Not enough, not even remotely enough games let us do that
Blasphemy Bobo as he was called the blessed Nameless One.The pony tail guy? He was awesome until they cut it off in Gothic III.
Not enough, not even remotely enough games let us do that
These days I hate being stuck in someone's role. Most of these "someones" are so mediocre, cliched and mind-numbingly boring. I'd rather create my own character and imagine a personality than cringe at another lame cardboard personality the developers thought up.
.Geralt is EASILY the best developed protagonist I've seen in rpg, so no trade off is acceptable in my book…not as another wolfgrimdark lumberjacks or those androgynous boys from Jrpgs.
As for being "too much macho"
THERE
IS
NO
SUCH
THING!!!
Oooooooooooh Yeah!
Would they be able to create equally engaging characters on their own? That is the question
You can only name a few games and you consider your argument won?
Sorry but there's no way you can win it. Most games force appearance, gender, and character on you without asking. And in the majority of cases, this is just ONE SINGLE overdone type. Of course, it depends on the genres and how many games you've played, but I'm speaking overall.
;
In that case, if we wanted to make a series around another character than Geralt, I would still say Ciri would be the best choice. I read all the books and she is easily the most entertaining witcher (who never actually worked as the witcher, but that could be fixed in the games, lol). She has most interesting destiny and is at the center of things. I would even say that the game did not do her book character justice. In the game she's somewhat boring in personality and doesn't have entertaining adventures and roles.
Berengar would indeed be just another male witcher, but I suppose that in that case they wanted to move away from canon and wouldn't use Triss, Yennifer, Ciri or anyone else from the books. It sounds like they originally wanted to borrow the lore of the world and build a completely different story around it. Makes sense, once you remember that at the end of the books Geralt and Yen died and Ciri left their world forever, not caring if it perishes.
I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing that they decided to use book characters and events, rather than only lore. Would they be able to create equally engaging characters on their own? That is the question
It's exactly as you describe! It greatly annoyed me as well.
I even thought in that moment that one of their writers must have completely misunderstood what he should do and in QA nobody noted the mistake.
Geralt is EASILY the best developed protagonist I've seen in rpg, so no trade off is acceptable in my book…not as another wolfgrimdark lumberjacks or those androgynous boys from Jrpgs.
As for being "too much macho"
THERE
IS
NO
SUCH
THING!!!
Oooooooooooh Yeah!
You can only name a few games and you consider your argument won?
I disliked Geralt even back when I was reading the books. Not my type. And on top of that, in the game he's too… bland isn't the word, but it's close. Everyone else has something interesting to them, but he's just ordinary in my opinion. And listen to his voice in the game, he's like a drone that can put you to sleep, and his speeches aren't entertaining, etc. And he's often written like a moron, which is really CDPR's fault, he was not a moron in the books! But in the game… geez, I had to use headcanon to imagine his to be half-intelligent at times.
If it was someone else I'd be pissed that the character got such treatment in the game, but since I didn't particularly like him in the books, I don't really care.
Example of moronic behavior:
(SPOILERS)
So, he comes to Whoreson's hideout and sees many women murdered in ways that suggest he enjoyed it, which clearly signifies that Whoreson is a serial killer who rapes and kills for pleasure. While being quite handsome and charismatic, which is so often the case. A realistic portrait of a serial killer. I believe it was intentional that he killed only (as far as we know) prostitutes, like Jack the Ripper, it was his M.O. And so they have a chat, and in the end there's a choice to let Whoreson off the hook or kill him. However, when you choose to kill him, Geralt stupidly announces that it's for Ciri. Really, Geralt, did you lose a brain somewhere? Of course, it's for Ciri, that makes so much sense! Why else would I, as a player, choose to kill Whoreson, right? And he didn't even do anything to Ciri… Lol.
I wish Geralt just did what you wanted him to do, while staying silent.
The game's case that the devs give you choices, but they also make Geralt comment on them, and often it turns out that the devs' reasoning is off the mark. And in cases like above I don't even want to know why the devs' reasoning ignored what they showed us themselves. It makes me suspect that rather than to show us he was a sick bastard, they meant us to enjoy the sight of gratuitious rape\torture\murder?.. Or did they put it all in just for shock value and then completely ignored it in the game's narrative as insignificant, as if it never happened?
