13812 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerevar-as]

If Geralt knew all that happened in the books, Yaevinn would have lasted the time it took to introduce himself. And I´d really like to tell some elves it´s not humanity´s fault they are that bad in bed, hope a later game will allow it.

On the other side, it says something about the northern kingdoms that Nilfgaard is the place elves have it better.

[DragonRageGT]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Where do you live, just before I answer that question?

Brazil... where a "terrorist" tortured by military power was elected our first woman president and is in office right now.

[FlintlockJazz]

CalJones wrote...

@FlintlockJazz - yeah I got my eyes
lasered too. It's not like you can really see what's going on, though,
since everything's too close to your eyeball. The smell is pretty bad,
though. Like a horse being shod.

Yeah I don't think I could have gone through with it had I been able to see, and the smell of cooked bacon during the op and realising it was me...

RageGT wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Oh, so the butcher has a dream ( I am just going to call him that, Zigrin is just too spot on ) well good for him, he still deserves to be left to the mercy of the likes of Loredo for all he did, and I don't want to even get started on what Phillipa deserves.

As for finding Iorveth hot....well good for you I suppose, it's not an argument however.

In regards to Insane Fights. Here is the Kayran on Insane, Letho in Chapter I and lifting the curse ( draug is 14:00 ) 

So what? You forget you are playing Geralt, a Mutant freak that was ultimately killed by a mob of those who should be grateful to him while trying to massacre non-humans. You are not playing Costin. There is no Costin in that World. Yaevinn makes excellent points if you explored the dialogue options.

And you talk on you videos!!! (though I did comment on one of them and thanked you)

I have to agree with Rage here, after all one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  Roche isn't exactly any better, helping to support a system that continues to oppress nonhumans by killing elves and leading a squad of men who exhibit some downright disgusting racist views (the comments made by certain members when you find a certain elf woman made me glad they put in the punch option there).  No one is pure in that world, it all comes down to which side you want to help for that particular playthrough.

Personally, I always have difficulty choosing on each of my playthroughs, I love Iorveth's naive idealism (he is in a way as he seems to approach it in such a simplistic and straightforward manner) but Roche is such a badass I love 'em both

[slimgrin]

RageGT wrote...

So what? You forget you are playing Geralt, a Mutant freak that was ultimately killed by a mob of those who should be grateful to him while trying to massacre non-humans. You are not playing Costin. There is no Costin in that World. Yaevinn makes excellent points if you explored the dialogue options.

Here's where I might disagree with you Rage, and why I think The Witcher series is unique among roleplaying games. They focus on moral and political dilemmas, not role playing. I don't play a renegade or paragon Geralt; I try and keep my own morality intact with each playthrough, which is hard as hell. That's why it took three runs in TW1 for me to finally branch out and see what happens if I try different decisions. It was actually painful to see the result of some choices, what happens to Toruviel, to Abigail, to Thaler.

Modifié par slimgrin, 10 juin 2011 - 09:51 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

That's not an argument either. Geralt is defined by the choices YOU as a player make ( to say otherwise would imply you find the choice system nil ). My Geralt had good sound reasons to hate Iorveth and his Scoia'Tel and he had good sound reasons to hate Yaevinn. ( Are you forgetting who killed Foltest, are you forgetting who took innocent people as hostages - including children - In Murky Waters? You can argue, but don't bloody pretend those were "right" choices ).

What you cannot grasp is that Elves and Dwarves are NOT all Scoia'Tel, nor do all want to be Scoia'Tel, nor do all CARE about that stupid cause. Geralt died defending innocents, he did not help a bunch of murderers.

Regarding Murky Waters, if I recall correctly it was the Order who came after the elves there, who were led by Toruviel and did not want to fight except for the 'reinforcements' sent by Yaevinn but had to take the village hostage because otherwise they would have been butchered.  As high and mighty as saying "I would never kill innocents!" is, when it's your own life on the line perspectives change. 

Sure the Scoia'Tael engage in some downright nasty methods such as killing innocents, but then walking through the city under siege during the prologue of Witcher 2 shows that rape, murder and pillaging occurs while on 'official' wars too.

[Costin_Razvan]

RageGT wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Where do you live, just before I answer that question?

Brazil... where a "terrorist" tortured by military power was elected our first woman president and is in office right now.

Just so we are clear. I don't use the label "terrorist" because Loredo uses it or because Roche does, but because I have drawn my own conclussions about Iorveth.

With that out of the way. I live in Romania where we had one of the greatest dictators at the end of Cold War as our ruler. We are talking of a guy who impossed ( or well tried to and got killed for it when he thought he had achieved it ) a system like in North Korea. We are talking of a guy who had a cult of personallity. Who starved his entire nation to pay off a debt he owed to the west ( officialy it was rationing...but people could hardly even get the rations )

We are talking of a Tyrant at his best, yet despite this our glorious revolution against the criminal comunists didn't achieve anything of relevance.....because those that took power after were communists ( hell our CURRENT president is a former comunist ...and the situation in my country for the last few years has been very bad ).

Talk all you will about freedom, rights and equality, but don't think for a split second that you can achieve those easily ( because you will fail badly ). Add in mass slaughter like the Scoia'Tel did...and well I wish you luck.

The Scoia'Tel murdered a lot of peasants in the wars with Niflgaard, then they murdered a lot after the war ended. These are facts in the books and Iorveth was one of the best of them, so tell me what do you think he did? Their battle cry was "Push them to the sea." What it meant was they wanted to kill every last human in the North ( This is what Yaevinn wanted as well ).

What is respectable about Iorveth is that he finally realizes there is a different solution. Yes it's not going to work but at least he TRIES to turn away from slaugther. Yet for a real solution 

 Sure the Scoia'Tael engage in some downright nasty methods such as killing innocents, but then walking through the city under siege during the prologue of Witcher 2 shows that rape, murder and pillaging occurs while on 'official' wars too.

One wrong doesn't make the other right.

The only real solution that can exist between dwarves/elves and humans if for radicals like Iorveth to be executed, then and only then can peace be found. Saskia even says that for the elves and dwarves to have a future along humans people like Iorveth NEED to change and perhaps in a few generations people will forgive the crimes that occured.

Terrorism just doesn't work, nor will it ever work as a solution. You cannot defeat nations through it ( do recall Kaedwen was invading ) nor can you hope to achieve peace.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 10 juin 2011 - 09:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

CalJones wrote...
Roche path is cool but you get to miss out on an awful lot, I found. In fact, you experience a lot of bad things on the Roche path (regarding what happens to the Blue Stripes and Ves and also not acquiring the magic dagger to aid Saskia).

I don't quite agree with that. I still didn't side with Iorveth so I do not know for sure, but I'd think Roche's path gives you a lot more insignt on Henselt and his plans (and Ambassador Shilard is there), and the political dynamics in Loc Muinne, specifically the question of Temeria and how Redenia and Kaedwen are vying for it.

That could be less interesting to many, but that for me was what I loved about the game. While from what I know so far, Iorveth's path seems more "fantasy" like, which could be interesting, but I doubt it will get my attention that much.

In regards to the overall plot however, I'd think both paths give us an equal but different perspective. On Roche's path, I didn't feel that I didn't understand the plot or what was going on, though some details remained unknown to me.

And I don't know what you mean by "bad" things, but for me, Kaedwen and Redenia reaching their zenith is a "good" thing for me.

[Dragoonlordz]

So third week VGC sales numbers appear to be online.

Currently at in total (not including digital sales)

Witcher 2 PC = 342,013
(For perspective as a like for like example) Dragon Age 2 PC = 224,079

As a general rule for digital sales I tend to double the figure but no way of actually knowing for sure, only know that when sold 212k retail copies they made around 200k digital on top. So I wouldn't be surprised if they are around 700k in total right now personally.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 10 juin 2011 - 10:05 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

 Sure the Scoia'Tael engage in some downright nasty methods such as killing innocents, but then walking through the city under siege during the prologue of Witcher 2 shows that rape, murder and pillaging occurs while on 'official' wars too.

One wrong doesn't make the other right.

The only real solution that can exist between dwarves/elves and humans if for radicals like Iorveth to be executed, then and only then can peace be found. Saskia even says that for the elves and dwarves to have a future along humans people like Iorveth NEED to change and perhaps in a few generations people will forgive the crimes that occured.

Terrorism just doesn't work, nor will it ever work as a solution. You cannot defeat nations through it ( do recall Kaedwen was invading ) nor can you hope to achieve peace.

Executing Iorveth would not solve the solution, that is the entirely wrong option to take!  You'd be making a martyr out of him and inciting more hatred and revenge, as you said one wrong does not make the other right. 

The point I was making was that no one in that world is 'pure' and considering the situation you can understand both sides if you look at it from their point of view.  It may not have been the best option but oftentimes it was the only one they felt they could take.  Saying Iorveth is bad because of his actions means that pretty much everyone else is bad too.

[CalJones]

I thought that too but found it a lot more interesting than I'd expected. There's more on the sorceress plot and also meet Stennis and determine his fate (since he's always dead on Roche's path). You'll also run into Shilard anyway and meet Roche again then. I enjoyed that part, actually.

As for Roche's path, it can go both ways. Henselt can possibly die...on Iorveth's path he always lives but Kaedwen get their arses handed to them during the siege. Really depends what you think is worse.

[Costin_Razvan]

If Saskia would execute Iorveth it would send a strong message to the entire north. That yes she would tolerate nonhumans, but she would not allow butchers. Do you think her being buddies with Iorveth will earn her any love? That people will just ignore it because he saves Vergen?

What he did....is something that is just not washed away by a single heroic act.

I fail to see where I mentioned good and evil? Yes I branded Iorveth as a terrorist but I don't think ever talked in the terms good and evil...because there is no such thing as good evil. My problems with Iorveth are as follows.

- He has no real plan that will work, even the one with Saskia is just a dream as the nation won't survive.
- He hates humans deeply....yet you cannot plan for a future on exterminating an entire race of people.
- He killed a lot of people out of his hate alone.

If Iorveth had a good plan at his back, if he had a good way to implement said plan then yes I could like him, but he is an idiot.

 As for Roche's path, it can go both ways. Henselt can possibly die...on Iorveth's path he always lives but Kaedwen get their arses handed to them during the siege. Really depends what you think is worse

Kaedwen plunging into another civil war. Now that would be bad. I think ( like on Roche's path ) Henselt only took a part of his 5000 man army, possibly 2000 men, to take Vergen. Maybe even less.

Still...Kaedwen lossing at Vergen is a deathblow to the north. Niflgaard was able to put together 400.000 men in the last invasion. How many you think they will have now? Espcially since Cintra this time won't fight against them but with them.

After Niflgaard conquers Lyria ( south of Aedirn ), no one will help Saskia. Not Henselt or Radovid, that's for certain, and Saskia knows that if she becomes a dragon too often people will realize and once they realize what she is everything goes down the drain ( she states this herself ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 10 juin 2011 - 10:12 .

[Khayness]

Heh, if someone says TW2 portrays women in a bad light, then go play L.A. Noire and have a shot every time a woman with drinking problems and bad marriage gets murdered.

You'll probably end up as the next victim around disc 2.

[KnightofPhoenix]

CalJones wrote...
As for Roche's path, it can go both ways. Henselt can possibly die...on Iorveth's path he always lives but Kaedwen get their arses handed to them during the siege. Really depends what you think is worse.

Henselt's fate depends entirely on you on Roche's path. I find Kaedwen losing, which is guaranteed on Iorveth's path, to be a bad thing, considering the circumstances.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 juin 2011 - 10:15 .

[CalJones]

@Khayness - I don't think it does - there are plenty of strong women but they, like the men, are flawed. My only grumble is the fact we get to see plenty of naked women and no naked men. I want parity!

[FlintlockJazz]

@Costin We all know what message executing Iorveth would send for Saskia: *Revenge Target Here* You are falling for the same thing Iorveth did that it's not even funny: killing people thinking it will solve the problem. It won't and it never will.

As for never mentioning good and evil, you never said it but that's the impression that's coming across. You want him dead for killing lots of people out of hate, yet the point I was making is that pretty much everyone kills lots of people out of hate in W2 world. If he is guilty for that then so is many other characters in the game, including Roche. He hates humans but then many humans hate elves including many members of the blue stripes and humanity seem pretty dedicated to genociding the elves as well. Roche's plans pretty much are on the same level as Iorveth, yet that's what makes him a badass.

[Costin_Razvan]

Iorveth's a radical who hates humans, talk all you will about a solution. It's not going to emerge until he ( and all the Scoia'Tel like him ) die. That is a reality.

I want him dead because he and the Scoia'Tel as a whole made the whole situation much worse then it already was. ( I suggest you read the second witcher novel where Zigrin pretty much says the exact same thing as I am right now ).

Killing someone can be part of a solution, but genocide is never a solution. The humans, for all their racism do not want all elves dead. They want all Scoia'Tel dead ( and I repeat myself, many elves are not Scoia'Tel ) and rightly so, Yes they treat nonhumans as ****, but what do you expect after the Scoia'Tel commit mass murder. Niflgaard was smart to kill so many unit leaders after the war ended.

Right and Wrong don't factor into it. There is being a smart person with a plan ( like Henselt or Dethmold ) and then there is being a complete fool like Iorveth or Yaevinn.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 10 juin 2011 - 10:38 .

[Alpha-Centuri]

I can see fox news now. "Phallus from Witcher 2 convinces young gamers to become homosexual, studies prove!"

CalJones wrote...

I want parity!

Well.. you see both female and male breasts! Seems equal opportunity to me! Laws dictate that you can't see a 'bonerfied' penis. If you look at Game of thrones when you can see Theon's junk, it looks surprisingly limp from having vicious sex with a prostitute. If you watched Rome, they were always limp as well. It would be really hard to do in game without getting an AO rating, but I do understand your desire. Maybe someone can start to break down those barriers? *shrug*

[DragonRageGT]

I see it more like the Aztecas, Maias and Incas fighting the Spanish invasion... or Apaches, Sioux, other native Americans fighting the other European invasion.

[Costin_Razvan]

RageGT wrote...

I see it more like the Aztecas, Maias and Incas fighting the Spanish invasion... or Apaches, Sioux, other native Americans fighting the other European invasion.

The elves invaded and conquered the Dwarves, then the Humans came and conquered both of them....so if anyone has a right to it's the Dwarves, but the Scoia'Tel are primarly elves.

Hipocrisy on their part really. Besides the invasions are long past their time.

[HoonDing]

Didn't the Elves almost completely eradicate the Vran? Just like humans, they were newcomers to the world who overtook the previous dominant race.

I did both paths in TW2, but Roche's path will be my "canon" which I will import in TW3.

Modifié par virumor, 10 juin 2011 - 10:58 .

[Stynes]

i like sex.

[Alpha-Centuri]

virumor wrote...

Didn't the Elves almost completely eradicate the Vran? Just like humans, they were newcomers to the world who overtook the previous dominant race.

I did both paths in TW2, but Roche's path will be my "canon" which I will import in TW3.

Likewise. Roche's path feels more like The Witcher. Iorveth's path seems more heroic, but less true to the neutrality that someone like Geralt clings to.

[Costin_Razvan]

I think Roche's path can be quite neutral really. You ain't helping Henselt after all and you only get in a fight because of Roche not some stupid idealism or another because you walk with him in the camp and Kaedweneis want him dead and then also see you as a threat ( rightly so ).

I think the Geralt from the books would have sided with Roche but not helped him get Anais. ( as loathe I am to say it I do believe he would have saved Triss and damned Temeria ).

[KnightofPhoenix]

Finished act 1 with Iorveth. I have to say, he is a badass and is quite interesting. He lacks Yaevinn's eloquence, but sounds more reasonable.

Though I doubt I'll like it as much as Roche's path, I am sure I'll enjoy Iorveth's path.

[Zcorck]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Finished act 1 with Iorveth. I have to say, he is a badass and is quite interesting. He lacks Yaevinn's eloquence, but sounds more reasonable.

Though I doubt I'll like it as much as Roche's path, I am sure I'll enjoy Iorveth's path.

SPOILER-ish!!!








When Iorveth goes to gather more squirrels, does anyone else think that they could've squeezed a Yaevinn appearance out of it? Perhaps they just wanted to have a bigger focus on Iorveth.





@RageGT: (Late reply, my bad!) Aww, trying to look for more ppl on the Euro servers to play with hehe. The campaign is indeed rather enjoyable. I like the extra units, hoping for a few of to be in HotS multi.