GameBanshee Forums

This thread is a continuation of discussion started in another thread.

Xandax wrote:

Realism in a game is never full or complete, realism is not fun in a game - well not complete realism.
Thus simply because one factor is realistic inspired does not mean everything else is should be "realism". That is pretty clear as we run around slaying monsters with big weapons etc.
Besides, as you say yourself the inventory is not realistic, it is simply "more" realistic compared to say - NwN for example, or Kotor or Oblivion from what I recall etc.
The world is also more realistic, due to all the "evils" of the gameworld isn't filtered out as it is in so many other games and it isn't black and white, it that does not mean it is completely realistic and that the entire game is a realism simulator.
Realism, like all other things implemented in a computer game runs on a scale. And expecting actual realism in the behaviour and attitude in the depicting of fictive people's behaviour towards a fictive mutant which women find fascinating and interesting, is quite different then a more realistic compared to many other game approach to inventory.

We are in agreement -- realism is not fun.

Inventory is not about realism, it is about convenience. I don't expect inventory to be overly realistic: I expect a good interface. If I have a hard time browsing through my inventory without a microscope, there is a problem. Weight is not an issue in this game (unrealistic too), so why carrying around multiple mugs of beer (probably stale ) and bottles of vodka, along with tons of other junk in a small pouch is suddenly more realistic than, say, carrying ten weapons for sale? And is it realistic not to be able to transfer, at least temporarily, a few items into a nearby chest?
I am quite satisfied that Geralt does not find boots of strength +10 in every other crate. But the treasure-hunting packrat inside me screams in protest when Geralt has to leave so much loot behind - all those weapons strewn about on the ground.

As to "the behavior and attitude", they are important parts of role-playing, imo. It is essential that behavior and attitude are believable, regardless. There is an example of incredible situation and irrational behavior, below.
Spoiler:

Spoiler

Geralt is invited to a “posh party” attended by princess Adda herself. Snooty nobles and wealthy merchants are giddy with happiness: they have a chance to see the princess. They can't believe their luck. And neither can I: the party is held in a tavern -- a strange place to entertain a princess. Oh well, let’s assume it is a 5 star tavern. Anyway, what is Geralt doing, besides talking non-interactively to important figures and stealing food, booze and documents? He is promptly getting completely drunk (stumbling around and having double-vision), which by no means prevents him from having casual sex with Adda who is practically dragging him into “her alcove", in the middle of the party. Needless to say, nobody pays a slightest attention, including Geralt's girlfriend Triss, an ambitious sorceress who can "read minds and conjure orgasms" but fails to notice this little incident.

I enjoyed the whole bizarre episode immensely, thanks to my twisted sense of humor.

My other peeve is the term “modern fantasy”. I have a problem digesting an eclectic mixture of traditional medieval fare and modern ideas. I realize that this is Sapkowski world but, to me, all references to racism, ecology and genetic research feel totally out of place in the world inhabited by elves and kikimores. Monsters and magic are much more natural and realistic in a fantasy game than “genetic research” and ecology (after deforestation caused by lumberjacks in chapter 3, should I anticipate a “global warming” in chapter 4?).
It reminds me of A Knight Tale movie. (I lost interest and stopped watching as 14 century rodeo aka jousting tournament commenced but a lot of folks apparently liked it). At least that was a comedy. The Witcher is damn serious most of the time. Does anybody else think that a fantasy would be better off without modern ideology? More real, so to speak?

I like The Witcher's moral ambiguity, but do you think the choices seem "difficult" due to this ambiguity, or due to something else?

Even the D&D world have "modern" ideas, and is polished to fit into our modern day lives understanding.
That is the liberty authors and creators have.

We are in agreement -- realism is not fun.

Realism is cool but if the game were about laundry and doing the dishes etc it wouldn't be fun but in my life that would be realism. I don't mind that he can't pick up 10 axes because I really don't need to. I've only found 1 expensive item and I am 1750 gold away from it in the beginning of chapter 3 and I think once I sell some crap I can buy it! I kind of like how geralt does have some items that boost him (sharpening, oils, potions, bombs, reforged swords) but it is not as much stuff as in the D n D universe where you have to have +5 mithril fullplate dodge boots +5 ring of deflection +5 etc although I like the DnD world too

Inventory is not about realism, it is about convenience. I don't expect inventory to be overly realistic: I expect a good interface. If I have a hard time browsing through my inventory without a microscope, there is a problem. Weight is not an issue in this game (unrealistic too), so why carrying around multiple mugs of beer (probably stale ) and bottles of vodka, along with tons of other junk in a small pouch is suddenly more realistic than, say, carrying ten weapons for sale? And is it realistic not to be able to transfer, at least temporarily, a few items into a nearby chest?

Yeah its kind of a selective realism at best. No you can't carry around 30 beers in a satchel (without spilling :laugh . I don't take witcher sooo seriously that I'm like oh its oh so realistic.

I am quite satisfied that Geralt does not find boots of strength +10 in every other crate. But the treasure-hunting packrat inside me screams in protest when Geralt has to leave so much loot behind - all those weapons strewn about on the ground.

Like I said you really don't have much need for gold. If you really want a lot of gold play poker. I seem to win 90% of the time. You don't need anything but the witcher swords for most monsters. And an appropriate potion/oil/bomb for tough fights.

As to "the behavior and attitude", they are important parts of role-playing, imo. It is essential that behavior and attitude are believable, regardless. There is an example of incredible situation and irrational behavior, below.
Spoiler: Geralt is invited to a “posh party” attended by princess Adda herself. Snooty nobles and wealthy merchants are giddy with happiness: they have a chance to see the princess. They can't believe their luck. And neither can I: the party is held in a tavern -- a strange place to entertain a princess. Oh well, let’s assume it is a 5 star tavern. Anyway, what is Geralt doing, besides talking non-interactively to important figures and stealing food, booze and documents? He is promptly getting completely drunk (stumbling around and having double-vision), which by no means prevents him from having casual sex with Adda who is practically dragging him into “her alcove", in the middle of the party. Needless to say, nobody pays a slightest attention, including Geralt's girlfriend Triss, an ambitious sorceress who can "read minds and conjure orgasms" but fails to notice this little incident.

I enjoyed the whole bizarre episode immensely, thanks to my twisted sense of humor.

I enjoyed the princess talking about how much she wanted meat This was absurd I agree.

My other peeve is the term “modern fantasy”. I have a problem digesting an eclectic mixture of traditional medieval fare and modern ideas. I realize that this is Sapkowski world but, to me, all references to racism, ecology and genetic research feel totally out of place in the world inhabited by elves and kikimores. Monsters and magic are much more natural and realistic in a fantasy game than “genetic research” and ecology (after deforestation caused by lumberjacks in chapter 3, should I anticipate a “global warming” in chapter 4?).
It reminds me of A Knight Tale movie. (I lost interest and stopped watching as 14 century rodeo aka jousting tournament commenced but a lot of folks apparently liked it). At least that was a comedy. The Witcher is damn serious most of the time. Does anybody else think that a fantasy would be better off without modern ideology? More real, so to speak?

I don't think it makes any difference. There have been other game worlds combining magic and science. I think Sword of Shanara is an example though I never got far enough to figure out what the ancient appocolyptic world was like.

I like The Witcher's moral ambiguity, but do you think the choices seem "difficult" due to this ambiguity, or due to something else?

Spoiler - I thought it was interesting for example I didn't like supporting abigail because she profited from others misfortune but I did want to defend her from lynching. I didn't want to help the elves get their crates because that is stealing which would only harm them. But then I thought of those suffering because they needed medicine.

As far as inventories go, I think the less realism the better. I understand the natural inclination of game makers and writers to want to make things more realistic, and I've thought about this in regard to others games, but I can't think of any advantage of making things more real when deciding what you can carry. The ultimate goal of any game is fun, and is it really any less fun if you can carry as much as you want?
I have the same problem as Lady D; it bothers me when I have to leave all those weapons lying on the ground. If they didn't disappear when you entered a new area, I'd probably go back and collect them all to sell one by one. I have a problem, I should probably seek help...

As for modernity, I think there are a few things to consider. I have the same instincts as you Lady D; when I hear references or language that sounds modern to me in a medievil world I, too, find it annoying and out of place. But I often find that my instincts in this area are somewhat off; I think there are some issues which we tend to assume are modern but are in fact not.
Language is a good example, someone mentioned on the other thread that it sounds stupid to hear people saying **** and **** in a medievil world, because we think of these words as modern. As that poster said, they're actually not.
I think this perception probably comes from the fact that the medievil stories we're used to seeing are things like Robin Hood and Shakespeare, and other stories that are not only set a long time ago but were written a long time ago, when conventions were such that language and other issues were sanitised. So we have a false impression of the way things were in these times.
Similarly, because we are now oh-so-enlightened, we tend to think any kind of liberal thought is a recent invention. To be sure in many ways our current societies are far more liberal and sophisticated than in times gone by in respect to issues of sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination. But it is another mistake we make to assume that people were completely unaware of these ideas in ancient times. Many times historical sources of information from hundreds of years ago have surprised me when I hear people talking about the evils of slavery or the way women are treated. There have always been thinkers, and always some awareness of these issues (most of them, anyway), it's simply that compared to the present day world these ideas were rare and unpopular back then, and so rarely make it into our caricature views of those times. People were even surprisingly aware of environmental issues, way back in the times of ancient Greece.

Despite having said all of that, I actually agree with you again, Lady D, about the issue of racism in the game The way people talk about the differences and conflicts between non-humans and humans seems most un-medievil to me.

Finally, with respect to technology, I think it's fair to assume a world with magic may not be quite what we instinctively expect. Firstly because magic itself may yield information and methods that can take the place of technological tools when it comes to gaining scientific information. In our world we didn't know about genetics until we learned to build microscopes and analyse blood samples etc. But magic could conceivably be used to discern the same information. Similarly, because magic may fill the role of technological tools, it may be unnecessary for society to develop these tools. We could perhaps think of the world of the Witcher not as a medievil version of our own, but as a world more advanced technologically, perhaps even on par with our current world in some respects. The reason they don't have our tools is that magic has found other ways to solve the problems these tools were invented to deal with, thus making them redundant.

Of course there's the argument to be made that even if all that is true it's still unsatisfying to see these things in a game world. The thread is about the pros and cons of realism, after all.

You're all thinking I'm the world's biggest geek with way too much time on my hands, aren't you? Well maybe so, but one small thing I will say in my defence is that I've thought about all these issues alot before because I'm kind of writing a (sort of) fantasy novel. So I didn't come up with these ideas just for this post. Whether that's more or less geeky I don't know...

@Jurosementalistile

when I hear references or language that sounds modern to me in a medievil world I, too, find it annoying and out of place. But I often find that my instincts in this area are somewhat off; I think there are some issues which we tend to assume are modern but are in fact not.
Language is a good example, someone mentioned on the other thread that it sounds stupid to hear people saying **** and **** in a medievil world, because we think of these words as modern. As that poster said, they're actually not.
I think this perception probably comes from the fact that the medievil stories we're used to seeing are things like Robin Hood and Shakespeare, and other stories that are not only set a long time ago but were written a long time ago, when conventions were such that language and other issues were sanitised. So we have a false impression of the way things were in these times.

I like the word "polished" Xandax used. After all, it all boils down to how things are implemented. If done professionally and in good taste, medieval and modern themes can be probably blended together more smoothly. Indeed, a lot depends on the proper language. Not that I advocate liberal use of archaisms – it usually feels too artificial and forced (could be fun to come across name “Chaucer” in the credits though ). On the other hand, liberal use of modern terminology and slang is utterly ridiculous, unless comical effect is strongly desired.

It reminds me of “adrenalin pumping”, a cliché abused by R. A. Salvatore. Isn’t that laughable to read something like, “Drizzt somersaulted, his adrenalin pumping”? Why use such out of place modern reference to hormones when there are plenty of other, more suitable words to describe an agitated state? My point - it is not about tradition vs. innovation; it is about style and common sense vs. unpolished, full of anachronisms script written and translated by amateurs.
Common sense is a very important factor. Dwarves in a fantasy game are believable as long as they keep tinkering and don't discuss “cognitive dissonance” too often.

(Btw, I disagree that language of medieval literature was sanitized. Quite the opposite.)

Finally, with respect to technology, I think it's fair to assume a world with magic may not be quite what we instinctively expect. Firstly because magic itself may yield information and methods that can take the place of technological tools when it comes to gaining scientific information. In our world we didn't know about genetics until we learned to build microscopes and analyse blood samples etc. But magic could conceivably be used to discern the same information. Similarly, because magic may fill the role of technological tools, it may be unnecessary for society to develop these tools. We could perhaps think of the world of the Witcher not as a medievil version of our own, but as a world more advanced technologically, perhaps even on par with our current world in some respects. The reason they don't have our tools is that magic has found other ways to solve the problems these tools were invented to deal with, thus making them redundant.

“Technology” is used in many games, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. In Might in Magic series we had “ancient weapons” (total disaster, if you ask me). If memory serves, Dungeon Siege had something like machine guns as well, to the same disastrous effect. The “ancient Netheril” robots didn’t look too much outlandish, just a tad funny. I personally prefer gnomish technological marvels.

Magic can be used as a technological tool, of course. But magical experiments should not be called “genetic research”. We are back to "adrenalin pumping”. In a pseudo-medieval fantasy game, “adrenalin pumping” is a weird choice of words, while Fantabulous Contrapulator, for example, sounds about right.
When I see words “witcher” and “genetic mutation” in one sentence, my adrenalin is pumping like there is no tomorrow.

@Claudius
I don’t mind moral ambiguity, difficult choices with remote consequences or a huge shift from heroic to mundane – as a matter of fact, I love it, unless mundane takes on heroic proportions (e.g. excessive drinking and womanizing for the sake of excessive drinking and womanizing) or neutrality means killing everybody indiscriminately. A good example of the latter is the exotic “Blue eyes” quest (which should’ve been called the “Blue Dress”, for only the girl's dress was blue).
I replayed it a few times to explore different outcomes - it was hilarious.
SPOILER:

Spoiler

Geralt’s prudent choice to stay away (and to engage in his favorite activity instead – casual sex – this time with several vampiresses simultaneously) resulted in massacre. So much for neutrality.

Jurosementalistile wrote: Despite having said all of that, I actually agree with you again, Lady D, about the issue of racism in the game The way people talk about the differences and conflicts between non-humans and humans seems most un-medievil to me.

Not exactly. If you read some books or watch movies or play games with a medieval fantasy theme, there are some prejudices among each of the different races. Take for example the Lord of the Rings (both movie and book). One of the members, Gimli (a dwarf), dislikes elves very much. In Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne, there is this arrogant human commander that looks down on people of dwarven and elven origin. So, racism in the Witcher didn't come as a surprise to me.

DesR85 wrote:Not exactly. If you read some books or watch movies or play games with a medieval fantasy theme, there are some prejudices among each of the different races. Take for example the Lord of the Rings (both movie and book). One of the members, Gimli (a dwarf), dislikes elves very much. In Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne, there is this arrogant human commander that looks down on people of dwarven and elven origin. So, racism in the Witcher didn't come as a surprise to me.

Yeah, but I think it's the way it's implemented that is wrong. I think just about every theme in The Witcher is legitimate and could be used, it's just how the developers used them that doesn't work.

I really believe that the dialog is what breaks this game. I just can't get past it...

phelot43 wrote: I really believe that the dialog is what breaks this game. I just can't get past it...

Find the dialogue somewhat odd at certain times. Starting to wonder who is in charge of the translation and localisation.

DesR85 wrote:Not exactly. If you read some books or watch movies or play games with a medieval fantasy theme, there are some prejudices among each of the different races. Take for example the Lord of the Rings (both movie and book). One of the members, Gimli (a dwarf), dislikes elves very much. In Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne, there is this arrogant human commander that looks down on people of dwarven and elven origin. So, racism in the Witcher didn't come as a surprise to me.

First of all, you're quoting other sources of fantasy literature. Just because other sources do it doesn't mean it's not stupid or unrealistic. Secondly, like Phelot and Lady D said, it's the implementation. I'm not saying it's stupid that there is racism in the game; of course there's going to be racism against non-humans. We manage to hate people for things as trivial as the colour of their skin and sexual orientation. If we can't get over those things, dwarves and elves are gonna have a rough time.

I shouldn't have said that medievil writings were sanitised; of coruse you're right Lady D, that's not true. What I meant was those writings that we tend to hear most often, as well as modern writings set in medievil times, tend not to contain the swear words which we consider modern, even though some of them were around back then.

I personally don't see genetic research or mutation as anachronistic issues, given the concessions we're both willing to make to a world with magic. The basics of genetics are actually pretty simple. You could even call the selective breeding of animals that went on for thousands of years before "real" science turned up a crude form of genetic manipulation. It doesn't have to mean anything so sophisticated as resequencing DNA, it could simply be experiments with mixing blood and/or semen samples and throwing in a little hocus pocus. Mutation is also a concept that medievil thinkers could have had access to.

It doesn't seem a stretch to me that they could know what adreneline is either, but don't get me started on R. A. Salvatore; that guy's a joke I was stuck in a country where they don't speak English, so only had access to the bools in the very small English language section of the library, and so found his Dark Elves collection, four books in one. I'm honestly amazed that anyone judged any of those books to be worthy of publication. Aside from the ridiculously childish and cliched characterisation, and the repeatitive, ugly language he used to describe things, it looked like it hadn't even been proof read! There were spelling errors, sentences that were partially or fully repeated or just made no sense, and numerous other mistakes throughout. No wonder he turns out so many books, I don't think he (or his publisher) stops to read anything he's written before sending it to the press

I think difficult moral choices and "grey areas" are a great idea in theory for a video game, but they're very difficult to implement well. The fact is the game has to give straightforward, black and white consequences for your actions. So the problem is writing the dialogue and options so that everybody can agree that the results fit your actions, and also be satisfied with the options you're given.
How many times have you been in an RPG and given a list of dialogue options and thought "Aww, I don't want to say any of those things"? Sometimes you're given no choice but to be either excessively goody-goody or start a fight. One thing that often annoys me is when you have to kiss-arse to take the friendly option; you can't just agree to something, you have to say something like "Yes sir, as you command sir."
Now that's getting slightly off-track, but there are often consequences for game morality too. How often have you been in a game and wanted to take a certain act, maybe to help someone, but known that the game won't recognise it? Or wondered what the consequences will be? I often find I want to take an act that falls into a "grey area" but the game designers clearly had a different idea about right and wrong in a given situation.

This last part isn't really relevant but if you're not bored with reading my posts yet:
I'm one of those weirdos who wants to help everyone I meet, and gets annoyed when the game won't let me. I always gave the beggars money in BG2, and wished the game would recognise the act somehow. And in witcher I want to do the same. There are all these "Poor girl"s and boys and men and women walking around, and I want to give them some money, but it won't let me.
Very minor SPOILER following: (I hope I choose the right colour text)
In the chapter II Inn, the waitress jokingly suggests going to a comfortable bed in the back. If you ask her about it she says she was joking, and tells you that her husband beats her. It bothered me that there's nothing you can do about this. Of course in real life it would be very difficult to get involved, but why include a woman getting beaten in a game if you can't do anything about it?

(Btw, I disagree that language of medieval literature was sanitized. Quite the opposite.)

As LD noted. Until the 17th century, much European culture was noted for its frank vulgarity, and that includes the courts of high chivalry. Alongside the French epics of King Arthur, for example, have survived books of absolutely filthy jokes that were read in the same gatherings, often by the same entertainers of different stations: I've read a few translations myself, and some are clearly the direct ancestors of what in English are the scatalogical, pornographic series called "the traveling salesman and the farmer's daughter."

Quite recently I was listening to a fascinating group of a capella classical pieces, collectively entitled "The Cries of London," and all published around 1605-1615. For some reason a real craze developed by these works among the middle and upper classes, literally reproducing all the merchant advertising cries and other content you could hear at the busiest intersections of London at that time, in their exact sung cadences. Among the texts repeated by the various excellent composers as being commonly heard was this bit of delightful nonsense:

"Oyez! If any man or woman, city or country that can tell any tidings of a black mare with a white tail having but three legs and both her eyes out, with a great hole in her arse and there your snout!"

Or consider the magnificent galleon captured by the English when the Spanish Armada foundered off their coast: it was popularly nicknamed Cacafuego and referred to as such throughout the land. Translate it yourself, since the filter will catch me.

Dozens more like this still exist, despite the best attempts by moralists in later ages to remove all trace of their ancestors' racy thoughts.

Genetic research sounds strange unless they have a theory on what a gene is. When did we start using that word? When Mendel did experiments with peas or beans or whatever or was it when we identified chromosomes etc with a microscope?

Anyhow I came across a dialogue option where Kalkstein says he has a theory that the world is composed of things smaller than the eye can see which are constantly moving and acting on each other.

Jurosementalistile wrote: I think difficult moral choices and "grey areas" are a great idea in theory for a video game, but they're very difficult to implement well. The fact is the game has to give straightforward, black and white consequences for your actions. So the problem is writing the dialogue and options so that everybody can agree that the results fit your actions, and also be satisfied with the options you're given.
How many times have you been in an RPG and given a list of dialogue options and thought "Aww, I don't want to say any of those things"? Sometimes you're given no choice but to be either excessively goody-goody or start a fight. One thing that often annoys me is when you have to kiss-arse to take the friendly option; you can't just agree to something, you have to say something like "Yes sir, as you command sir."

Yeah, I find this to be annoying as well. The most options I've seen so far (unless I'm forgetting) when making a decision in The Witcher is two. Even asking questions seem to be limited. This may be due to space/time restraints since every bit of dialog is voice acted, but still, I would prefer to have silenced subtitles with added text as opposed to these limits...

Claudius wrote: Anyhow I came across a dialogue option where Kalkstein says he has a theory that the world is composed of things smaller than the eye can see which are constantly moving and acting on each other.

That theory was created by Democritus of Abdera in IV century BCE.


Too much realism can ruin the game. Do you remember Robinson’s Requiem? Diseases, broken bones, performing leg amputation during combat . Finding balance between realism and simplification is very difficult. And you can’t satisfy everyone. There will always be someone who will not like the way some things were done.

When comparing our world with Witcher’s world, I think the Renaissance would be closer to it. Science is starting to develop, common people have access to universities, first manufactures are starting to appear. And Kalkstein has something da Vinci’s about him . And I think it could be even more advanced than we realise. Wizards may slow down progress because of fear being obsolete. You can hear a tale of Alfred Nable in game. Who would need an overpaid wizard on the battlefield than?

cielaqu wrote: When comparing our world with Witcher’s world, I think the Renaissance would be closer to it. Science is starting to develop, common people have access to universities, first manufactures are starting to appear. And Kalkstein has something da Vinci’s about him .

Yeah, da Vinchi, his famous code, and the amusing story of St. Lebioda, Bronze Dan and the Holy Grail told by a hermit.

Too much realism can ruin a game but too little can also ruin a game. I like a happy balance. Same with movies. If I don't find them logical or realistic I don't tend to like them. Even with Fantasy titles there needs to be a certain amount of logic. Silliness is just annoying to me.

Then again you can get paradox's. Some movies may be considered unrealistic to some and realistic to others depending on what they are about of course. The Da Vinci Code is a movie some people find ridiculous as their beliefs force them to. I personally despise religion in all it's forms but I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code (the movie and the book). One of those things you can't prove one way ot the other so it was neither realistic or ridiculous.

I didn’t know Kalkstein had some code. Maybe in add-on we will see him painting St. Lebioda’s dinner . I think Easter Eggs thread would be very popular. Of course with notes about language version.
I find Geralt’s iron sword a bit unrealistic. I would like to see someone thrusting and swinging with such a heavy blade as fast as he is. In one of the stories there is a description of both his swords. They are less … impressive . But I like some people comments: You have a big sword, but my husband has a bigger one.

cielaqu wrote:I didn’t know Kalkstein had some code. Maybe in add-on we will see him painting St. Lebioda’s dinner .

Kalkstein did not have any code. I was referring to that hermit in ch 4 who was describing the "three main theories" concerning the Holy Grail (classical, conspiracy, and mystical-philosophical, if I remember correctly). According to the hermit, Bronze Dan was a famous proponent of "the conspiracy theory" featuring St. Lebioda.
btw, did anybody try to discuss the Quest for Holy Grail with the Lady of the Lake?