Witcher (Netflix)

[TheSword]

I haven't played any of the Witcher games. By the sound of it, they're not a series that take place in chronological order (like, say, the Dragon Age games)? You don't have to have played the first two in order to understand / enjoy the third?

They are chronological and events from the first games do affect how things play out in the 3rd - Wild Hunt. However the game is very good at introducing characters in their own right. Recurring characters are introduced and established in such a way as to suggest history while still carrying the leg work of characterization in Witcher 3. I never felt like I didn’t understand who Triss Merigold or Dijkstra was.

Attempted to player Witcher 1 and 2 but to be honest they were pretty old by that point and in comparison to 3 I couldn’t get into them. Never felt a loss.

 

[MNblockhead]

I haven't played any of the Witcher games. By the sound of it, they're not a series that take place in chronological order (like, say, the Dragon Age games)? You don't have to have played the first two in order to understand / enjoy the third?

I played Witcher III without having played the first two games and without having read (or even heard of) the books and I was able to easy follow the story.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Each game tells a story that is finished at the end of the game, and the next game starts a new story that is mostly independent of the previous one.
Some characters will return, but they will be properly reintroduced. Having played the previous games or read the novels increase your familiarity with the setting, but you won't need them to understand the game.

 

[Argyle King]

I think seeing Geralt struggle to parent is interesting in so much that he seems to want to correct the mistakes of his parents so as to not watch a child turn out like he did, but then he realizes that taking care of a child comes with tough choices and responsibilities which cannot easily be solved with force or magic.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure. Just that I didn't come to the Witcherverse for the parenting and relationship advice.

I understand many of you and perhaps many female viewers love the idea of such a dangerous man yet someone that is dependable and reliable; but to me, the core idea of the Witcher is that ultimately, he's the alpha wolf.

He's just not domesticable.

He will end up doing as he pleases, with everybody else just having to take it or leave it. And, to be clear, they (meaning chiefly Yen and Triss here seeing Ciri is underage) ultimately do take it.

Obviously that's just my 2 cents.

 

[MarkB]

Sure. Just that I didn't come to the Witcherverse for the parenting and relationship advice.

I understand many of you and perhaps many female viewers love the idea of such a dangerous man yet someone that is dependable and reliable; but to me, the core idea of the Witcher is that ultimately, he's the alpha wolf.

He's just not domesticable.

He will end up doing as he pleases, with everybody else just having to take it or leave it. And, to be clear, they (meaning chiefly Yen and Triss here seeing Ciri is underage) ultimately do take it.

Obviously that's just my 2 cents.

Yeah, but that's only one way that the game can be played. For many people, what you just described isn't the Witcher they know from the game either. And they can't simultaneously portray him in every way that he can possibly be portrayed in the game, so they have to pick one.

 

[Blue]

By toning down what the games allow you do do, that is have the Witcher make selfish decisions, chase every skirt in sight, and ignore people that doesn't pay well enough, you lose the unique values that make the Witcherverse worth having.

If you haven't yet, watch the animated The Witcher: Nightmare of the Wolf. You will get plenty of that.

And also a bit of why Vesemir changed from that into a role model that Geralt seems to be emulating now.

 

[S'mon]

Just finished watching Series 2. I found it a bit underwhelming compared to #1; the BBEG arc didn't seem worth more than 2-3 episodes. There seemed to be an awful lot of sitting around talking, and not nearly as much happening as in #1. Also the Elves' sudden refusal to fight for Nilfgard seemed so suicidal it was hard to believe even such a bunch of idiots would have thought that a good idea!

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, if you're going to do political intrigue, you need a substantially more intricate and detailed world building than what most fantasy shows are willing to scrape together.

The point isn't to work harder at it. The point is to leave such plot lines to shows set in our own world, where you get a hundred times as much nuance for free.

Even Game of Thrones only got so far - it spent MUCH more effort (and money) on trying to convey the Stark Lannister civil war, and STILL ended up awfully vague and unexplained over and over again.

This show's efforts were just painfully vague and abstract, like some badly written fan fiction, which is especially sad when we consider that the show actually CAN be engaging and concrete, it actually CAN offer quality content - simply by focusing on a microcosmos (such as whatever village or manor the Witcher is visiting each week)

 

[CapnZapp]

If you haven't yet, watch the animated The Witcher: Nightmare of the Wolf. You will get plenty of that.

Animated content isn't for me. Especially "mature" fare. Tried many times. Just don't see any point in cartoon blood and nudity, I guess. It's just pixels. No stakes, no engagement.

The Disney classics are okay though, as is the best Pixar movies. They don't try to do the stuff live action shows do much better*, though.

*) when given a budget, of course. Not saying those 80's barbarian movies weren't atrocious.

I would MUCH rather have seen the animated show tackle the politics and intrigue and leave the earthy blood-spattered mature themes for the live-action show.