Geralt's accomplishments - Books vs games *TW TRILOGY AND BOOK SPOILERS*

[MaxItOut]

Bah, that was just constructed by CDPR!

:ice:

Definitly But this does change nothing in regard of the truth behind this argument ^^

At least one could say thhe same about Sapkowski.

I really do understand that book fans gonna always be pro-book and against the games.
I played the first two games and only after that I read the books and now playing Witcher 3 (not finished yet, cruising around Skellige, what is this ... around 50% ?)

For me it turns out, that I do like the changes made to Geralt and other characters in the game, I like the Geralt from the game more than from the books ... maybe just because I played the games before reading the books.

 

[Charcharo]

Vilgefortz had to be cheating with magic

That is why I think he was one of the few REAL battle mages

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I do like the changes made to Geralt and other characters in the game, I like the Geralt from the game more than from the books ...

I'm curious: which changes do you mean?

 

[Smurfin]

I just read about Andrzej Sapkowski and he doesn't like video games at all, the trilogy of the game series is purely free adaptation by CDPR. He made it very clear that if you want originality, you can only get it from the book. What is Geralt like in the books ?

Quick questions :
- How old is Geralt in the latest book , and how old is Geralt in The Witcher 3 ?
- Is there any TW game characters that's totally new and not from the book ? I just checked it here http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Characters_in_the_novels , and seems every character in the game is from the book. cmiiw. (probably Eskel ? or are there more ?)

 

[dzbrown]

I just read about Andrzej Sapkowski and he doesn't like video games at all, the trilogy of the game series is purely free adaptation by CDPR. He made it very clear that if you want originality, you can only get it from the book. What is Geralt like in the books ?

Quick questions :
- How old is Geralt in the latest book , and how old is Geralt in The Witcher 3 ?
- Is there any TW game characters that's totally new and not from the book ? I just checked it here http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Characters_in_the_novels , and seems every character in the game is from the book. cmiiw. (probably Eskel ? or are there more ?)

He's just a luddite, I wouldn't take it personally...a lot of the older sci-fi/fantasy authors are similar in this respect. It doesn't mean they hate games, but the idea that a game could somehow live up to a fully fleshed out narrative that completely focuses on character development and plot being replicated in a game where most of it is filled with combat, organizing your inventory, and other "game-like" elements seems preposterous. I love gaming, but in a certain respect you can't really disagree with people that share these sentiments.

 

[Smurfin]

Yeah totally make sense, games have their own game-y stuffs lol.

 

[sidv88]

He's just a luddite, I wouldn't take it personally...a lot of the older sci-fi/fantasy authors are similar in this respect. It doesn't mean they hate games, but the idea that a game could somehow live up to a fully fleshed out narrative that completely focuses on character development and plot being replicated in a game where most of it is filled with combat, organizing your inventory, and other "game-like" elements seems preposterous. I love gaming, but in a certain respect you can't really disagree with people that share these sentiments.

Not all authors are like that though. I believe Ray Bradbury contributed to a video game sequel to his novel "Fahrenheit 451" back in the 1980s. There is also a very old 1980s computer game that most wouldn't have heard of, "Below the Root", that was a sequel to Zilpha Keatley Snyder's "Green-Sky Trilogy" of novels. Ms. Snyder was a part of the development of the game and personally considered it a canonical sequel to her books.

I think the author Raymond E. Feist went out of his way to fit the "Betrayal at Krondor" games into his book canon.

It makes one wonder what could have been if Mr. Sapkowski had a different opinion on games and contributed to the game trilogy.

 

[saricc]

Not all authors are like that though. I believe Ray Bradbury contributed to a video game sequel to his novel "Fahrenheit 451" back in the 1980s. There is also a very old 1980s computer game that most wouldn't have heard of, "Below the Root", that was a sequel to Zilpha Keatley Snyder's "Green-Sky Trilogy" of novels. Ms. Snyder was a part of the development of the game and personally considered it a canonical sequel to her books.

I think the author Raymond E. Feist went out of his way to fit the "Betrayal at Krondor" games into his book canon.

It makes one wonder what could have been if Mr. Sapkowski had a different opinion on games and contributed to the game trilogy.

He actually helped CD Projekt out with the first game apparently.

At the end of the day I don't think he really has anything against games. Like dzbrown said, he just doesn't think they can tell a story as good or equal to that of a good book. I have to say that I agree with him on this. Books are the best media for storytelling, no matter which way you look at it.

I think at the start of the short stories Geralt is something like twenty two years younger? They start before Ciri was born so it's gotta be close. As for new characters in the games? Yeah. There's a bunch, too much to name tbh.

You should give the books a try, Smurfin. They're pretty damn great (english translations are pretty bad though, sadly.)

 

[Scholdarr.452]

He's just a luddite, I wouldn't take it personally...a lot of the older sci-fi/fantasy authors are similar in this respect. It doesn't mean they hate games, but the idea that a game could somehow live up to a fully fleshed out narrative that completely focuses on character development and plot being replicated in a game where most of it is filled with combat, organizing your inventory, and other "game-like" elements seems preposterous. I love gaming, but in a certain respect you can't really disagree with people that share these sentiments.

Of course a game can't live up to a novel in terms of storytelling. That is impossible by the very nature of the mediums.

Games have their own strengths. But one shouldn't be surprised that an author of novels doesn't want a game to continue their stories...

 

[dzbrown]

Of course a game can't live up to a novel in terms of storytelling. That is impossible by the very nature of the mediums.

Games have their own strengths. But one shouldn't be surprised that an author of novels doesn't want a game to continue their stories...

I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I disagree with Sapkowski. On the contrary, I agree with him wholeheartedly. I like the gaming medium due to its ability to allow interaction and immersion in a world, just as film is a good medium for observing physical expression and feeling, but nothing trumps a book on plot, character development, general description and depth. In games we have combat, inventory management, quests, and other filler that, while it offers immersion and interaction, it, by its very nature, minimizes depth for the sake of fun. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but I think someone would have a really hard time arguing that a game can surpass the book it was based on in terms of depth, intricacy, character development, plot, or any other narrative device for that matter.

Sometimes when you are reading a book, you have this tangential imagining of being in the world you are reading about, wishing you could alter or shape events that trouble you or even just to be able to participate in them. I think this is where the gaming medium shines, it allows someone to scratch that itch.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I think another often neglected strength of the novel is the theoretical "purity of its vision". A novel is usually written by exactly one person. If the author is talented the whole work is consistent and pure, without any compromise to be made. There are almost no external requirements to the story. It's a much more "pure and honest" work of art than a video game or a movie (especially the blockbuster/big budget ones).

A big video game or movie is always a collaborate work, a natural compromise of many internal and external aspects and the shared vision of quite a few people. With a big budget for making it happen you also have a strong commercial aspect to the creation that can dictate many elements of the creative vision. A novel is fundamentally different to that. Even the most epic sagas only require one person with an incredibly small budget in comparison. Of course there are authors who want their novels to sell but that's still a whole lot different to the commercial requirements of big video games or movies.

Of course there can be "bad" novels but by its very nature the novel or better "the written word" is still the best medium to tell stories by far, especially if there is some scale to it. A small indie game or movie could follow similar rules and less dependence from commercial requirements but the scale and scope of these works are quite limited. That isn't true for novels. While the requirement to make compromises and appeal to market democracies rises expontentionally with the scope of video games and movies they stay very much the same for novels. There are still almost no compromises to the creative vision to be made (at least if you find a publisher that doesn't suck...)

 

[Folkrom]

The first two games actually make a point of showing Geralt get defeated by his opponents at first, only to later overcome and kill them (Although this is optional in the second game). He is initially unable to beat Azar Javed and the Professor in the swamps, and Letho defeats him in Flotsam when they first fight. In this sense, the first two games are quite similar to the books.

actually you do beat them, but then they pull off the cliched bad guy move on you to escape so while he is "defeated", he doesnt get the snot beaten out of him like with vilgefortz in the books which is what i was talking of