13812 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

Leinadill: She has some significance in the story. Showing us clearly that the Blue Stripes don't despise non-humans, hell Ves doesn't despise the Scoia'tel either she just kills them because she is a soldier.

But truth be told you are right. What Henselt does to her, which I just felt was done for shock value so one feels righteous in killing Henselt, and what happens to her after she is found by Roche and Geralt is perhaps the most disappointing thing in the game besides W1 choice significance and the meaningless duel between Iorveth and Roche.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 06 mai 2012 - 12:47 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I'll agree that Ves received no closure, which was very disappointing.

But I do not agree that she served no purpose in the story or that she was a weak character / woman. I do not get what's so wrong about her wanting to have fun with Geralt if he took her seriously. Which to her is more important than flirting. A huge improvement over the mess in TW1. It's ok for women to want to have sex, it does not degrade them nor does it make them weak, if it's done properly, which I feel it was.

I have no problem at all with what Henselt did to her, story wise.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 mai 2012 - 01:36 .

[slimgrin]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
It's ok for women to want to have sex,  

*Gasp* NO! They are not allowed!

seriously though, I too believe she was underused, but far from being some vitimized strumpet for Geralt to f*ck.

[Sebby]

Sad thing is that EE provides more closure for Cynthia than Ves.

Modifié par Seboist, 06 mai 2012 - 02:17 .

[Addai]

Her story is just reality- rape is a part of war and always was. She doesn't break apart about it, so I also find it hard to think of her as a victim even by the end. I think she was more traumatized by seeing all of her men executed. What soldier wouldn't?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Her story is just reality- rape is a part of war and always was. She doesn't break apart about it, so I also find it hard to think of her as a victim even by the end. I think she was more traumatized by seeing all of her men executed. What soldier wouldn't?

I think she is traumatized most of all because she survived and they died. Survivor guilt.

[slimgrin]

Just battled through Vergen on Iorveth's side. I honestly can't say enough about the way this game branches. It's insane. No other developer would have devoted massive resources to an alternate path, one that many players will never experience. This is something that may never happen again in gaming.

[Sebby]

Yes, TW2 and to a lesser extent TW1 provide players with more of a reason to replay than certain other ones...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Part 3 of Politics of The Witcher 2 is up!

[Sebby]

Great analysis there knight, except for one thing, I could have sworn TW1 mentions the Order having a presence in Redania and Radovid using his troops to deal with them there.

Oh and nice use of your favorite Philippa shot.

[Savber100]

slimgrin wrote...

Just battled through Vergen on Iorveth's side. I honestly can't say enough about the way this game branches. It's insane. No other developer would have devoted massive resources to an alternate path, one that many players will never experience. This is something that may never happen again in gaming.

Wait has CDPR said that they wouldn't attempt the same for The Witcher 3? Of all we know, the Witcher 2 has only been a taste of what CDPR is willing to pull off... :happy:

Also brilliant analysis, KoP... These are the type of stuff I live for.  

Modifié par Savber100, 06 mai 2012 - 06:29 .

[Alpha-Centuri]

Savber100 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Just battled through Vergen on Iorveth's side. I honestly can't say enough about the way this game branches. It's insane. No other developer would have devoted massive resources to an alternate path, one that many players will never experience. This is something that may never happen again in gaming.

Wait has CDPR said that they wouldn't attempt the same for The Witcher 3? Of all we know, the Witcher 2 has only been a taste of what CDPR is willing to pull off... :happy:

Also brilliant analysis, KoP... These are the type of stuff I live for.  

I highly recommend The Walking Dead episode 1. If you are serious about branching narrative where choices matter, it is an ABSOLUTE must. I bought it, and it is amazing. 24.99, delivered in episodic format every 2? months i believe. The other chapters will be free to those that bought the 1st one.

[Savber100]

Alpha-Centuri wrote...

I highly recommend The Walking Dead episode 1. If you are serious about branching narrative where choices matter, it is an ABSOLUTE must. I bought it, and it is amazing. 24.99, delivered in episodic format every 2? months i believe. The other chapters will be free to those that bought the 1st one.

I have played it. The game was great but the choices were pretty underplayed. It was the standard Bioware "different dialogue for consequences" and didn't really change  up anything (e.g. Hershel's farm, attitude towards Larry). However, I'm willing to see how it plays out. Hopefully by the end, the story would have totally diverged based on your choices. 

[Alpha-Centuri]

FWIW, Shawn has to die. Herschel is an established character in the comic/show, and only he and his daughter are alive. It was more of an homage to the fans who wondered what happened to his son.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Part 3 of Politics of The Witcher 2 is up!

Good work, a fine read.

You have such a negative view of feudalism.    It varied by time and place, but feudalism could be very good for the rights of common people.  It is a Hollywood view that has nobles oppressing helpless serfs.  This did happen, but for instance in early and high medieval England, the landholders were as bound by custom and their obligations to tenants as the other way around.  It was the early modern governments with more centralized monarchies which were more oppressive of common people, as they seized ever more power from any organization that challenged their own- the monasteries, for instance, and the lay guilds that supported them.

Aedirn reminds me of medieval Switzerland, where local peasant groups banded together in order to preserve their traditional Germanic rights of the common man.  With very little in the way of a hierarchical government or military command structure, they defeated one after another of superior armies.  As you mention in your article, they did begin to form a nationalist identity out of this.

Modifié par Addai67, 06 mai 2012 - 07:09 .

[Bann Duncan]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Part 3 of Politics of The Witcher 2 is up!

Good work, a fine read.

You have such a negative view of feudalism.    It varied by time and place, but feudalism could be very good for the rights of common people.  It is a Hollywood view that has nobles oppressing helpless serfs.  This did happen, but for instance in early and high medieval England, the landholders were as bound by custom and their obligations to tenants as the other way around.  It was the early modern governments with more centralized monarchies which were more oppressive of common people, as they seized ever more power from any organization that challenged their own- the monasteries, for instance, and the lay guilds that supported them.

So true! I haven't read the quoted article since I haven't played the game and don't want to spoil it in case I do, but the oft-demonised (as a result of what effectively amounts to 18th century propaganda) medieval period was by and large a time of liberty and access to property. (It's notable that 'medievalism' as a political/social ideal
in the modern era , whether Anglo-Catholicism in the Church of England, the Arts and Crafts movement in the Victorian era or the Distributist League generally came from people of humble means.)

Concentration of property in a real sense came about after the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the enriching of certain influential families with considerable amounts of land.

           "As the civilization of the Middle Ages develops, as wealth increases and the arts progressively flourish, this character of freedom becomes more marked. In spite of attempts in time of scarcity (as after a plague) to insist upon the old rights to compulsory labor, the habit of commuting these rights for money-payments and dues has grown too strong to be resisted.

            If at the end of the fourteenth century, let us say, or at the beginning of the fifteenth, you had visited some Squire upon his estate in France or in England, he would have told you of the whole of it, “These are my lands.” But the peasant (as he now was) would have said also of his holding, “This is my land.” He could not be evicted from it. The dues which he was customarily bound to pay were but a fraction of its total produce. He could not always sell it, but it was always inheritable from father to son; and, in general, at the close of this long process of a thousand years the Slave had become a free man for all the ordinary purposes of society. He bought and sold. He saved as he willed, he invested, he built, he drained at his discretion, and if he improved the land it was to his own profit."


Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State 

Modifié par Bann Duncan, 06 mai 2012 - 08:43 .

[horacethegrey]

Replaying Iorveth's path once more, and I just wanted to share a thought. Does anyone think Prince Stennis is the stupidest character in the entire game?

In Chapter 2, the guy allies himself out of neccessity to a peasant rebellion led by Saskia the Dragonslayer in order to repel the forces of King Henselt who are encroaching upon Aedirn's borders. When the blood curse activates and the wraiths attack, Saskia saves him (with Geralt and Iorveth's help) and drags him out of the cursed mist. So how does he repay her? By hatching a secret plot to have her poisoned during the War Council, thus throwing the entire army in Vergen into chaos, at a time when they should be focusing on preparing for war.

Things turn bad for the prince when he's accused by the peasantry of poisoning Saskia and demand his head. It doesn't help when Geralt investigates the matter and finds evidence further incriminating him. When Geralt confronts him, Stennis arrogantly declares the peasants have no right to judge him since he is of the nobility, and that he'll not give any of his blood to save Saskia.

Then there's the matter when he tried to bribe Geralt while they met in private, and when the witcher calls him out on this, Stennis flat out calls him a liar. Wow.  Real smart prince. Publicly denounce the man who holds your life in your hands. Is it any wonder Geralt proclaims him guilty?

Whew. Sorry about the long post. But I think many of you will agree with me right? Prince Stennis.... what a f***ing idiot.

Modifié par horacethegrey, 06 mai 2012 - 12:21 .

[Costin_Razvan]

What evidence? The priest was the one responsible for poisoning the cup and while Stennis might have known about it he certainly didn't agree to it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Seboist wrote...

Great analysis there knight, except for one thing, I could have sworn TW1 mentions the Order having a presence in Redania and Radovid using his troops to deal with them there.

Oh and nice use of your favorite Philippa shot.

"urthermore, the author believes that Redanian intentionally refused
to grant a charter to the main commandery of the Order, thus preventing a
strong organization from planting roots within the country's borders."

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Part 3 of Politics of The Witcher 2 is up!

Good work, a fine read.

You have such a negative view of feudalism.  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie] 
It varied by time and place, but feudalism could be very good for the
rights of common people.  It is a Hollywood view that has nobles
oppressing helpless serfs.  This did happen, but for instance in early
and high medieval England, the landholders were as bound by custom and
their obligations to tenants as the other way around.  It was the early
modern governments with more centralized monarchies which were more
oppressive of common people, as they seized ever more power from any
organization that challenged their own- the monasteries, for instance,
and the lay guilds that supported them.

Yes, I am aware of that, it's just that I was not going to do in depth in analysing feudal societies (which I find irrational for mostly other reasons).

Furthermore, the North in the Witcher does not seem inspired by the Germanic model of Feudalism (which certainly was not the champion of the common man's rights either).

And I disagree that centralized monarchies were more oppressive of common people. They were oppressive yes, but generally towards the nobility. But they offered avenues of social mobility, while small yes, that were not present before. 

It's really with the advent of totalitarian idealogies that I can say that the populace was systematically repressed. But the modern state in general provided better day to day lives for most people (of course that's not the case when a war happened and turned total).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 mai 2012 - 01:54 .

[Bann Duncan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Great analysis there knight, except for one thing, I could have sworn TW1 mentions the Order having a presence in Redania and Radovid using his troops to deal with them there.

Oh and nice use of your favorite Philippa shot.

"urthermore, the author believes that Redanian intentionally refused
to grant a charter to the main commandery of the Order, thus preventing a
strong organization from planting roots within the country's borders."

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Part 3 of Politics of The Witcher 2 is up!

Good work, a fine read.

You have such a negative view of feudalism.  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie] 
It varied by time and place, but feudalism could be very good for the
rights of common people.  It is a Hollywood view that has nobles
oppressing helpless serfs.  This did happen, but for instance in early
and high medieval England, the landholders were as bound by custom and
their obligations to tenants as the other way around.  It was the early
modern governments with more centralized monarchies which were more
oppressive of common people, as they seized ever more power from any
organization that challenged their own- the monasteries, for instance,
and the lay guilds that supported them.

And I disagree that centralized monarchies were more oppressive of common people. They were oppressive yes, but generally towards the nobility. But they offered avenues of social mobility, while small yes, that were not present before. 

It's really with the advent of totalitarian idealogies that I can say that the populace was systematically repressed. But the modern state in general provided better day to day lives for most people (of course that's not the case when a war happened and turned total).

I agree with you there - it is the centralised state, which emerged out of the ashes of broken monarchies that proceeded to restrain the rights of individuals.

The English civil war is one of the best examples - where a beloved and dutiful king was cast down and murdered by the landowning classes, transferring power from kingship to the gentry who held the purse-strings. And of course the protectorate proceeded to exercise more interference in the lives of ordinary people than Charles I ever did.

[TobiTobsen]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

What evidence? The priest was the one responsible for poisoning the cup and while Stennis might have known about it he certainly didn't agree to it.

When Stennis lives Geralt calls him a poisoner, coward and schemer in the comic cutscene.

I'm not sure though if we can take that as a fact or simply as Geralts opinion.

[slimgrin]

I won't lie, the Stennis situation confused me.

[Kahlmulandr]

horacethegrey wrote...
In Chapter 2, the guy allies himself out of neccessity to a peasant rebellion led by Saskia the Dragonslayer in order to repel the forces of King Henselt who are encroaching upon Aedirn's borders. When the blood curse activates and the wraiths attack, Saskia saves him (with Geralt and Iorveth's help) and drags him out of the cursed mist. So how does he repay her? By hatching a secret plot to have her poisoned during the War Council, thus throwing the entire army in Vergen into chaos, at a time when they should be focusing on preparing for war.

He didn't come up with the idea he just made the choice to assist the poisoner. Also this was all done BEFORE he went to the meeting with King Henselt as the poisoning priest dies quite nicely in order to activate the curse. He mentions that he's there at Vergen in order to gain a reputaion so he can go back and claim his "birthright" from the bickering nobles so it makes sense that he'd want to eliminate the opposition of him leading the battle. For all we know he was hoping to use Saskia as a martyr "finding" evidence of Henselt's treachery or whatnot to incite the mass behind him.

[Kahlmulandr]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

What evidence? The priest was the one responsible for poisoning the cup and while Stennis might have known about it he certainly didn't agree to it.

You can uncover enough evidence to ascertain that he aided  the priest...heck he even admits it in the later chapter if you let him live

Modifié par Kahlmulandr, 06 mai 2012 - 04:10 .

[Addai]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

What evidence? The priest was the one responsible for poisoning the cup and while Stennis might have known about it he certainly didn't agree to it.

When Stennis lives Geralt calls him a poisoner, coward and schemer in the comic cutscene.

I'm not sure though if we can take that as a fact or simply as Geralts opinion.

I'm sure it's Geralt's opinion but in this case I agree with him.  Stennis is a tool.