Witcher - Geralt Almost Wasn't the Main Character

Originally Posted by CelticFrost
Lots of other games that let you do that, no need for another.

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.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
The pony tail guy? He was awesome until they cut it off in Gothic III.

Blasphemy Bobo as he was called the blessed Nameless One.

Well until he became the new King of Myrtana.

Originally Posted by Elel
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.

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



THING!!!

Oooooooooooh Yeah!

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
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!

.

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.

Originally Posted by Elel
Would they be able to create equally engaging characters on their own? That is the question

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

Originally Posted by CelticFrost
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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Elel

Spoiler – MAJOR ASS BOOK SPOILER

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

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

Originally Posted by Elel
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Elel
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Morrandir
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.

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.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
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!

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

Originally Posted by Mark0
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Elel
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?

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.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mark0
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.