Witcher - Geralt Almost Wasn't the Main Character
 

Geralt almost wasn't the Witcher's main protagonist, says Jakub Szamalek, senior writer for The Witcher 3. The Examiner has more.

More information.

More information.

That would have pissed everybody off. :)
And I can hardly believe that they seriously thought of Berengar as an alternative.

Hmm makes you wonder what the Witcher would of been like without Geralt? We will probably find out anyway when the next game is released in ten years from now.
Not everyone as some players already hated playing as him.

We definitely would have seen another main plot. While its actual main character isn't Geralt, but Ciri, no Witcher is as close to Ciri as Geralt. Ciri or Triss as main chars would have made a lot more sense. With Triss they would have had to change the game's title though.

I didn't mean not playing as Geralt, but playing as Berengar.
Playing as Ciri or Triss would have been great, although I would have missed Geralt.

Witcher 4: (USP) Create Your Own Character!
Hopefully.
Finally.

When the first game released, it probably would have only pissed the Polish and a few others as the rest of the world didn't know much about the books series.

Berengar would just be another male Witcher protag to everyone else.

Hitman: (USP) Create Your Own Character!
Mirror's Edge: (USP) Create Your Own Character!
Tomb Raider: (USP) Create Your Own Character!
GTA: (USP) Create Your Own Character!
Kane and Lynch: (USP) Create Your Own Character!

yep. that makes sense!

just can't stay silent :)

No, please.
EA and Bethesda already do that so a predetermined main is a nice change.

I should really should get around to playing the Witcher series of games, but the thought of playing a pre-determined character really doesn't engage me. I really disliked the Gothic/Risen games for this reason, though did managed to enjoy them in spite of the main dude acting like a sarcastic idiot for much of the time.

The pony tail guy? He was awesome until they cut it off in Gothic III. ;)

Yep, but its the 3rd part we're talking about, where the first two parts had Geralt.

Imagine ME3 without Shepard. ;)

Well, the closeness between Geralt and Ciri is debatable as far as the games are concerned. She was ignored in the first two entries (and kind of replaced by a male kid in the first Witcher), she was unknown by most before the game was launched (I remember reading a lot about a "new relevant character" being introduced to the world of the Witcher), and even in The Witcher 3 Ciri is not really Ciri, as she is suposed to be the princess of Cintra. I guess this would make her being the protagonista also kind of silly.

I'm already having nightmares from imagining ME4 without Garrus, Liara and Aria.

Wait
*goes back to read articles*
hmm. Going by the original Eurogamer.it article the Examiner is referencing, they seems to be talking about the process of adapting the novels/setting to a game format once they got the license, not Witcher 3 itself. The context, thanks to Google Translate:

Once obtained the consent of the author, we still have to think about how to use this license. First we decided not to retrace the history of books, mainly because we did not think they could do better than he had already done Sapkowski. Also gamers do not like to relive stories they already know, they want to be able to influence events. So if you started to play the history books already you would know exactly what is going to happen and what you should do next. For them it would not be a satisfying experience. One such option is to not use as protagonist Geralt. […]

We will need someone who read Italian to see if Google Translate is accurate or not though.

Come on joxer, you know very well that we are going to get Garrus's sister who is going to be exactly like him, Liara's half-sister who is going to be weird (she's "half hanar") and Aria will probably find the way to make the trip…

Sorry, but this is what I'm actually expecting to see:
http://i.imgur.com/gIONf9u.jpg

Berengar? LOL!

Ciri is the only character that would logically make any sense to replace Geralt with in W3 after the ending of W2. I'm saying Ciri, not Triss, b/c we're supposed to play as a witcher, and Triss is not.

And who's Berengar? What connection does he have to the fate of the world or the Wild Hunt? He knew Ciri, but that wouldn't be enough. He isn't in any way connected to whatever Geralt learnt in the previous games.

And aside from that, on a personal note I'm one of those who disliked playing as Geralt, but I'd dislike playing as Berengar for the same reasons: they're exagerratedly "macho men", which I find offputting in people. Now, maybe Lambert? Lambert is somewhat different, at least he has personality that goes beyond being grim macho type. He doesn't enjoy being one, that's for sure, and hates being a witcher. That is an interesting premise for a protagonist.

What does it say about me if I think that all these games would benefit from Create Your Own Character? ;)

(Except Kane and Lynch, never played it or seen the gameplay, so can't comment.)

Let's face it, these games are quite shallow in terms of characters, it's not like they're masterpieces of great writing (yes, even and especially GTA). Doing away with forced protagonists would make at least me personally enjoy them a lot more.

Thank god for Saint's Row games and their character creation. I enjoyed them a lot more than GTA. And the protagonist didn't even exactly lose personality. It's still not great writing, but it's above average in the genre, I never felt like he or she is a blank state.

Lots of other games that let you do that, no need for another.

I sure wish one of if not the best series Ultima you could have made your own character. BLAH BLAH BLAH…

Oh, that explains a lot. Now it sounds sensible, rather than like an April Fool's joke! :)

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. :) Although I always felt that the ending was somewhat open, Ciri did care before, she even agreed to work with the Lodge of Sorceresses at the end of the last book for that purpose, so her decision to leave was most likely emotionally dictated by grief over death of two most meaningful people, and in a month or so she'd come around and come back.

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 ;)

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.

Blasphemy Bobo as he was called the blessed Nameless One.

Well until he became the new King of Myrtana.

Really not enough?

Lets take some of the most talked about games here.

Skyrim make your own character.

D:OS make your own character.

POE make you own character.

I am guessing in Fallout games you make your own character.

TW play a made character.

Edited notes.

If you think Geralt was really that boring of a character I take you don't read much and I don't just mean you, everyone that hated him as a character.

My preference is to create my own character as it absorbs me more, but I've nothing against playing as a set character if its done well. And TW series of games absolutely absorbed me fully with Geralt and his story.

Be interesting to see where they go from here, but if CDPR keep putting the effort and care into their games which they have been doing it'll be quality regardless.

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

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PrlSz-Xxo50/hqdefault.jpg

THING!!!

Oooooooooooh Yeah!

.

Open world games that the TW3 tried to follow are really boring at best for the most part story wise. TW3 gave us a story and let us wonder around. Sure it wasn't Skyrimish with a crappy main story but great for wondering around.

So you have to ask yourself what is important to you in a RPG.

I want a story
I want loot
I want to explore
I want to make my own character
I want
I want

That is the thing to me I don't want, not greedy like that. If the story is good and I get to have fun I am happy.

I like RPGS that are like a good book or movie, I don't have facebook ETC and feel that I am so important that if I don't make my own character the game isn't as good.

The funny thing is your character is boring to everyone else but you!!!!!!!!!


"Avatar know that ……"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfqOZlNxbfI

I'm also leaning more to predetermined protagonists recently…five years ago: different story. But with today's voice acting, animations improvements and generally higher quality of writing, "create your own character" can't compete when it comes to characterization and you sometimes end up maxing Paragon/Renegade points or fishing for traits like in PoE or DOS.
And the difference between character you create through game play and the one that follows main story narrative, can be pretty damn jarring. RDR and Mass Effect are good examples.
There is a very good video from Extra Credits, one of better youtubers out there, that touches on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6PUReOuHVw

I think Geralt is a great character. He's sort of an amalgamation of the best elements taken from protagonists seen in early Sword and Sorcery pulp fiction, while at the same time providing a unique twist with the Witcher mutations and abilities.

As for the machismo that someone mentioned, I didn't even think Geralt was a particularly macho character. It's not like he's your stereotypical warrior archetype, going around pounding his chest and looking for fights (not against humans anyway). He's actually portrayed as being a thoughtful and introspective man, albeit a deadly one as well.

Play Hearts of Stone and you'll have your answer.

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.

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? :S

Yeah, the Whoreson scene sorta made me like o.O;

I know Geralt is a "professional" and all that, but you typically have the option to play Geralt as a good guy with a decent sense of justice. He's no crusader, but he's got a sense of right and wrong, at least as an option for you to choose. But he comes face to face with a serial killer and he doesn't tell him that he's a sick bastard…he just says "it's for Ciri".

Yeah. I totally feel you there. That scene was a bit inconsistent.

Oh, for the love of god, USE SPOILER TAGS WOMAN. GAAAAAH.

It's exactly as you describe! It greatly annoyed me as well. o_O
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.

Is there any videogame whose characters are not quite shallow and that's a masterpiece of great writing? There might be, but I haven't seen a single one. There are worst and better (and I would put GTA V in the better basket). Usually RPGs are in the worst, because they must allow more freedom. I've only seen dialogues worthy of a pop-corn movie in action games, most of the others games, that do not live off cut-scenes, are (at their best) fan-fiction. Sometimes worse than that.

My take on this (and a lot of other stuff that happens in The Witcher 3) is that they wanted to stay away from the books as much as they could. Most people probably just discovered Geralt in the third entry, but I do think he was a more interesting character in the previous instalments (and much more in the books themselves). Besides what was already said about that, there's also the social and politicial matters that almost were ignored in Witcher 3 - and were an important part of the both previous games, even though Witchers aren't supposed to meddle in that kind of affair, Geralt was always a wild card. It looks like everybody loves this game, but for me it was a disapointment after The Witcher 2.

I think Macho Man would be THE perfect character for the next Witcher game! Oh yeah!

No…I do not see how Geralt in previous entries is even remotely as interesting as the latest one…from facial expressions, voice acting and characterization through relationships with people around him, he has only improved throughout the series. Few slips aside, there is not a more consistent and better defined rpg protagonist out there, when you look at the entire narrative.
As for "not enough politics!" argument, it's entirely a writer's choice in which direction they decide to take it…Witcher series is not bound by a central conflict and each game was focused on different things…from racial tensions, war and politics, to personal stories of common people, folklore and portrayal of close relationships. For a last entry in the series that closes his tale, it only makes sense they decided to make the last game more personal than others.

You name none and I just took some of the most talked about games here. The only problem I see is you don't like Geralt and that is fine I don't like a lot of games so I don't play them.

Anyways you are free to make your own games you know, that way you would get exactly what you want in a game.

It's a choice, it is not consistent with the books, but it's a choice. Maybe they decided to ignore Geralt's origins because the author didn't give a damn about the games, but that does not mean that I have to support the Witcher being "dumbed down" from a literary character to a videogame character. As far as I am concerned, it is not the same Geralt.

As someone who's never read the books I'm glad they crafted Geralt as they did. As a video game character he's one of my faves.