I remember that we had a thread about how "realistic" Game of Thrones was, but what about The Witcher? If we look past monsters and shit, I think it's basically just like our medieval times, with the same problems as back then, but you also have nekkers, drowners and other monsters to deal with.
What are your thoughts on this though?
It's way more "realistic" than GoT, even though it got a shitload more fantasy elements.
Cities makes great sense in The Witcher universe.
Also, it's dynasties aren't fucking 8000 years old like in GoT which is already a huge fucking improvement over GoT.
The witcher (the games, the books are above average genre fiction) is high literature in video game form, game of thrones is genre fiction. Comparing them is misguided.
It's hard to say how accurate either show is as they don't take place in history. The Witcher has more clear historical inspiration though. GoT has a ton of wars as inspiration, the witcher is more focused on Polish folklore and history ( youtube.com
I think the really old family dynasties is more of a myth (in the got universe of course).
It seems like some sort of really ancient history, where it's mainly fairytale. The time could have been exaggerated to make the houses seem more powerful.
>Witcher
>realistic
pick one and only one
Dunno, they're both inaccurate, obviously. But I get a feeling the witcher games are accutely aware of any liberties they take in a way I don't get from hollywood productions
hence "realistic"
It's obviously not realistic with dimension travelling elves, vampires from another dimension, magic and monsters.
Yeah it's not "realistic" either.
Back to /v/ you go
Did you even read shit on this thread? They said without the magical / monster elements to it its pretty realistic game
Tw3 is probably the most significant piece of art in the 21st century and whether it's historically accurate is so horribly besides the point. No one asked if the creation of adam was historically or theologically accurate, it's besides the point
>Tw3 is probably the most significant piece of art in the 21st century
You must not know a lot of art.
Witcher 3 has already kind of come and gone. We'll forget about it in a few years. Compare to other titles like Dark Souls, KOTOR and MGS3 for longevity and influence on other games.
Plus, there's a lot of non-video game art out there.
>Dark Souls
nice meme tbqh lad
>We'll forget about it in a few years
I disagree. If the games in the last 10 years, witcher will probably be the only one tackled about in scolds 100 years from now. And there certainly is a lot of art out there, but nothing with as much merit
*of *talked *schools.
Jesus christ
What precisely elevates the Witcher above something like Game of Thrones other than budget?
Witcher and GoT are both ultimately just erotic fantasy crap.
The world of The Witcher actually feels alive, logical and most importantly of all, it's believable. It gives me the same vibes that LoTR did.
When you think about it, this scene is a huge old man in a bathrope talking to a 3 feet tall midget about a magic ring and how the midget is going to visit a race of graceful men living in solitude in the forest, but it actually feels real and believable.
No. Witcher is a very masterful retelling and reimagining of polish folklore and religion with amazing, artful symbolism and character depths. It's an odyssey with cultural significance and storytelling mastery
GoT is just random political drama set in a fantasy without a focused real world parallel. The intrigue is interesting but it's petty shallow
The fact that the witcher is good and game of thrones sucks dick
I know you're baiting, but I'd honestly recommend you to watch Super Bunnyhops videos about The Witcher.
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
I like how on average the bumblefuck peasants are superstitious, retarded louts who are more liable to ruin things and get themselves into trouble than they are to help.
Do you think LotR is the most significant work of art of the 20th Century? I mean, maybe in terms of fantasy writing, but Tolkien was way behind the actual literary world.
>My thing is better than this other thing because I can use flowery language to describe one and criticize the other!
Sure.
I don't think LoTR is the most significant work of art of the 20th Century, no. But it's one of the most important ones.
Literally how?
Laid the foundation of one of the more popular genres of entertaintment.
Not only that, the movies it spawned is the most succesful movie franchise as of yet.
What would you say is the most important one? I'm curious.
>>My thing is better than this other thing because I can use flowery language to describe one and criticize the other!
Are you going to make me use the "not an argument" meme? I mean, obviously I'm being a bit over the top, taking an extended position on Veeky Forums is more interesting, but the elements I described are concrete and does differentiate them
...
Tw3 and forward are the only ones that are truly great art though. Tw1 has a sweet spot in my heart but is clunky and a learning experience. Tw2 is sadly pretty much just GoT but a bit smarter
That's way lower quality trolling for this board than I was planning on doing, but eh whatever.
There's a part in the first game where you ride onto this farming village and they have these carved wooden totems outside in the field and it spooked the hell out of me more than any of the horror elements did.
Also "The Last Wish" is a phenomenal book.
I mean, potentially, but it's kind of hard to take your word for it when you have a vested interest in those elements being true, and you fail to support your assertations.
So sort of "not an argument" right back at you, I guess.
LOTR is not a great piece of scifi/fantasy writing, and it's (by far) not the best of Tolkien's work.
LOTR is phenomenal because it draws back to something old and prechristian in a lot of ways depression it's christian parellels. 100 years from now it will be regarded as one of the formative works that led to the revival of nationalism, paganism, and tribalism in the west
That is absolutely ridiculous.
100 years from now we'll have discarded the idea that fiction shapes society, cause the data pretty much debunks that
A vested interest??
Gonna have to side with this guy here. While LotR is pretty neat in harkening back to the sagas, it's an undeniably Christian work at its core, and its morality shows. Compare it to the the sagas themselves, or the Homeric epics. Further its publication has coincided with a decline in nationalist sentiment.
You want The Wticher to look better than GoT. That much was clear from your writing.
>LOTR is not a great piece of scifi/fantasy writing
It is THE great of fantasy. It pretty much invented the genre in that everything since has been derivative. Which is kind of shit because Tolkien wasn't genre fiction "fantasy" so much as he was creating a mythology for his languages and for England which he felt was lacking.
>not the best of Tolkien's work.
true
>LOTR is phenomenal because it draws back to something old and prechristian in a lot of ways depression it's christian parellels. 100 years from now it will be regarded as one of the formative works that led to the revival of nationalism, paganism, and tribalism in the west
absurd.
I believe that the Witcher 3 has more artistic merit than GoT, but I have no particular bias that has moved me towards this position.
>It is THE great of fantasy
Book of the new sun is not derivative. It is fantasy, and it is also not genre fiction
Science fantasy isn't fantasy. It's a different genre with its own language of tropes.
been meaning to read that 2bh
There are dozens of better fantasy authors than Tolkien, many of them predating him by even half a century or more.
E.R.Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros", Lord Dunsany's short fantasy stories, Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories and other short stories, E.R.Burrough's "A Princess of Mars", to name a few.
LOTR wasn't even the best of Tolkien's fantasy. The Hobbit and The Sons of Huron are far better stories.
Tolkien's Middle Earth stories aren't even Tolkien's best fiction. Farmer Giles of Ham, and many of his other short stories are far better.
And Tolkien's fiction is far inferior to his body of scholarly work.
Gene Wolfe is a garbage writer.
Kys senpai
What exactly are you responding to in any of the posts you replied to? Did you just want to type out your personal opinion on Tolkien?
Thanks, I guess.
>Soldiers are misreable cunts
>Everyone's ugly
>The ones who aren't ugly are rich or raped
>Cities are a squalor but they feel safer than countryside
>Everyone and everything is fucking filthy
>Soldiers are such cunts
Yeah, it has some realistic ideas.
>The Sons of Huron
>pretends to know about Tolkein
>cites badly written trash as superior works
kek
Everyone wasn't filthy, nor does the games portray that. Sure, the turboredneck 0easantray, but then that's still true
>way behind
>he thinks art and literature is a linear progression and that stuff can "age"
LoTR represents the sort of turn around in the modernist trend of the 20th century where before people assumed that the mass market would never accept long romances and epics about things that aren't strictly realistic in content, but the mass success the Lord of the Rings achieved proved it wrong because lots of people were getting into this long epic story about a fictional prehistory full of made up races written in relatively simple modern English as opposed to "perfectly constructed" aesthetic works of the time. It lost a nobel prize to some Yugoslavian book though which made C.S. Lewis mad because he was the one nominating it.
LoTR is inherently Catholic but it did probably unintentionally cause that revival. Though the C.S. Lewis quote comes to mind, the one about making the children good pagans before we make them good Christians.
I'll address this post backwards.
Tolkien's fiction and his body of scholarly work are the same thing, Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion are full of his own ideas about theology, language, and history. Read his Beowulf translation where he essentially theorizes that they were Goths.
Hobbit and the Children of Hurin were really good, but Lord of the Rings is the most impressive because of its size and scope compared to them, especially considering Tolkien's track record of finishing books.
The Worm Ouroboros is a fine work, and Lord Dunsany wrote some good things, but they lacked the same sort of consistency in the world that Tolkien created, and Jack Vance and E.R. Burroughs were not quite writing up to the standard Tolkien set, though their influence on American culture is possibly as great as Tolkien's since their works were filtered through D&D to create modern Fantasy.
This is also where I'll go out and talk about how small LoTR's actual influence on Modern Fantasy is outside of shallow details
it's an odd mixture of say 800 years of medieval history covering a continent formed into a single setting. So while Novigrad has the look of a city from the 15th or 16th century Low countries the no mans land villages look more like early medieval Slavic buildings, so that's say 2000 kilometer and 600 years in time apart. Skellige is essentially vikings n shit but somehow more advanced because they built stone buildings.
The Nilfguardians seem to me like a mixture of ancient Rome and Habsburg stuff, they got Dutch and German names, wear Renaissance inspired fashion and got all the things you expect from an empire i.e. uniforms, standing army and whatnot.
Final verdict: It's fantasy. Though the wildly anachronistic elements they ripped from history fit well together for the historically illiterate/people without historical autism
Woah guys, did you know that The Witcher 3 is fantasy?
Yeah that is what I explained.
Fuck man I never would have figured it out. You're a genius.
How can you trust Jewish owned media to portray past white cultures accurately? GOT is full of homosexual feminist drivel where white men are disgusting evil sadists who like to torture women for fun and are more devious and deceitful than Satan himself. The Jews want you to believe that everyone throughout history is as vile and degenerate as modern Western people are.
The medieval era was a time when Christianity ruled. Women had decency and if they didn't they were burnt at the stake for their adultery. The common man had to be very conscious of his behaviour or else face shunning from his community. The medieval man did not walk around having sexual intercourse with every thing that moved while he cursed like a sailor, got drunk and committed debauchery. People interacted with each other with respect, honour and courtesy, those who didn't were outlaws who lived in the wild.
It has realistic wheat
TO me this just proves a good game doesnt come from a big budget but from love.
You figured out what the OP asked yet? You know, an analysis of how realistic the Witcher is?
Dawg the vikings used stone
Bit of isle a, bit of isle b. Cdpr isn't economically insubstantial, compared to contenporaries they pour a disproportionate amount of income back into development. Tw3 had a huge budget, probably much bigger than the much larger franchise, fallout 4, with twice the developers. It is quite a remarkable ethic behind their products though
Yeah it's nice to see honestly, I just can't stand playing the games. Though I do wish more developers would do that.
>horseless carriage double tracks with untrodden grass in the middle
Not that guy, but looking past the "oh this game so hard lel xD" shit it truly is awesome. The concept of player invasions alone is unique and creative. Never played anything else where the developers outright encourage being a toxic asshole to others.
That said, doesn't compare to TW3 in artistry overall, and appears to have taken a lot less effort and planning to make.
saging my reply of course since we are clogging up Veeky Forums with bullshit
Not like that gigantic palace IIRC.
This is relevant. Why is hypothetical historical discussion somehow inherently inferior to specific references of history? These threads put knowledge into a context, encourages people to share information, debate the past in broader strokes and understand history. They're not inferior to threads that address specific moments in history, especially not when the board is ultimately recreational
Never played the game so I'll give you that, biggest things vikings made were some decently sized forts afaik. Though, to be fair, it had a lot of dirt and wood involved.
Absolutely disgusting
Skellige is 50/50 Norse and Gaelic.
...
wait are you guys talking about the GoT show or the asoiaf books?
...
Maybe so, but my post specifically was addressing the artistry of Dark Souls, which while arguably encroaching on "humanities" territory, gets into a gray area of people just arguing about which game is better like /v/.
>Lord Dunsany
>Jack Vance
>Better than Tolkien
you have to be joking. They aren't even on the same level.
>LOTR wasn't even the best of Tolkien's fantasy.
true
>The Hobbit and The Sons of Huron are far better stories.
The Hobbit is not better, Children of Hurin is but I doubt you've read it.
>Tolkien's Middle Earth stories aren't even Tolkien's best fiction.
Yes they are by far. Where are you getting this shit? I doubt you've even read them, or his short stories.
>And Tolkien's fiction is far inferior to his body of scholarly work.
Silmarillion is better than his translation of Sigurd and Gudrun. I've yet to read his translation of Kullervo.
I honestly doubt you've read a single thing you've mentioned.
The hobbit is a classical storytelling prose and journey, it's much more readable for general audiences, so I can see why one would have this opinion
I generally sort of agree with you but I'm just chiming in to correct that Sigurd and Gudrun wasn't a translation but an original adaptation
Sure wouldn't happen, yeah.
>Medieval times
>color
ABSOLUTELY HISTORICALLY INACCURATE, DAVID BENIOFF AND D WEISS ARE ROLLING IN THEIR GRAVES
>People were more moral back in the day because we used to burn alive the ones that weren't
Christian logic is amazing
How do you get that horse?
Jack Vance is funny as fuck though.
The proto terry pratchet.
*tips mitre*
M'altar boy
just buy it at the tourney grounds
Is Witcher open world free-roam?
Is it any good?
>I generally sort of agree with you but I'm just chiming in to correct that Sigurd and Gudrun wasn't a translation but an original adaptation
true, as is Kullervo. Mistake on my part.
If you've got a thing for fantasy settings, it's for you.
It's the best game I've played in years. Granted I don't play much games, but I loved it.
Well, you didn't do a good job of arguing it. You simply stated what you thought the Witcher was good at and GoT was bad at. Didn't even try to compare their weaknesses and strengths.
>Is it any good?
Witcher III is probably the best open world game out currently, overall. MGSVI might be more fun, but Witcher is better overall. It's a good fantasy setting, and it has a fun exploration of fantasy and folk/fairy tale themes, as well as more typical fantasy epic storytelling. It also has a lot more polish and development than the other witcher games, which were imo very shallow and felt unfinished.
It's not entirely perfect. It has the inevitable open world grind pitfalls, the leveling system is fucked up, the combat is too simple (compared to Witcher II) even on the hardest difficulty settings, the romance part of the plot gets REALLY weird if you try to choose Triss, and not in an intentional way and there's a detective mode that gives you answers to every puzzle.
Probably GOAT game ending though.
Apart from all the spells and monsters hehe!!
All the armor and weapon (architecture?) are completely wrong considering it takes place around the 12th right?
The claymore like hilt of the silver sword wouldn't have been found in that time period.
it looks way later, everything looks modeled on at least the 14th-15th century
Judging from the clothing I would say 13th to 14th.
It's definitely later than the 12th century
Far more realistic than GoT, the games especially portray this. The Witcher is the best post apocalyptic game and the best part is that you don't realize that it is a post apocalyptic setting. I think it's mainly because GoT is so focused on the nobility, while the Witchers are not.
Pic.
The Witchers resemble late middle ages, 14th-15th century.
13th according to Geralt in the new dlc, although it does not mean much
You're not even trying.
First witcher game is like 13th century stuff but the wild hunt draws mostly from 14th 15th and even 16th century.