13812 réponses à ce sujet

[flexxdk]

virumor wrote...

Whacka wrote...

And I just can't help the fact that when I see Síle I somehow start to think about Morrigan... It... simply... doesn't make sense...

I certainly wish I could've blown up Morrigan in Dragon Age...

Oh, joys of joy!... I think. Though I doubt it.

But who will then be our beloved cynical (wo)man in the Warden's party?

Anyway, it surprises me there isn't as much sexual innuedo in Henselt's camp than the other... camp? I mean, Henselt IS a filthy swine... Or, at least, he is in my eyes.
I still can't believe why I didn't kill him...

Anyway, my second playthrough just became a lot more fun. Especially now I'm using a scoop as my steel sword. :wizard:

Modifié par Whacka, 23 juillet 2011 - 06:29 .

[Cyberfrog81]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

IIRC, Vergen's dwarves are especially the case (though I really really like them and like fighting with them).

I completely agree. It felt like every sentence contained a reference to screwing or sexual reproductive organs. It was excessive.

The pig's arse comments were awesome though. The dwarves too, in general.

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 23 juillet 2011 - 06:29 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Ringo12 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Loghain in the witcher world...hmm. He and Roche would get along PERFECTLY.

In terms of goals that each of them had I think Loghain reminds me more of Jacques de Aldersberg in how they both caused a lot of harm doing what they believed to be the right thing. 

God forbid a general would expect a country to rally behind him to fight a threat that threatens to destroy the entire country.

Sorry, but whatever problems Loghain has with dealing with politics it doesn't compare to the sheer power grab the Bannorn is aiming for ( especially Eamon ). Jaques on the other hand wanted to establish his own world order or something.

[jonesy1138]

Well, there are no she-dwarves in Vergen, so all these phrases with double meaning might be a way to deal with a life with no sex (at least with the opposite gender ).

[FollowTheGourd]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

So I uninstalled and re installed the game to get rid of mods and it seems to be running smoothly now. But I have one question. CDPR's improved inventory is exactly like the panel tweaks mod..why? Did Antihero just dig up some unused files from the game, or did CDPR hijack his mod?

I'm guessing the mod file wasn't deleted when you uninstalled. That's the "smarter" way to write uninstallers, so they don't end up deleting too much (it's very, very easy to make that happen).

And I deleted that mod manually before installing the path, and I no longer have e.g. the neat sorting options.

Nope. I didn't dig up any unused files or changes, but implemented those changes myself. Then CDPR finally implemented a junk filter, pocket item counters, and bulk alchemy themselves - as far as I can tell, they made it themselves, it's not like it'd be hard for them. It's a lot harder to mod it, since you're dealing with SWF files instead of a Flash project. One problem is that game v1.3 bulk alchemy is bugged for thunderbolt potions, while my mod isn't.

The mod is fully contained in a .dzip file, so unless you have loose files or conflicting files in other mods, it's either all installed or not installed depending on if you have the file  CookedPC/MOD_PanelTweaks.dzip. It looks like CDPR is working on making the minimap not rotate though, so you might have that to look forward to. I'm not sure why they didn't enable that (so I won't just do it myself), but it's interesting to see.

Anyway, I updated it for game patch v1.3.

Modifié par FollowTheGourd, 23 juillet 2011 - 09:37 .

[Chromie]

[quote]Costin_Razvan wrote...

[/quote]

God forbid a general would expect a country to rally behind him to fight a threat that threatens to destroy the entire country.

Sorry, but whatever problems Loghain has with dealing with politics it doesn't compare to the sheer power grab the Bannorn is aiming for ( especially Eamon ). Jaques on the other hand wanted to establish his own world order or something.
[/quote]

Which threat was that? The Orlesians?

Like I said Loghain and Jaques are similar. One killed a king and dealt a huge blow to their own army and had a small scale civil war and the other was trying to take over a land because he kept seeing the his vision of that ice age. Still both thought they were in the right unlike say Letho who knew what he did was wrong and did it anyways for his own cause. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yay, Loghain debates follow us even here.

I do not agree that Loghain and Jacques are that similar. That said, both, in addition to Letho, are my favorite video game antagonists.

[Anathemic]

I don't know if this was posted before, but in CD Projekt RED's preview of the new forum, one thread title made me laugh.



"Dragon Age, The Witcher, and the rising bile in my throat"

[Chromie]

Anathemic wrote...

I don't know if this was posted before, but in CD Projekt RED's preview of the new forum, one thread title made me laugh.

*snip*

"Dragon Age, The Witcher, and the rising bile in my throat"

Yea I posted that before. Notice the lock. I expect to see A LOT of those kind of threads eventually. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Good that they have categories. Hopefully they will have a place where we can post blogs. IT would be really ironic if I had to post my blogs of the Witcher 2 here an not there.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Roche is such a bro. Going through Iorveth's path, he still helps Geralt out, despite him completely abandoning the poor guy. Iorveth seems like an enormous dick in comparison.

It's so sad my main playthrough has Roche becoming a fugitive.

[slimgrin]

It's hard to justify not helping Roche imo.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Does anyone have a save right before meeting Iorveth in Act 1? I wish to know his full line about race, which I might use as his quote in my blog (or if anyone has other suggestions, please feel free to share).

I think I found one for everyone, except Iorveth and Vernon Roche.
I could quote what Iorveth says about the Blue Stripes but it....just doesn't feel right.
What I have for now is:
Vernon Roche: "Divide Temeria? Shame on the traitors!"
Or the jurisdiction thing he says to Loredo.

Oh and I don't have one for Stennis either, but I'll check on youtube now.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 juillet 2011 - 03:58 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

slimgrin wrote...

It's hard to justify not helping Roche imo.

Exactly. Unless your Geralt does not wish to clear his name and does not wish to stay neutral; it's hard to side with the elf who tried to kill you twice, while giving you no assurances that he'll even help your quest. His first priority is providing an army for Saskia.

The only viable reason i can see someone siding with Iorveth is if they have a very opinionated Geralt whom wishes to join the elven uprising.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ok, what do you guys think of this quote for Roche?
"Bernard Loredo, the trading post commander and a traitor to Temeria. We do not let his kind live."

I found a very good one for Iorveth and Stennis, so it's only Roche I lack

[Costin_Razvan]

Like I said Loghain and Jaques are similar. One killed a king and dealt a huge blow to their own army and had a small scale civil war and the other was trying to take over a land because he kept seeing the his vision of that ice age. Still both thought they were in the right unlike say Letho who knew what he did was wrong and did it anyways for his own cause.

The major difference is that Loghain was reactive to events around him ( the Blight, Cailan being an idiot, Cailan attempting to sell out Fereldan ) while Jaques was proactive in all he did, after all he set everything in motion.

Big difference between the two.

I also disagree on the whole Letho was in the wrong thing. So he wanted to kill a few kings so he could help the Witcher school of the Viper, how is that wrong? Oh that it doesn't benefit the whole world and only just a small faction...well Jaques was also about killing elves and Loghain only cared about Fereldan.

 Ok, what do you guys think of this quote for Roche?
"Bernard Loredo, the trading post commander and a traitor to Temeria. We do not let his kind live."

I'm to find who killed the King and I will.

Or 

We'll follow the army, kill every Kaedweni we meet.

Or

Plough it all. Everything I loved died in this, my country disintegrates, my friends crueling murdered.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 24 juillet 2011 - 06:13 .

[DragonRageGT]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

It's hard to justify not helping Roche imo.

Exactly. Unless your Geralt does not wish to clear his name and does not wish to stay neutral; it's hard to side with the elf who tried to kill you twice, while giving you no assurances that he'll even help your quest. His first priority is providing an army for Saskia.

The only viable reason i can see someone siding with Iorveth is if they have a very opinionated Geralt whom wishes to join the elven uprising.

Not really. Roche kinda betrayed Geralt or at least displayed no trust in him when he sneaked up Geralt's meeting with Letho. Geralt is anything but an unconsidered sob. Leaving Yorveth unarmed in such situation is pretty low for some ethical witcher. He was not in Flotsam to hunt elves nor was Roche.

After that, it's just a matter of talking to both Yorveth and Roche before deciding. They will both hint of their plan and how they might help Geralt but will ask his commitment before revealing all. They both make sense and choosing either one leaves no stain in Geralt's ethics standard. The difference is that Roche will still be there for him if he ultimately decide for Yorveth while Yorveth will not if Geralt chooses to help Roche in Flotsam.

-----

PS.: LOL with Dandelion's notes on the new 1.3 Quest after completion!

[Costin_Razvan]

Not really. Roche kinda betrayed Geralt or at least displayed no trust in him when he sneaked up Geralt's meeting with Letho. Geralt is anything but an unconsidered sob. Leaving Yorveth unarmed in such situation is pretty low for some ethical witcher. He was not in Flotsam to hunt elves nor was Roche.

Ethics huh...lovely thing, except they don't apply to any situation Iorveth is in, period. Bring up a logical reason why anyone would help Roche in that fight, a LOGICAL one I repeat myself. If the ONLY argument someone can bring is morality/ethics/honor then that person's argument is shallow.

Perhaps you forget, but Iorveth is a mass murderer who tried to kill you TWICE. The choice to go with him at the end of Act I is perfectly justifiable, the choice to help him in that fight is not from a perfectly logical standpoint.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 24 juillet 2011 - 06:20 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

It may not be logical, but there is nothing saying that ethics cannot be applied to the unethical. Someone who is a deontologist would still seek to be "good" with no exceptions, even to "evil doers".

That said, I find deontology and moral absolutism shallow myself.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 juillet 2011 - 06:24 .

[DragonRageGT]

hmm.. I don't recall the second time. And believe me, he would have if he really wanted. Just give him a bad answer after the arachas and you'll see... just don't do it on Insane! =))

So, the discussion went from "there is NO argument" to  "if the ONLY argument is that..." ? heh Roche used Geralt. Geralt doesn't like to be used. If Roche wants to get Yorveth, then do it on his own merits!  "Here, Yorveth, have your sword again!"

Modifié par RageGT, 24 juillet 2011 - 07:58 .

[Costin_Razvan]

RageGT wrote...

hmm.. I don't recall the second time. And believe me, he would have if he really wanted. Just give him a bad answer after the arachas and you'll see... just don't do it on Insane! =))

So, the discussion went from "there is NO argument" to  "if the ONLY argument is that..." ? heh Roche used Geralt. Geralt doesn't like to be used. If Roche wants to get Yorveth, then do it on his own merits!  "Here, Yorveth, have your sword again!"

Ethics is a pathetic argument in itself, and thus it is no argument lol.

Besides how the hell does ethics come into it? Please specify. I do get it you like the Scoia'Tel but do please come up with a reason that's more "Oh lulz I sided with Yaevinn in the first game so I must side with Iorveth here"

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 24 juillet 2011 - 08:38 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

RageGT wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

It's hard to justify not helping Roche imo.

Exactly. Unless your Geralt does not wish to clear his name and does not wish to stay neutral; it's hard to side with the elf who tried to kill you twice, while giving you no assurances that he'll even help your quest. His first priority is providing an army for Saskia.

The only viable reason i can see someone siding with Iorveth is if they have a very opinionated Geralt whom wishes to join the elven uprising.

Not really. Roche kinda betrayed Geralt or at least displayed no trust in him when he sneaked up Geralt's meeting with Letho. Geralt is anything but an unconsidered sob. Leaving Yorveth unarmed in such situation is pretty low for some ethical witcher. He was not in Flotsam to hunt elves nor was Roche.

After that, it's just a matter of talking to both Yorveth and Roche before deciding. They will both hint of their plan and how they might help Geralt but will ask his commitment before revealing all. They both make sense and choosing either one leaves no stain in Geralt's ethics standard. The difference is that Roche will still be there for him if he ultimately decide for Yorveth while Yorveth will not if Geralt chooses to help Roche in Flotsam.

-----

PS.: LOL with Dandelion's notes on the new 1.3 Quest after completion!

He did not betray him, he just did not trust him fully.

And like i said, if you have an opinionated Geralt who likes to take some kind of moral high ground with his choices, then thats fine. But logically, giving Iorveth his sword, no matter how "unethical", can essentially end in Roche's death. Roche, the one man who is helping you clear your name; who's death would leave you a wanted fugitive forever.

Just ponder that. Consider the possible consequence of giving Iorveth his sword. Sure it doesn't play out that way, but it sure as hell could've.

[blothulfur]

Nice bit of dialogue at the end of the prologue Knight when you don't rust Roche immediately which lays out both his intent and the central theme of the game. Might be a bit long though.

Vern: Let me tell you a story. There was a witcher who was accused of murdering a monarch.
Geralt: Wrongly accused.
Vern: The charges against him were serious and only one man could help him.
Geralt: Let me guess - a handsome prince.
Vern: The commander of the blue stripes. Sadly, the witcher refused his help and was hanged.
Geralt: I prefer happy endings.
Vernon: Then help me, Geralt.

Modifié par blothulfur, 24 juillet 2011 - 11:42 .

[flexxdk]

A question...

Do you guys have any tips for gaining high levels in TW2? So far, I only managed to reach a level somewhere between 27 and 29 at the end of the game. And I'm convinced I can reach higher levels than that.

[Costin_Razvan]

Farm nekkers and Drowners in Act I, Rotfiends Act II, Golems Act III.

You can also Arm Wrestle for xp ( dunno if it still works with this patch though ).