasing a fantasy world that exudes the same level of corruption, oppression, and themes of ruling classes subjugating the will and very lives of the people, and you show the violence and gore, the squalor, realistically, then that's going to be labeled dark and rightfully so.

No, the game's story isn't trying to be anywhere near as refined in language as LoK, or in complexity. You're confusing these with all aspects of ability to compare these two entities, however.

Mr.Milky
11th Jun 2012, 18:04
Or, from another standpoint, you're a bit keen on the Witcher game and you enjoyed it making you slightly subjective on the matter.

Dark ages were not portrayed in the Witcher series. Only part was referring to the attitude of the people alone.

Truth is that wRPG such as the Witcher does leave options to do. Same like LoK you do have options to suck blood from people or not, however those things are in the game effectively making it one of the major aspects of the game. Even so, many animations were held during the 2nd part of the game series.

Your view of dark ages are somewhat lacking conceptual roots of the term, I must notice. Dark ages were called that way because of the lack of education system (for that time period). Lack of intelligence rather than tortures, monarchies etc. "Dark ages" is just a term to reffer to the closure between the nations, little or no prosper at all and same goes for the merchants.
The Witcher's based not upon the Dark ages but, in fact, middle ages. That's highly noticeable because of the armor concept, halberds, and longbows. Also, alchemy. However it's still a fantasy setting that's given the "M" rating because of the nudity, slight gore and foul language/alcohol. It's not mature because of it's "darkish" setting or atmosphere but because of the above mentioned factors. A person don't need to read the books nor to know the Rivia lore in order to play/beat the game and enjoy it because of the many factors that go throughout (mini games). It's really a game that's for personal preferences and just because you "don't have to" that doesn't mean that the factor is non-existent.
If Kain had the ability to sleep with women in the games, things would be comparable and different, however game mechanics offer nothing of that and the best possible sexuality part of the LoK series remains under the term "Umah" with big frontal capacities. :D

Now, I agree that the Witcher games are Dark, however not as dark as LoK. Factors such as blood, the maturity of NPCs/protagonists and religious/philosophic concept/agony/pain/hatred - - - you can really feel those aspects of the LoK series whilst you play the Witcher because of the popularity and you can't really personalize yourself with the character who has amnesia, as usual for many RPG settings. Always the amnesia. So cliche!

So, from my point of view, the Witcher series are dark...for teenagers.

The_Hylden
11th Jun 2012, 21:46
Or, from another standpoint, you're a bit keen on the Witcher game and you enjoyed it making you slightly subjective on the matter.

Dark ages were not portrayed in the Witcher series. Only part was referring to the attitude of the people alone.

It's a fantasy game, but the setting is using a medieval time period feel, which The Dark Ages coincide with... Nosgoth is also depicted in a similar time frame, at least in BO1, SR2, and Defiance. I like The Witcher 2, however, it's not one of my favorite games. It's not that I was so keen on it to bring it up here. I would hold that other games, like Castlevania (even though those are more like the Japanese' view of the middle ages) have visual and other elements that are comparable, especially the latest console one as was mentioned here; The Fable series is another that can be compared to Nosgoth's setting and mechanics. Even Ocarina of Time, or Twilight Princess, has elements that are comparable, and setting ans atmosphere are one of them. Most are far lighter in their presentations, certainly.

I can detach myself from the story and from my love of Kain for a moment to realize that the game has other similar elements to various other sword and sorcery fantasy games. I don't have to have a certain bond to see this, as I've not even played the Castlevania game in question. I also hated Lament of Innocence, for example.


Your view of dark ages are somewhat lacking conceptual roots of the term, I must notice. Dark ages were called that way because of the lack of education system (for that time period). Lack of intelligence rather than tortures, monarchies etc. "Dark ages" is just a term to reffer to the closure between the nations, little or no prosper at all and same goes for the merchants.

My statement on the people living in squalor, without regard for human life the way society would later, under more of an oppressed, amoral tyranny, is in direct regard to their lack of knowledge to realize any of this. It is regarded to have happened from the fall of the Roman Empire and the loss of all that knowledge, yes. I mentioned it ended with the Age of Enlightenment, where people became educated again, culminating in the Renascence period. It would still take hundreds of years for society to gain its regard for freedom and for life, which is still a struggle to achieve for a lot of the globe.


The Witcher's based not upon the Dark ages but, in fact, middle ages.

One and the same. When do you think the Dark Ages occurred?


That's highly noticeable because of the armor concept, halberds, and longbows. Also, alchemy. However it's still a fantasy setting that's given the "M" rating because of the nudity, slight gore and foul language/alcohol. It's not mature because of it's "darkish" setting or atmosphere but because of the above mentioned factors.

Slight gore? Heads and limbs are chopped off, people are impaled, burned, ripped to pieces (the blood being far more realistic than what was achievable in the LoK games, which is what I noted already)... And LoK is given its M rating for its blood and gore, period. Not because of its setting and atmosphere, "darkish," or otherwise...


A person don't need to read the books nor to know the Rivia lore in order to play/beat the game and enjoy it because of the many factors that go throughout (mini games). It's really a game that's for personal preferences and just because you "don't have to" that doesn't mean that the factor is non-existent.

And a person doesn't have to read any of the lore in Nosgoth, or study the forums, interviews, prima guides, or to even collect the tombs in Defiance, or complete getting all of the glyphs in Soul Reaver (and certainly not all of the secrets in Blood Omen 1...), to enjoy any of those games. I don't see what point this is all making...



If Kain had the ability to sleep with women in the games, things would be comparable and different, however game mechanics offer nothing of that and the best possible sexuality part of the LoK series remains under the term "Umah" with big frontal capacities. :D

I don't understand why it matters that Kain can, or can't, sleep with women in the overall context of if certain aspects of the graphics, setting, and other mechanics of another game series are comparable, or not. No, I don't want Kain sleeping with women. I see that point as completely irrelevant here and only brought up as one of the reasons you disavow talking of the Witcher series in the same breath as LoK...


Now, I agree that the Witcher games are Dark, however not as dark as LoK. Factors such as blood, the maturity of NPCs/protagonists and religious/philosophic concept/agony/pain/hatred - - - you can really feel those aspects of the LoK series whilst you play the Witcher because of the popularity and you can't really personalize yourself with the character who has amnesia, as usual for many RPG settings. Always the amnesia. So cliche!

I played The Witcher not because of its popularity (in fact, contrary to this, I don't believe it's as popular as you think it is -- it sold about as well as some of the LoK games)... There is a lot going on with the factions, who's pulling at who in the story, its lore, its NPC's struggles, and because you can't "feel" that, doesn't mean it all isn't there, or doesn't exist. It wasn't just a game tossed out there with no thought to the story, the actors, plot, and you just play as a walking avatar on two legs grunting all the day... It has a more straightforward plot, of course. However, within there are consequential and lasting arcs you can definitely make. Also, Geralt's amnesia is only partial, and came about from the end of the first game, where he had no such debility. I never played the first game, but it's stated in the second what happened, and you can read up on it online easily. At the end of the first game, he is mortally wounded in the final battle, and is only saved by a mysterious sorceress. He awakens with certain parts still intact of his memory, but of the battle and the reasons for his almost demise, he's uncertain. I can call that not a cliche, given there's a whole other first game where this doesn't happen.

Oh, and Kain suffered the same in BO2. And it was cliche there much more so than here.


So, from my point of view, the Witcher series are dark...for teenagers.

If I had a teenager, I wouldn't let them anywhere near these game.

Mr.Milky
13th Jun 2012, 22:03
It's a fantasy game, but the setting is using a medieval time period feel, which The Dark Ages coincide with...

You're mixing the chronological period of early, middle and high middle ages with the idealization of "dark ages" which were taken differently from different standpoints of view.


Nosgoth is also depicted in a similar time frame, at least in BO1, SR2, and Defiance. I like The Witcher 2, however, it's not one of my favorite games. It's not that I was so keen on it to bring it up here. I would hold that other games, like Castlevania (even though those are more like the Japanese' view of the middle ages) have visual and other elements that are comparable, especially the latest console one as was mentioned here; The Fable series is another that can be compared to Nosgoth's setting and mechanics. Even Ocarina of Time, or Twilight Princess, has elements that are comparable, and setting ans atmosphere are one of them. Most are far lighter in their presentations, certainly.

Yeah, and both Raziel and Super Mario can jump so they must have similar concept. This isn't about that, anyway. There're a ton of much younger games than LoZ. Quite frankly I can't even imagine how can you compare a cartoonish Fable action RPG with action/adventure other than in regards to the battle mechanics that's pretty much the same for nearly all action RPG/Adventure games. That mechanic is what makes them a certain genre. I understand your point and point taken, however I still disagree because I see other factors which are more concise and they do differ from the comparison. Mainly because of the story/atmosphere and anti-hero aspect.


I can detach myself from the story and from my love of Kain for a moment to realize that the game has other similar elements to various other sword and sorcery fantasy games. I don't have to have a certain bond to see this, as I've not even played the Castlevania game in question.

Regardless, there're good and bad Sword/Sorcery games, as well as things which are a modern AAA games that will ruin the image of older classics.


My statement on the people living in squalor, without regard for human life the way society would later, under more of an oppressed, amoral tyranny, is in direct regard to their lack of knowledge to realize any of this. It is regarded to have happened from the fall of the Roman Empire and the loss of all that knowledge, yes. I mentioned it ended with the Age of Enlightenment, where people became educated again, culminating in the Renascence period. It would still take hundreds of years for society to gain its regard for freedom and for life, which is still a struggle to achieve for a lot of the globe.

Dark Ages doesn't describe the tyranny, violence and similar. Only lack of educational purposes. You have much better tyranny, violence and the rest that you described in ancient Egypt. Thanks to the mainstream influence of the 19th century novels, people think of everything medieval as "dark ages". Pretty much the same like "Gothic". People believe that Gothic is connected to the pain, black and similar, while the truth is - it's describing something light. Very light. Again, the influence of the 18th and 19th century novelists who were writing about castles with ghosts, forgotten loves and similar. :lol:



One and the same.

No! :D


When do you think the Dark Ages occurred?

Just because they're describing many different periods in the early and middle medieval history that doesn't make them "dark", that makes them medieval. Dark Ages were responsible for the lack of information and the only education was held at monasteries/churches.



Slight gore? Heads and limbs are chopped off, people are impaled, burned, ripped to pieces (the blood being far more realistic than what was achievable in the LoK games, which is what I noted already)... And LoK is given its M rating for its blood and gore, period. Not because of its setting and atmosphere, "darkish," or otherwise...

Yeah, slight gore. I've seen better in MK, LoK and GoW. Anyway, LoK was meant for mature audiences NOT because of the blood and similar but because of the intellectual content. It's made in response to the adult audiences and it achieved it without any sexist content.



And a person doesn't have to read any of the lore in Nosgoth, or study the forums, interviews, prima guides, or to even collect the tombs in Defiance, or complete getting all of the glyphs in Soul Reaver (and certainly not all of the secrets in Blood Omen 1...), to enjoy any of those games. I don't see what point this is all making...

Actually, I disagree that the person doesn't have to collect all those things in the LoK franchise, however what's the purpose of collecting cards of naked women and being a part of the sexist characterization where all "dark medieval beauties" are, in fact, just like models of CKM?! :lol: C',mon, no cellulite? Broken tooth? :p


I don't understand why it matters that Kain can, or can't, sleep with women in the overall context of if certain aspects of the graphics, setting, and other mechanics of another game series are comparable, or not. No, I don't want Kain sleeping with women. I see that point as completely irrelevant here and only brought up as one of the reasons you disavow talking of the Witcher series in the same breath as LoK...

Actually, I also wouldn't like that Kain sleeps with other women and before you judge me pay heed to who wrote about Kain's exhibitionism in the first place.



I played The Witcher not because of its popularity (in fact, contrary to this, I don't believe it's as popular as you think it is -- it sold about as well as some of the LoK games)...
I like your optimism that you believe to know what I think about Witcher sale.
No, sorry, Witcher IS more popular than LoK because it's one of the modern games that widespread itself throughout entire wRPG community. It's not as popular as DA:O, but it's pretty well an AAA title.


There is a lot going on with the factions, who's pulling at who in the story, its lore, its NPC's struggles, and because you can't "feel" that, doesn't mean it all isn't there, or doesn't exist.

It's an RPG, you have to use imagination to personalize yourself into the world. It's played differently than action/adventure game. Sorry, the Witcher is just plainly dull. Not fun at all. Not entertaining at all. Not even "dark" enough. I doubt that it's anything about "my taste" because I play everything that I can get my hands onto - it's just not a fun game. Maybe because I've seen what the Poland team tried to do and the aspects which are so fascinating to some people, to me are mediocre.


It wasn't just a game tossed out there with no thought to the story, the actors, plot, and you just play as a walking avatar on two legs grunting all the day... It has a more straightforward plot, of course. However, within there are consequential and lasting arcs you can definitely make. Also, Geralt's amnesia is only partial, and came about from the end of the first game, where he had no such debility. I never played the first game, but it's stated in the second what happened, and you can read up on it online easily.
And the combat is Click. If you're an advanced player, click again.
It has less action than farmville, c'mon.


At the end of the first game, he is mortally wounded in the final battle, and is only saved by a mysterious sorceress. He awakens with certain parts still intact of his memory, but of the battle and the reasons for his almost demise, he's uncertain. I can call that not a cliche, given there's a whole other first game where this doesn't happen.

For an expert D&D /wRPG /jRPG player like me - yeah, pretty cliche.


Oh, and Kain suffered the same in BO2. And it was cliche there much more so than here.

I see a witcher fan when I see one. :rasp:



If I had a teenager, I wouldn't let them anywhere near these game.

I played BO at the age of 6. :thumb: MK even before that. Twisted Metal also somewhere in between. And add around 6k games for different platforms :D

---

Anyway, I'm still against LoK/Witcher combination in any way. I want that LoK remains unique and truthful to it's originality and not to have "figures" of inspiration. Especially not from the AAA titles.

The_Hylden
14th Jun 2012, 04:03
You're mixing the chronological period of early, middle and high middle ages with the idealization of "dark ages" which were taken differently from different standpoints of view.

No, I'm not. The Dark Ages originally were used to describe the entire Middle Ages, starting with the fall of Rome. Some modern views have relegated them to only cover the beginning early Middle Ages after the fall of Rome (or, to not even use the description at all, for various reasons) ... but regardless, they happen during the Middle Ages... I realize that there are differing periods within the Middle Ages. Most games, even LoK, use from various points in the periods to craft their fantasy setting stories.




That mechanic is what makes them a certain genre. I understand your point and point taken, however I still disagree because I see other factors which are more concise and they do differ from the comparison. Mainly because of the story/atmosphere and anti-hero aspect.

Because certain aspects of any work can be compared to another, that doesn't negate what can be obviously contrasted also between the works... We've gone over this on what is also different, completely so, story-wise, and all else, between these two series.



Dark Ages doesn't describe the tyranny, violence and similar. Only lack of educational purposes. You have much better tyranny, violence and the rest that you described in ancient Egypt. Thanks to the mainstream influence of the 19th century novels, people think of everything medieval as "dark ages". Pretty much the same like "Gothic". People believe that Gothic is connected to the pain, black and similar, while the truth is - it's describing something light. Very light. Again, the influence of the 18th and 19th century novelists who were writing about castles with ghosts, forgotten loves and similar. :lol:

My statements are clear. Lack of knowledge being passed on to the peasants is what contributed highly to the state they all were in morally, ethically, what they suffered by those rulers who had no such hinderances, with taxation and persecution. The lack of guidance, teaching, engineering, is not detached when talking about the excess in violence, death, squalor, subjugation to government rule, and all else that these people underwent. The Romans (who through their various rulers were certainly suffering their own plights, especially toward the end the more corrupt, mad, and tyrannical they became -- the more they allowed themselves to be spread thin and their populous to be overrun with the volumes they took in from their enemies, who wanted nothing but their destruction... Etc.) at least knew the basic value of proper exposing of waste and the dead. You fast forward after they fall, and all progress in running water, sewage disposal -- all of that goes out the window throughout Europe.



Just because they're describing many different periods in the early and middle medieval history that doesn't make them "dark", that makes them medieval. Dark Ages were responsible for the lack of information and the only education was held at monasteries/churches.

Depending on your point of view. Many historians and theologians still debate about what this term means, and certainly when it started to be used, it meant something far different.



Yeah, slight gore. I've seen better in MK, LoK and GoW. Anyway, LoK was meant for mature audiences NOT because of the blood and similar but because of the intellectual content. It's made in response to the adult audiences and it achieved it without any sexist content.

The ratings board does not even think about how intellectual the property is that they are rating. They rate for very distinct terms. LoK is always rated M because it has blood and gore. There is no sex, and that's all that's correct in your assessment. The gore being "better" in whatever series is your own opinion.



Actually, I disagree that the person doesn't have to collect all those things in the LoK franchise, however what's the purpose of collecting cards of naked women and being a part of the sexist characterization where all "dark medieval beauties" are, in fact, just like models of CKM?! :lol: C',mon, no cellulite? Broken tooth? :p

I've never seen, nor collected any of these cards you and Paradoks are speaking of, so I could care less about them. The obviously aren't a necessity of any sort for the game.



No, sorry, Witcher IS more popular than LoK because it's one of the modern games that widespread itself throughout entire wRPG community. It's not as popular as DA:O, but it's pretty well an AAA title.

Sales are what determine popularity. LoK has a widespread cult following within the action/adventure genre. That doesn't mean that it's risen to the point of an Uncharted. The Witcher series hasn't risen anywhere near a Mass Effect, or certainly Skyrim, either. Their combined sales, worldwide, for both the PC and year later 360 release of Witcher 2 was only 1 1/2 million units sold. That's less than Soul Reaver, the sequel to its respective series, sold, and only half a million better than Defiance sold. When you're talking about "AAA" titles that you keep mentioning that sell 4-5 million units, that's quite telling. The developer will have to fight to keep the same level of sales to continue making such games. I will also note, that it took a lot more time and money to create Witcher 2 than it took either SR1, or Defiance, to be made, so that's another factor.

Again, you give this series too much credit.



It's an RPG, you have to use imagination to personalize yourself into the world. It's played differently than action/adventure game.

Except that, like Mass Effect, they fully fleshed out modeling the main character and gave him a unique voice actor that shows off the characters' personality. He has a full history from the first game and the books that he's drawing from, which is not up to you to decide what is. It's like Kain's past in BO1 that he must rediscover. You see and hear Geralt's way of dealing things. Some of this you can control. A large portion of it, however, is inherent within the character already.


Sorry, the Witcher is just plainly dull. Not fun at all. Not entertaining at all. Not even "dark" enough. I doubt that it's anything about "my taste" because I play everything that I can get my hands onto - it's just not a fun game. Maybe because I've seen what the Poland team tried to do and the aspects which are so fascinating to some people, to me are mediocre.

That's totally fine. This thread was never meant to discuss whether anyone liked this game, or not. It simply was to discuss people agreed if it had anything to offer similar to BO1 ("the BO1 of its time...?" paraphrasing from Linykrato). We've gone into other aspects since then, but that's the core.



And the combat is Click. If you're an advanced player, click again.
It has less action than farmville, c'mon.

And here, like the aspect about the amnesia, you're showing me that you could not have played much, if at all, of this game. The game added, 4-5 months after it came out on PC, an easy difficulty level, where you can basically do nothing but click and slash your way through most of the game. At first, those who bought the game complained way back when that the timing was off on the controls and it made an already very difficult combat system almost impossible at times. That was noted and fixed with a patch. The combat was still brutal, so CD Projekt RED decided to offer for those who wanted to experience the story only an easy difficulty level, which let you just hack away at most anyone early on through their blocks and before the enemy could harm you. Later on, it would still be harder to just breeze through without dying some. I know, because I used it a bit, usually to pass things like the fight with Letho in the Fountain. Man, that's a crazy fight on normal and I don't have the same want and patience I did in my younger days to add such a level of stress to my gaming. God of War 2 was the last time I beat my head against the wall through a really difficult game setting. So, anyway, I know from experience that you're not telling anything near the truth here, Milky.

However, you try, just try, to play the game on normal even and do nothing but click once, or twice, to attack everything, and you'll be dead within the first few minutes ... over and over, and over again.


Let's run down a little bit of reality here...

The controls are left mouse click to attack normal, hold longer before releasing to heavy attack... Just like SR1 and 2 have light and heavy attacks (assigned to different buttons, not length of time pressed for one), or even BO1 with its click, click, click, or click, click, click, click to up its attack levels :p (click, click with the mace!). Enemies in W2, however, will block most of your attacks if you simply do the same thing over and over again, and will time it to hit you in mid swing. So, yeah, that's not going to work...

Oh, but you also have block ... just like SR1, 2, and BO2. And, you have dodge ... also like SR1, 2, and BO2. If an enemy gets in too close, you can try and grapple and throw them back that they can also counter (and it works best when they've been hit by a disorienting spell)… gee, also like SR1, 2, and BO2. You have magic that you fire off with the right mouse button, I believe (all are changeable on PC, though), which consists of things like fire, bind/slow time thing, shield ... lots of spells similar to things seen in BO1, and you also have spells with the Glyphs in SR1, or you have the TK blast in SR1 and Defiance (removed from being used in combat in SR2 and BO2 unfortunately, and is fun only to use from afar to annoy enemies; otherwise, it's for puzzles only).

Given the different enemies and what they can be hit by if you have such and such sword and armor upgrades, etc., you also have that to manage, plus ... you need to meditate to add ointments, stones, and power gems to your weapons and armor, take/create potions, upgrade the right path for your powers and abilities, or you aren't going ANYWHERE in combat.


If you're trying to tell me that the combat of the LoK games is anywhere near that complex, and if you're still sticking to the "click, click" function only of the combat and how it's so easy in Witcher 2, then I know for a fact that you have not played this game. Or ... you played it only on the added easy mode only, in order to race through the game.


For an expert D&D /wRPG /jRPG player like me - yeah, pretty cliche.

The cliche would be if you have an unnamed avatar (that you name), who awakens in a prison/about to be executed, with no memory of who, or what he was before this point. He breaks out, then forges his own story -- your own story. This is basically every Morrowind game made…

However, that's not what we have here. Geralt knows who and what he is. He just doesn't know certain things. He awakens in the prison, but has absolute knowledge of what's going on and why, and you play through what led to him being in that prison. They basically turned the cliche on its ear. A cliche is only going to remain so, if you do not ever evolve it. They gave him a personality, gave him a past, and again there is a whole first game where he has no problem with his memory you can play through. Was there a cliche in Witcher 1?


I see a witcher fan when I see one. :rasp:

And I see someone here who does not like to even hear an alternate point of view half of the time, and who mixes their love of something with an inability to think beyond that love when discussing it.


Anyway, I'm still against LoK/Witcher combination in any way. I want that LoK remains unique and truthful to it's originality and not to have "figures" of inspiration. Especially not from the AAA titles.

All of that will happen if whomever continues it does so in a manner that preserves the story, its history, its rules, and who pick setting and gameplay elements that fit the history and the story that they are trying to tell, while making it all an amazing game. BO1 did not shy away from incorporating elements already in place, neither did any game that came afterward. It's the visionary core that determines whether something will be used for good, or bad (kind of like any technology, and power, in our real world :p).

Paradoks
14th Jun 2012, 18:42
I think that swearing and nudity is the exact same thing that gore was for Blood Omen. In case it's not clear - here is the relevant quote from Denis Dyack:

When we create stories we try to model some classical models that were laid out by Shakespeare. You see, when he wrote a play he targeted his story at several levels. For the drunken commoners in the front rows he would insert dirty jokes to keep them entertained but for the aristocracy in the balconies he would write very cerebral metaphors. For Silicon Knights the gore is our dirty jokes, but for those who want more there is a real story behind Kain. A story that you can sink you teeth into and one that you can learn something from. We tried to address morals, evil and good, propaganda and fate in ways that have never been explored in a computer game before.

So while I personally find these elements completely unnecessary or just plain stupid at times, they don't stop me from enjoying the game. Once you look past them you will find a complex story with themes like racism, class inequality and political manipulation. For the record - I had no problem completing the Witcher in celibacy mode :p.



And LoK is given its M rating for its blood and gore, period. Not because of its setting and atmosphere, "darkish," or otherwise...

Indeed. The mature rating has in fact very little to do with actual maturity the product being rated. For example Darkseed has apparently USK rating 6+.



Sorry, the Witcher is just plainly dull. Not fun at all. Not entertaining at all. Not even "dark" enough. I doubt that it's anything about "my taste" because I play everything that I can get my hands onto - it's just not a fun game.

Since I (and many others) really enjoyed the game, I would say that it is "your taste". The games are definetly not for everyone though.



Oh, but you also have block ... just like SR1, 2, and BO2.

Just one detail. SR1 didn't have block ;).


They gave him a personality, gave him a past, and again there is a whole first game where he has no problem with his memory you can play through. Was there a cliche in Witcher 1?

Since you haven't played the Witcher 1 - a small clarification here. Geralt does have amnesia in W1 ("I remember nothing"). To be honest - that was the only sensible solution when introducing a character that has several hundred pages of back-story to the audience which mostly never heard of him. I still think it would be better to have a different character than Geralt (and that was the original concept by the way), but in this case the overused amnesia trick actually served a purpose.

Mr.Milky
15th Jun 2012, 04:46
No, I'm not. The Dark Ages originally were used to describe the entire Middle Ages, starting with the fall of Rome. Some modern views have relegated them to only cover the beginning early Middle Ages after the fall of Rome (or, to not even use the description at all, for various reasons) ... but regardless, they happen during the Middle Ages... I realize that there are differing periods within the Middle Ages. Most games, even LoK, use from various points in the periods to craft their fantasy setting stories.
Again, no. There's no "orginally used". It's an idealization to portray, not a tool to be "used for". Dark Ages became the synonim for terrible things because of the novels of 19th century, like I stated. Actually, I have a whole lot of books regarding especially medieval Europe due to a fact that both me and my sis are history freaks. So, I'm pretty sure that I know what Dark Ages are much better than Wikipedia and prowesternized novels. :rolleyes:


Because certain aspects of any work can be compared to another, that doesn't negate what can be obviously contrasted also between the works... We've gone over this on what is also different, completely so, story-wise, and all else, between these two series.

There're other games with more similarities than couple of the most popular AAA games of modern times. Otherwise, why do you think that people are opening polls regarding the (mediocrite) TES:Skyrim, AC and Witcher?! Why not some older and less popular games?! I don't see any comparation with the kings of the genre, the Japanese developers...



My statements are clear. Lack of knowledge being passed on to the peasants is what contributed highly to the state they all were in morally, ethically, what they suffered by those rulers who had no such hinderances, with taxation and persecution. The lack of guidance, teaching, engineering, is not detached when talking about the excess in violence, death, squalor, subjugation to government rule, and all else that these people underwent.

People are violent with or without the education. However with the higher level of technology, education etc they just develop better killing machines. So, no, again, that's not what essentially Dark Ages are. And this is the main reason why you'll never find a concise declaration on english sites regarding the Dark Ages. I wish I could give you a book or two regarding the matter.


The Romans (who through their various rulers were certainly suffering their own plights, especially toward the end the more corrupt, mad, and tyrannical they became -- the more they allowed themselves to be spread thin and their populous to be overrun with the volumes they took in from their enemies, who wanted nothing but their destruction... Etc.) at least knew the basic value of proper exposing of waste and the dead. You fast forward after they fall, and all progress in running water, sewage disposal -- all of that goes out the window throughout Europe.
not all Romans were the original Romans, but entire populace was "roman" pretty much same like the U.S. - people are referred to as "americans" even while there're people of Asian, African etc origins. Talking about Roman Empire so superficially really itches me because it's one of my favorite periods in History. Make no mistake, I'm not judging you, I just don't believe that you're well competent to talk about the matter as much as you're competent to talk about the Witcher. So, let's stick with the Witcher and let's forget the "dark Ages" thing. Much better for constructive discussion. ;)



Depending on your point of view. Many historians and theologians still debate about what this term means, and certainly when it started to be used, it meant something far different.

People will always debate, but evidences on scrolls and in the books are good for me. What someone with their own interpretation and agenda believe it's none of my concern. Like I wrote, people believe that Gothic means dark, that metalheads are satanists and that religion sucks, while the truth is that it's a perfect example of the ignorance at work.


The ratings board does not even think about how intellectual the property is that they are rating. They rate for very distinct terms. LoK is always rated M because it has blood and gore. There is no sex, and that's all that's correct in your assessment. The gore being "better" in whatever series is your own opinion.

That doesn't change the fact that there was a clear intention to make the game for mature audiences. Back in the days of BO there were so few really mature and dark games, specifically as dark to actually let oyu play the "anti-hero" of humanity, taken from that point of the gaming era. Besides, like I said earlier on, the series use a lot of eloquent speach and are quite fond on both psychological, phylosofical and metaphorical/poetic concept so it's clealy not meant for kids.
I've yet to see a modern game developed so good when it comes to the point of it being the state of art. And that's why I call LoK series a masterpiece. A perfect combination of inovation, story, music and overall execution with above impressive plotwork. And where's all of that in modern gaming? Where're games for mature people who crave for intelectual chalenge? Am I to be satisfied with blood sprays and a couple of CKM girls who live in the forest and speak like they graduated at MiT?! No, thank you. I don't want to be treated like a kid by the companies who believe what's good for me, as a player. Gaming goes in circles, I didn't see a Good LAN Co-Op PC game IN AGES, unless it's a silly FPS or something that dwells upon Diablo clone.

So when I say that LoK is Mature, it's not "mature like" the rest of modern games, it's mature because it tingles the intelligence of people. It makes them to wonder and to come to realizations. HEck, I'd even say that Kingdom Heart's is one of the most mature games in the recent history of video gaming. Not because it's meant for adult audiences but because not everyone can understand it. People who crave for adult games will get foul language, naked ladies and some "masculinity", often the portray of "harsh asphalt" where everyone's a badass. Being mature has nothing to do with being a "better emotionless bastard". And this is one of the reasons why the Witcher will never appear as a quality character in my eyes. Neither will Kratos.



I've never seen, nor collected any of these cards you and Paradoks are speaking of, so I could care less about them. The obviously aren't a necessity of any sort for the game.

Than you've issed the only fun part of the game which is - "how much of a sexist are you". It's not about HOW you play the game, individually, it's about WTF momnts in it. They're a disgrace to the books and they're the main reason of why I'm against comparations in the first place. Factors like that are given to APPEAR good and popular and to attract many teenagers who'll be like "Oh, you know what can you do in Witcher? You can sleep with women"
And the other kid is like "Haha, and my parents think that I don't watch porn".
It's just sexist. And you guys call that a "mature" game? A dream of every puberty kid? C'mon... :scratch:


Sales are what determine popularity.

You can't compare a game by sales. There's a factor of "internet" that got widespread over the last decade. There's also a factor of Who are the "gamers". And there's also a factor of "piracy" that many people use freely nowadays.
And if we go by THAT logic, it appears that Windows uilt-in games are the most popular nowadays. :lol:


Again, you give this series too much credit.

You're denying the popularity of the Witcher series. Game alone made the Poland team popular beyond belief. In fact the copy of the Witcher was delivered to Obama. I rest my case.


Except that, like Mass Effect, they fully fleshed out modeling the main character and gave him a unique voice actor that shows off the characters' personality. He has a full history from the first game and the books that he's drawing from, which is not up to you to decide what is. It's like Kain's past in BO1 that he must rediscover. You see and hear Geralt's way of dealing things. Some of this you can control. A large portion of it, however, is inherent within the character already.

ME isn't quite the "RPG" in full regards to it. It does posess RPG elements.
Anyway that doesn't change the fact that you do have the liberty in the games to go towards one OF endings instead of just one. It does give a fake image of "having more freedom" and many people fall for that thus completely overseeing the flaws of the actual game. One of the only true wRPG is Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura.
jRPG dwell upon tRPG/sRPG and aRPG. Recently even the visual novels have the RPG elements in them. One of the best examples of a perfect combination is game called Persona 4.



That's totally fine. This thread was never meant to discuss whether anyone liked this game, or not. It simply was to discuss people agreed if it had anything to offer similar to BO1 ("the BO1 of its time...?" paraphrasing from Linykrato). We've gone into other aspects since then, but that's the core.

Well, OFC it has similarities. That was out of the question for me. But look at the first question and realize my anger! Than I get "Witcher more mature" and I have to interfere. Than I get Dark Ages. Aw, man. Too much ways around. but at least we like to chit-chat like this... :D



And here, like the aspect about the amnesia, you're showing me that you could not have played much, if at all, of this game. The game added, 4-5 months after it came out on PC, an easy difficulty level, where you can basically do nothing but click and slash your way through most of the game. At first, those who bought the game complained way back when that the timing was off on the controls and it made an already very difficult combat system almost impossible at times.

For Keyboard and mouse users. :lol:


That was noted and fixed with a patch.

Free patch, after so many years CD project did it rigth. :D


The combat was still brutal, so CD Projekt RED decided to offer for those who wanted to experience the story only an easy difficulty level, which let you just hack away at most anyone early on through their blocks and before the enemy could harm you.

For many who complained this was the first ACTION RPG game...in their life... and many played it because of the popularity, same like Skyrim. In fact this is what intrigues me the most - don't you notice how the person who started the topic actually "didn't play the Witcher"?! Do you see how popular it actually is?! :rolleyes: Don't go blind eye on that little fact, there. :whistle:
Anyway, the Witcher was quite easy for me. First part was tricky because of the battle controlls, but nothing that beats the hardness of DarkSouls/DemonsSouls.


Later on, it would still be harder to just breeze through without dying some. I know, because I used it a bit, usually to pass things like the fight with Letho in the Fountain. Man, that's a crazy fight on normal and I don't have the same want and patience I did in my younger days to add such a level of stress to my gaming. God of War 2 was the last time I beat my head against the wall through a really difficult game setting. So, anyway, I know from experience that you're not telling anything near the truth here, Milky.

Are you serious? In Witcher all you have to do is barrelroll around the walls, throw anything at him and utterly defeat him. Took me less than 10 minutes on Letho! Didn't even use the sword. Just played the ballerina... :lol:
As for GoW, there's nothing "impossible" there, all that you have to do is learn the concept of how the enemies/boss act/react. Anyway, GoW was one of the easiest H&S games that's I've played, but it was a bloddy experience. Also, a complete insult for a history enthusiast but also I realized the concept at the 3rd part. I even beat it on PSP. I'm just someone who doesn't prefer "easy" setting in games. Sure, I die couple of times in games, but that just gives me an experience for later on. So, because we have different experiences regarding the games/perspective regarding the Gore that makes me a subject of question? :D Hahaha, okay.


However, you try, just try, to play the game on normal even and do nothing but click once, or twice, to attack everything, and you'll be dead within the first few minutes ... over and over, and over again.

That's the problem with the mechanics of the figth. :) Someone even migth convinve you that it's how it was supossed to be, but truth is that they tried their "own thing" and even apologized for the lousy combat system...twice. They compensated with 90 % animations in the 2nd part. :lol:


Let's run down a little bit of reality here...

The controls are left mouse click to attack normal, hold longer before releasing to heavy attack... Just like SR1 and 2 have light and heavy attacks (assigned to different buttons, not length of time pressed for one), or even BO1 with its click, click, click, or click, click, click, click to up its attack levels :p (click, click with the mace!). Enemies in W2, however, will block most of your attacks if you simply do the same thing over and over again, and will time it to hit you in mid swing. So, yeah, that's not going to work...

Okay, here's a video for you.
<<Mod Edit: videos removed for language>>


Oh, but you also have block ... just like SR1, 2, and BO2. And, you have dodge ... also like SR1, 2, and BO2. If an enemy gets in too close, you can try and grapple and throw them back that they can also counter (and it works best when they've been hit by a disorienting spell)… gee, also like SR1, 2, and BO2.

And than people say how LoK didn't influence games :D



If you're trying to tell me that the combat of the LoK games is anywhere near that complex, and if you're still sticking to the "click, click" function only of the combat and how it's so easy in Witcher 2, then I know for a fact that you have not played this game.

You know, COMBAT isn't a combat if I'm not using my sword in it, but I'm playing the barrelroll all the time so that I don't get killed in it. So, please, don't insult the combat of the LoK series by alluding how the Witcher have much better combat system that the developers had to improve in the 2nd game and even than they didn't work it out properly and they said "sorry" :D because of that. So, no. The variety of the combat system means nothing if it's not aplicable first hand and you have to prepare effortly before each encounter in the Witcher. You hide behind planks and walls and A.I mysteriously ignores you like you're behind lava wall.


The cliche would be if you have an unnamed avatar (that you name), who awakens in a prison/about to be executed, with no memory of who, or what he was before this point. He breaks out, then forges his own story -- your own story. This is basically every Morrowind game made…

Not talking about the story, talking about the concept. Yeah, there's cliche in the TES series as well. Always the prisoner. However HE doesn't have the amnesia. Kain does, Geralt does. There's the apparent reason for medieval fantasy. Gaming characters with amnesia :D


However, that's not what we have here. Geralt knows who and what he is. He just doesn't know certain things. He awakens in the prison, but has absolute knowledge of what's going on and why, and you play through what led to him being in that prison. They basically turned the cliche on its ear. A cliche is only going to remain so, if you do not ever evolve it. They gave him a personality, gave him a past, and again there is a whole first game where he has no problem with his memory you can play through. Was there a cliche in Witcher 1?

You had me untill "gave him personality". Than I ventured into the oblivion of wtf.


And I see someone here who does not like to even hear an alternate point of view half of the time, and who mixes their love of something with an inability to think beyond that love when discussing it.

Ironically, you described yourself whenever I wrote anything regarding the LoK series. :lol: however, I also view "love" diferently than you but this has nothing to do with my love towards LoK or my inability to comprehend or reason other things. You just insulted me on several aspects, probably unintentionally, but still...


All of that will happen if whomever continues it does so in a manner that preserves the story, its history, its rules, and who pick setting and gameplay elements that fit the history and the story that they are trying to tell, while making it all an amazing game. BO1 did not shy away from incorporating elements already in place, neither did any game that came afterward. It's the visionary core that determines whether something will be used for good, or bad (kind of like any technology, and power, in our real world :p).

I prefer that BO remains truthful to the concept of being a mature game for it's adult content regarding the inteligence/novel factor rather than being mature for the medieval silicon valley and playing the ballerina with the humans/demons while sleeping with half of the prostitutes just to be called "mature". And, who else cares about whether there's blood in the game or not?! My whole generation was raised on bloddy games and I define blood as something for kids to get pumped upon to.