Because the outrage of fans who say female witchers destroy the book lore would be less than the gamers willing to buy a game that allows them to play as male or female. It's one thing to have a fixed PC, it's another to allow customizable PCs, but keep them as male only.
I'm talking about from a lore point, not marketing.
Why?
Why the first part or why the second part?
Ciri has uncommon magical aptitude. I guess if they want to play it that way, that could be the way they swing women as witchers. It would limit the prospective applicants to those with magical abilities already.
I think it would be more simple and sensible for them to just expand the lore in such a way that it allows women to become witchers the same way as men - namely, they take part in the trials and undergo the mutations. It's not an unbelievable addition, and it doesn't appear to be expressly contradicted anywhere. And if it's as simple as re kajiggering the mutagens they use to make them, I don't see why there can't be dozens of plausible ways for them to do so.
I'm talking about from a lore point, not marketing.
Ah. I don't have enough knowledge of TW universe to say. But from my own perspective, it's all magic, so why is changing one part of magic to allow female witchers any better or worse than the other liberties the games have taken in a different direction from the books?
Broadly speaking, that's probably not universally applicable, because Ciri is speshul. But I see what you're saying.
However, the handwaving (if it can even be called that) required for them to find or engineer the appropriate decoctions for women would seems like it would be minuscule. It could be as simple as "oh, it was developed/discovered at some school somewhere else."
Why the first part or why the second part?
Ciri has uncommon magical aptitude. I guess if they want to play it that way, that could be the way they swing women as witchers.
I think it would be more simple and sensible for them to just expand the lore in such a way that it allows women to become witchers the same way as men - namely, they take part in the trials and undergo the mutations. It's not an unbelievable addition, and it doesn't appear to be expressly contradicted anywhere. And if it's as simple as re kajiggering the mutagens they use to make them, I don't see why there can't be dozens of plausible ways for them to do so.
Opps, I meant the second part.
Ah. I don't have enough knowledge of TW universe to say. But from my own perspective, it's all magic, so why is changing one part of magic to allow female witchers any better or worse than the other liberties the games have taken in a different direction from the books?
The two of you seem to be forgetting one small fact. Nobody wants more Witchers, not even the current Witchers, they're a dying caste, so unless a second Conjunction of the Spheres happen there is no need for new Witchers. Even if a second Conjunction did happen, man has already conquered much of The Continent, so much so that monsters won't nearly be a huge problem as they once were.
What are the bonuses/ negatives for mutation? I am guessing something like this could be done for gaining greater access to spells and magical abilities.
Agreed. As far as lore, the evolution of the Witcher could be easily explained in some manner.
The negative is you probably don't survive it. But if you do survive it, the bonus is you basically get awesome. Like Wolverine + Jedi powers, and also James Bond apparently. You gain immunity to all disease, preternaturally heightened senses, a dramatically increased life span, and the ability to ingest potions that allow you to heal very quicky, among other things.
But the transformation comes from these mutagens, and the formula are supposedly tailored specifically to male physiology. If it's as simple as tailoring one to female physiology, then I think that's doable. It's not even a retcon.
What are the bonuses/ negatives for mutation? I am guessing something like this could be done for gaining greater access to spells and magical abilities.
Agreed. As far as lore, the evolution of the Witcher could be easily explained in some manner.
Bonuses of Mutations are:
-Enhanced Agility/Reflexes
-The ability to cast simple forms of magics or "Signs" as Witchers call them
-Increased Strength
-Increased Stamina
-The ability to control one's metabolism
-The ability to increase/decrease one's own heart rate
-The ability to consume Witcher potions without dying or greatly damaging the body
-Increased healing rate
-Enhanced smell and the ability to clearly hear over miles
-The ability to see in the dark
-Greatly increased resistances to diseases, to the point of immunity
-Cool Eyes
Negatives:
-Infertility
-Social Stigma
I think that's it, so yeah, being a Witcher is pretty dang awesome.
The two of you seem to be forgetting one small fact. Nobody wants more Witchers, not even the current Witchers, they're a dying caste, so unless a second Conjunction of the Spheres happen there is no need for new Witchers. Even if a second Conjunction did happen, man has already conquered much of The Continent, so much so that monsters won't nearly be a huge problem as they once were.
That would make the idea of a prequel or game set in a different part of the world than the Northern Kingdoms make sense, then. The time and location of where TW3 leaves off arguably doesn't need new witchers, but different locations and/or periods of time could.
Unrelated to this topic: I'm watching some of the FO4 videos, and the discussions with Preston Garvey highlight one of the unique features of TW3 compared to many RPGs. Preston tells us that he isn't in a position to rebuild the Minutemen but we can. I haven't played the game or have much context, but this just seems like another power fantasy where the PC has to fix everything for everyone, and no one else is as capable as we are.
Things like this really stretch my suspension of disbelief and annoy me. Really? The guy who was a leader of the Minutemen is not in as good a position to rebuild them as a complete stranger is? Granted, I could be missing context and details, and maybe it does make sense if I would actually, you know, play the game. In which case ignore this. But if not, I'm tired of playing the one person in the world who can fix XY and Z.
That's one of my peeves with the Inquisitor's special snowflake status with the Anchor. And one of the refreshing things about TW3. Yes, our actions end up having significant impact on the world, both politically and in stopping the White Frost, but the central story is much more personalized and is about Geralt seeking and protecting Ciri, and helping her embrace her destiny. We are an important figure, but we're not the only person who can save the world (in fact, Ciri is better able to do so), and we're not the only person in a position to help (the battle at Kaer Morhen and the sorceresses' help in Skellige prove this).
It's nice to play a game where we turn out to be inconsequential despite our actions (DA2 though I enjoy the game) and we're not the World Savior (DAO and DAI), but we still have some part to play in the greater scheme of things.
Plus the optional questline with Radovid, which has lasting implications but is in no way necessary to advance the game. Another great feature.
I really doubt that CDPR would stray too much away from the author's lore. So no, I don't think we will be seeing female witchers at all. It was bad enough that they had to do a leliana on Geralt to start TW1, but after that, they kept as close to it as possible as as the narrative requires.
I really do not mind at all. If it helps them give an amazing experience as I had as Geralt, it's not a problem for me. I mean, I've got Bioware games if I want to create a female character. And for others there's bethesda and .. rockstar?
Cyberpunk, I'm sure we could have CC, because it is such an open game. As for the witcher, I prefer they don't dilute that lore and make female witchers, specially when Sappy was already not happy about them reviving Geralt.
That would make the idea of a prequel or game set in a different part of the world than the Northern Kingdoms make sense, then. The time and location of where TW3 leaves off arguably doesn't need new witchers, but different locations and/or periods of time could.
Unrelated to this topic: I'm watching some of the FO4 videos, and the discussions with Preston Garvey highlight one of the unique features of TW3 compared to many RPGs. Preston tells us that he isn't in a position to rebuild the Minutemen but we can. I haven't played the game or have much context, but this just seems like another power fantasy where the PC has to fix everything for everyone, and no one else is as capable as we are.
Things like this really stretch my suspension of disbelief and annoy me. Really? The guy who was a leader of the Minutemen is not in as good a position to rebuild them as a complete stranger is? Granted, I could be missing context and details, and maybe it does make sense if I would actually, you know, play the game. In which case ignore this. But if not, I'm tired of playing the one person in the world who can fix XY and Z.
That's one of my peeves with the Inquisitor's special snowflake status with the Anchor. And one of the refreshing things about TW3. Yes, our actions end up having significant impact on the world, both politically and in stopping the White Frost, but the central story is much more personalized and is about Geralt seeking and protecting Ciri, and helping her embrace her destiny. We are an important figure, but we're not the only person who can save the world (in fact, Ciri is better able to do so), and we're not the only person in a position to help (the battle at Kaer Morhen and the sorceresses' help in Skellige prove this).
It's nice to play a game where we turn out to be inconsequential despite our actions (DA2 though I enjoy the game) and we're not the World Savior (DAO and DAI), but we still have some part to play in the greater scheme of things.
Plus the optional questline with Radovid, which has lasting implications but is in no way necessary to advance the game. Another great feature.
That actually makes the idea of a prequel impossible, since the games are a non-canon continuation of the books. It also wouldn't make sense if it the games took place on other parts of The Continents, Witchers weren't just a Northern Kingdoms things, they had different schools in different locations, except Zerrikania. Like you said, the way TW3 ended, the world has no need for Witchers.
Yeah, that Preston Garvey thing was completely idiotic, the reason he asks you to lead is because you helped them for no reason and that he's a soldier, not a leader. Even though the majority of Minutemen quests consists of clearing an area of hostiles then setting some defenses or killing some raiders/creatures that harass current settlements. As far as I know, you don't really make any decisions for the faction, just kill stuff for them. Why Preston can't do any of these things I do not know, if you don't have him as a follower all he does is walk around Sanctuary, doing absolutely nothing.
Yeah, that Preston Garvey thing was completely idiotic, the reason he asks you to lead is because you helped them for no reason and that he's a soldier, not a leader. Even though the majority of Minutemen quests consists of clearing an area of hostiles then setting some defenses or killing some raiders/creatures that harass current settlements. As far as I know, you don't really make any decisions for the faction, just kill stuff for them. Why Preston can't do any of these things I do not know, if you don't have him as a follower all he does is walk around Sanctuary, doing absolutely nothing.
There are a few decisions later on, but the point of the faction is that it embraces the Settlement building concept. If you are not interested in that, you really should avoid Preston Stop Giving me Radiant Quests Garvey. It is one of the things they should have polished abit more.
On-Topic for TW4, or whatever it may be called. I am not sure what it should be about or if it should be made. I guess i will think about that if it is ever announced, won't be for many years down the road
Unrelated to this topic: I'm watching some of the FO4 videos, and the discussions with Preston Garvey highlight one of the unique features of TW3 compared to many RPGs. Preston tells us that he isn't in a position to rebuild the Minutemen but we can. I haven't played the game or have much context, but this just seems like another power fantasy where the PC has to fix everything for everyone, and no one else is as capable as we are.
Things like this really stretch my suspension of disbelief and annoy me. Really? The guy who was a leader of the Minutemen is not in as good a position to rebuild them as a complete stranger is? Granted, I could be missing context and details, and maybe it does make sense if I would actually, you know, play the game. In which case ignore this. But if not, I'm tired of playing the one person in the world who can fix XY and Z.
That's one of my peeves with the Inquisitor's special snowflake status with the Anchor. And one of the refreshing things about TW3. Yes, our actions end up having significant impact on the world, both politically and in stopping the White Frost, but the central story is much more personalized and is about Geralt seeking and protecting Ciri, and helping her embrace her destiny. We are an important figure, but we're not the only person who can save the world (in fact, Ciri is better able to do so), and we're not the only person in a position to help (the battle at Kaer Morhen and the sorceresses' help in Skellige prove this).
It's nice to play a game where we turn out to be inconsequential despite our actions (DA2 though I enjoy the game) and we're not the World Savior (DAO and DAI), but we still have some part to play in the greater scheme of things.
Plus the optional questline with Radovid, which has lasting implications but is in no way necessary to advance the game. Another great feature.
I would argue that the story is a lousy fantasy not a power fantasy.
Not Preston though, I got that bug that he would refuse to talk to me except repeating "I trust you". I cannot even take him with me because there is no conversation wheel and he is neither a companion nor a settler: in short he has become a generic NPC 
Yeah there is a console "fix" but it somehow reverted him to an early copy of him and wont be giving me further quests. All I can do is to make him a pack mule. Just need to rant.
Preston is nothing compared to the main quest - which I stopped halfway because.... I simply cant bring myself to endure it...
I would argue that the story is a lousy fantasy not a power fantasy.
Not Preston though, I got that bug that he would refuse to talk to me except repeating "I trust you". I cannot even take him with me because there is no conversation wheel and he is neither a companion nor a settler: in short he has become a generic NPC
Preston is nothing compared to the main quest - which I stopped halfway because.... I simply cant bring myself to endure it...
Spoiler
Well, I've played FO3 and FONV and wasn't terribly impressed with plot, which is one reason why I'm not bothering to buy FO4. I'm also not terribly impressed with Preston's VA. He sounds like he's reading lines, and the only time in the romance vid when he showed any emotion was when the PC said they love their dead spouse, but that doesn't mean they can't love him too. Then he became creepily excited. 
Unrelated to this topic: I'm watching some of the FO4 videos, and the discussions with Preston Garvey highlight one of the unique features of TW3 compared to many RPGs. Preston tells us that he isn't in a position to rebuild the Minutemen but we can. I haven't played the game or have much context, but this just seems like another power fantasy where the PC has to fix everything for everyone, and no one else is as capable as we are.
Things like this really stretch my suspension of disbelief and annoy me. Really? The guy who was a leader of the Minutemen is not in as good a position to rebuild them as a complete stranger is? Granted, I could be missing context and details, and maybe it does make sense if I would actually, you know, play the game. In which case ignore this. But if not, I'm tired of playing the one person in the world who can fix XY and Z.
You totally hit the nail about Preston, don't worry, you aren't missing anything. I just woke up from a cryo sleep, headed home, was told to try looking in Concord, I ended up helping some folks out and bring them home and suddenly I'm fit to lead his entire organization even though I know nothing about them and quite honestly don't care to know about them. And what's even dumber is the fact that Preston never bothers to lift a finger to get the minutemen on track if you refuse. He basically just hangs out at Sanctuary patrolling. He's willing to let something he care about die because some total stranger doesn't want to get involved.
The only reason I'll even do the minutemen quests this time is to get the castle. I saw some base building castle vids that inspired me to do something with it. But after that I plan to just leave him there. I'm getting sick of watching him stroll around Sanctuary and telling me he's "got something different" for me.
Why couldnt they call it the witcher universs and have women be mages while men are witchers
Seems like mages are more powerful
Actually some most powerful "mage" or Sorcerers are man. So the determining factor is one's intelligence and skill rather than gender. As for more witcher, not matter man or women, nobody wants to become an infertile rat catcher pumped with poisons whose destiny is death by fang/claw/acid for 30 crown a head.
We agree on something! weee.
Ok glad I'm not misinterpreting or misrepresenting. I think as I get older I'm less and less enamoured of ego inflating through the PC proxy being the answer to everythingYou totally hit the nail about Preston, don't worry, you aren't missing anything. I just woke up from a cryo sleep, headed home, was told to try looking in Concord, I ended up helping some folks out and bring them home and suddenly I'm fit to lead his entire organization even though I know nothing about them and quite honestly don't care to know about them. And what's even dumber is the fact that Preston never bothers to lift a finger to get the minutemen on track if you refuse. He basically just hangs out at Sanctuary patrolling. He's willing to let something he care about die because some total stranger doesn't want to get involved.
The only reason I'll even do the minutemen quests this time is to get the castle. I saw some base building castle vids that inspired me to do something with it. But after that I plan to just leave him there. I'm getting sick of watching him stroll around Sanctuary and telling me he's "got something different" for me.
Ok glad I'm not misinterpreting or misrepresenting. I think as I get older I'm less and less enamoured of ego inflating through the PC proxy being the answer to everything
It's a problem with the whole fantasy genre. Especially high fantasy. And it's what games tap into the most. Some less than others.
I'm always on the lookout for whatever departs from this.
I don't understand though. Every other genre of literature or media doesn't make a habit of this. Even silly romantic comedies and episodes of Miami Vice are more mature. lol
My theory is that writers and developers mistake escapism through fantasy as the reader/player wanting to escape modern life and be the exact opposite of their average lives. I don't need to save the world in order to enjoy playing a fantasy game. I enjoy when fantasy can use metaphor to provide a different perspective on our lives.It's a problem with the whole fantasy genre. Especially high fantasy. And it's what games tap into the most. Some less than others.
I'm always on the lookout for whatever departs from this.
I don't understand though. Every other genre of literature or media doesn't make a habit of this. Even silly romantic comedies and episodes of Miami Vice are more mature. lol
My theory is that writers and developers mistake escapism through fantasy as the reader/player wanting to escape modern life and be the exact opposite of their average lives. I don't need to save the world in order to enjoy playing a fantasy game. I enjoy when fantasy can use metaphor to provide a different perspective on our lives.
It's a big mistake. And a bit insulting. I'm not THAT pathetic... and the fact that they think I am annoys me. 
I just want what I get out of every other story. Drama.
It can be epic too, but it doesn't need to be so overblown. The progenitor of epic stories is Homer. And his stories didn't need to do that either. I mean, the Odyssey is basically just about a trip home. No saving the world.. I think some people could still learn from him. But there are plenty of good stories too. It's just a little harder to find games specifically. I would say the Walking Dead hits the spot, for example.
I find it mind boggling how much high quality art the studio produces, just for the hell of it.
I find it mind boggling how much high quality art the studio produces, just for the hell of it.
I find it mind boggling how much high quality art the studio produces, just for the hell of it.
Ah....good to see the official version of that - I'd only seen this one and for some reason thought it was the actual image.
Retour en haut
