I’ve never read the books, but… It was clear from game 3 that she was going to play an important role in the future. The entire plot of the main campaign in Witcher 3 was about HER powers. The Wild Hunt wanted her, not Geralt.
Plus also she’s awesome anyway. What the fuck is wrong with people? Oh I can’t enjoy my vibeo game with a wahmen as main character, it’ll ruin my mood!
Honestly I’d rather be looking at a cute girl dashing around than an old man, even if I identify more with the latter. Video games are for exploring things. Fantasy worlds, dragons, wraiths… And the biggest problem with suspending disbelief is playing a character who isn’t the same gender as the player? lmao.
Maybe I’m just not enough of a gamer. Only been two and a half decades or so since I first touched a computer and played games.
Tomb Raider is not a woman protagonist game though, at least in the first game they wanted to have Indiana Jones but didn’t got the rights to it. So the developers replaced the assets with a female.
In whole series there is not much that makes her a woman, more like an American gun-maniac guy that looks like a girl.
The first game didn’t have much in the way of story. The focus was on the puzzles and adventuring. I don’t think that makes her less of a woman character. In a video game, the assets are the only difference, anyway. Not that women can’t be rough and adventurous and physical and like guns.
I’ve only played Witcher 3, and I thought it was obvious that it’s Ciri’s story being told from the perspective of the supporting cast, and that is an incredibly cool literary device.
Yeah. I haven’t played 1 much beyond the first 10 minutes, was too janky. 2 was mostly focused on the war, with Geralt being the most important character IMO. In 3 he was no longer THE most important character, but he was a close second - out of a large cast of supporting characters that aided them on the way.
Honestly the longform books take a similar approach, telling several very important people’s stories from the perspective of how their stories intertwined with Geralt’s and later Ciri’s
Plus also she’s awesome anyway. What the fuck is wrong with people? Oh I can’t enjoy my vibeo game with a wahmen as main character, it’ll ruin my mood!
That’s what I don’t understand, like, have people not played the Horizon games? They’re awesome, they’re fun as hell.
The main bullshit complaint I’ve seen about the Horizon games boils down to “Aloy doesn’t make my peepee hard”. There are dudes out there who only want to see women they can goon to.
People like Geralt, they like his brooding attitude. Making. Game about ciri means they don’t get a game with Geralt. And they really want another game with him for some reason.
Cranky brooding swordsman is kinda a one trick pony. It’s brilliant and hilarious to respond to everything no matter how threatening with just a grunt or dismissive comment, but after 3 major games, it’s time for something else
I didn’t played the game or read the books but I think if you are playing a game that is called Witcher and the Witcher himself is missing that is a big issue.
Normally you would get a new game with a new title but big companies want to use the IP and think using a known title is always better than coming up with a new title.
As I said I didn’t played Witcher 3 so dunno if it makes sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if people are unhappy when their main character is missing in the game.
I guess if they didn’t read the books, watch the show, or play the most popular and most recent game in the series, then it is fairly reasonable for them to be confused as they won’t know shit.
Yeah so others already explained it to you, but I’ll give you a quick summary.
Witcher is kind of a job title, but to get in you pretty much join a cult that gives you mutagens that give you cool powers, but also make you infertile and I believe resistant to STDs (this is why Geralt fucks so much).
Ciri trained with the witchers of the Wolf school. I don’t remember if she went through the mutations or not, but she has elder blood so she’s already more powerful than Geralt. She’s part of an end of the world prophecy. She’s also essentially Geralt’s adoptive daughter.
By the end of Witcher 3, Geralt is getting kind of tired. There’s literally no other Witcher in the universe more deserving to be the next lead than the spacetime manipulating princess who doesn’t even want to inherit her real father’s continent spanning empire because she’d rather be a badass Witcher.
I’m trying to remember the first game I played with a female lead and I think it was portal. And that woman didn’t speak. Strangely the next was transistor and she technically didn’t speak either.
Female protags are rare. They used to be epic loot, but it’s getting better now.
I guess it’s Portal for me too. Then Oblivion with a female character with that golden armor from shivering isles for shiny boobs. I was a horny teen and porn was getting boring lol
She is great in the books. One of the most unique characters in fiction imho. CDProjekt did really well adapting the continuation of her story in the games.
It’s amazing how companies only do things after a “gobernment” scare, the fight does not stop, this isn’t just about The Crew, it’s about every game that won’t work without internet.
He focuses on the visual aspects of the game, which are indeed wonderful and contribute a lot to immersion, but to me, a host of other elements contribute at least as much to making this game stand above the rest. The writing, acting, world richness, player agency, variety of story possibilities, battle mechanics, and sound design, for example. There’s so much to love that even with all the bugs, it’s still a lot fun.
I think I agree with him. It's not just that it looks good and that it's cinematic; it's that it brings what they were doing well already to that cinematic standard that we got from the big studios for years. But those big studios were frequently sacrificing the depth of the RPG in the process. Mass Effect 1 had a full character sheet and a bunch of mechanics that never really came together. Mass Effect 2 had fairly simple skill trees. That series was good for lots of reasons, but in order to make each sequel in only 2 years, they threw away what didn't work rather than iterating on it to fix what didn't work. BG3 is iterating on Larian's previous successes and still letting us get that cinematic experience from Mass Effect. It's definitely what caught my attention when it was previously barely on my radar.
I think live play podcasts and shows might help also. I’m a big live play DND/ttrpg listener despite having never played in person with people. I bought it pretty much instantly and I’m loving how much it feels like those podcasts.
I know CRPGs based on ttrpg mechanics still hit with people back in the 90s and early 00s but I’m guessing it wasn’t the selling point. Like I’m pretty sure people didn’t buy Fallout back in 97 because it used a system that was similar to GURPS.
The Adventure Zone podcast by the McElroy brothers came out in like 2014 and the live play podcast genre skyrocketed since. Pretty much every podcast network has at least a few DND shows plus a few more using other unique systems. There’s even podcasts parodying live play like Offices and Bosses, an improv comedy where they play fantasy monsters playing DND with human characters. Theres no way people would have come up with that format before the adventure zone.
To this day, I really wish BioWare had iterated on their mechanics in Mass Effect instead of trying to make it more of a shooter in RPG clothing. I liked how certain classes could only wear certain armor or use certain weapon types, and how you had more choice in how your Shepard was built.
To be fair, audiovisual and name recognition is huge. People talk about the game as if nothing like it has ever existed. DOS 1/2, Kingmaker/WotR, PoE I/II, and many more are similar games, also varying levels of amazing, but without large cinematic budgets and mo cap and extensive voice acting and DND name recognition, they don’t even get mentioned in most comparison articles which always just go to DragonAge.
Well I have had dreams of reading books. They’re weird. Like, I know it’s a dream and the sentences don’t make any sense. But I keep reading it anyways.
I didn’t even buy Borderlands 3 for $60 and there’s no way in hell I’d pay $80 for something similar. I spent the full price of Baldur’s Gate 3 for myself and two of my friends for a total of $180. Make the game worth it and you have my money. If the development cost of games has gone up then prove it and make better games.
It and it’s DLC sold just fine because BL3 is miles above BL2 in gameplay (though yes it’s story and voice acting are painful, 2 hasn’t aged as well as many of us might remember it did in that regard, either)
Tbh I expect the same thing for this one: better gameplay, worse writing
Having seen the tonal shift in the gameplay preview I’d actually expect better writing, or at least more bearable writing. Gameplay looked more fine tuned but mostly the same as 3.
the thing while yes, inflation will make things more expensive, the more expensive things become the less folks will just spend on random entertainment. they will have to use their money more deliberately and frugally.
and the problem with games are that there are many free and cheaper alternatives. if you wanna game you can just spend less and still game and have fun.
if you wanna go to the cinema it pretty much costs what it costs so you might go less often or buy less popcorn but you won’t skip one movie because it’s more expensive than another.
you can just skip full price AAA games. buy them on sales, play games you already have, play free to play games, emulate retro games, play indie games.
I have a PSN account. Have been playing almost exclusively console for years up until recently. On PC now and I’d honestly rather to never have to use that damn account again. I don’t trust them. They screwed me over so many times with my PS+ stuff, charging it or not charging it whenever the hell they wanted. Nevermind the leaks Sony. Pass. The argument of multiplayer games I can kinda sorta see when everyone and their mother has an account but not when it’s a single player game.
Speaking of, if anyone wants to buy a Playstation account with 267 games for like $200 then I’d be more than happy to hand it over. I like food, my cat likes food, and don’t I give a shit about Sony
Anything that emulates something else is an emulator. That something else could be hardware, or runtime behavior, or services, or a combination thereof. (It could even be a turtle, although we’re talking about computers in this case.)
Wine is an interesting example despite that silly backronym that was abandoned years ago, or perhaps because of it. It not only translates system and API calls, but also provides Windows work-alike services and copies Windows runtime behavior, including undocumented behavior. If it were just an API wrapper or “translation layer”, a lot of its functionality wouldn’t work.
The shape of a business envelope might not be an equilateral rectangle, but it is still a rectangle.
But go ahead and believe what you want. I’m not looking for an argument.
You worded it incorrectly. It should be any single player game that requires online to start to game should be fined. They can have multiplayer option. But single player should be able to be played even offline.
As much as I like C:S, the thought of getting a relatively barebones game with $200 in DLC over the next 5-7 years to make the city feel complete makes me feel depressed.
That was the bummer in the original game. Only two ways to deal with trash, unless you bought $30 of DLC. I’ll be waiting to see if the game is good or not, or if they totally gimped certain parts of the game like bridges, ports and transit to resell back as a la carte DLC.
I don’t understand this attitude that the new game needs to include the DLC of the old one that’s never been a thing in games. New versions of an old game never previously included the DLC for the old game apart from anything else because it wouldn’t make sense because they’ve changed so many systems.
I think the difference now is that DLC adds features, and so people are upset when the new game is missing features from the old DLC. Where in the past, say with Oblivion or Skyrim, it was just more story, maybe some new skills, in one case there was a new feature (house building) and their newer games do include that feature. But people don’t expect the story line from the DLC in the new game.
Features in DLC feel different these days. In the past DLC had a more limited scope, and you looked forward to the new game for new features. But now if the new game comes out with less features it can be a bummer for people used to the old game. There isn’t really a great solution because I don’t think it always makes sense to add all the DLC features in the new game.
Skyrim’s launch was less impressive than it’s eternal longevity. Released on 11.11.11 and ported to everything but a Texas Instrument’s calculator. (Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s been done too, mods included)
gamesradar.com
Ważne