this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
387 points (96.4% liked)
Games
32953 readers
1240 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As if anyone expected to play as any other character than Ciri.
I hoped for a witcher (whichever gender) from one of the other schools, tbh
I kind of hoped for a custom character like V
So did I, but I mean, given the current game development climate, Ciri was an extremely predictable pick.
Not only is Ciri a woman, which modern games seem to be making super majority of main protagonists these days, but she also has market familiarity. Her character is recognizable and therefore has a builtin audience, where a new character does not.
If women make up around 50% of the people on earth, shouldn't they make up around 50% of the main characters?
I think that wanting equality over men/women % of MC is not something you would want to focus on I would rather have a quality story and universe whatever of the gender of the MC.
( I will clarify my point , I am an human therefore I am for gender equality obviously but I don't think that this metric is the most interesting )
I completely agree that the quality of the story is kinda the whole point, but I am tired of seeing comments like the one RightHand made; complaining that she is a woman just because she is a woman.
Yep redpills comments are tiring
It isn't a complaint, simply an observation. I usually pick to play as a woman in games I can choose the gender of the protagonist anyway.
Same. If I'm going to have to look at an ass for 40 hours of gameplay, I'd rather it was a woman's ass.
I mean, I agree. But, based on that argument, it's totally fine if 100% of pre-created MCs are women then, since it's only the story and universe that are important (and I would be 100% a-ok with that happening).
True
Besides, they've already established some of her signature abilities and had people play as her in some of the previous game, kicking the familiarity up an extra notch.
Yep. Ciri isnt the worst choice in the world, I just was hoping I could have played as my own character instead. It will be interesting to see what they do with the story.
Yeah, I'd have preferred making my own character too but, failing that, a great character that's already established in the series and has been a lot of fun playing as so far ain't bad either!
I really hope they don't stick with Ciri gameplay from TW3, I never liked when I was forced to play as Ciri, her abilities was less fun than Geralt signs.
Judging by the video, she'll be behaving more like a witcher, with the two swords, the signs, and the potion quaffing. If they hold to that and also let her keep her "short teleport" move from TW3, I'm looking forward to it 🙂
If they changed the double dodge = roll to double dodge = short teleport, but not as crazy as in TW3 that would be cool, they could also make the whole gameplay more agile than TW3, seems like a good fit for Ciri.
I did. The games already completely shit on the ciri book lore. I was hoping for a fresh slate with new characters, perhaps during a different time period entirely.
Young vesemir FTW?
I was hoping you could be the first witcher. That would have been awesome.
I don't know how it would've tied into the "Witcher" arc... because I don't think they were around yet? But I would have loved to had a game set during the "Conjunction of the Spheres".
Huh? What do you mean? I'm saying i would have liked to play as the first witcher, which would have taken place 400 years or so prior to the first game.
Edit: apologies i misunderstood your comment. See my below response. A game based on the conjunction would have been awesome. Too bad.
They meant they wanted a game set during the conjunction of the spheres but didn't know if witchers were a thing yet at that timeframe in the lore. The wording made it seem like they were talking about your first witcher idea but they were talking about a different alternate timeframe setting they'd like to see.
Ah gotchya. Thank you. Yes, in the lore (as best I can remember) there were no witchers during the conjunction. It was when humans first appeared.
I think you're both asking for the same thing. IIRC my lore correctly, Witcher clans were founded after the Conjunction to deal with the sudden influx of monsters. A game about the first Witcher could be set mere months after the event.
I sound like a huge nerd here but i believe witchers were created 500 years prior when the humans first got to the continent and encountered monsters. Both humans and monsters came from the conjunction. It is never explained what humans were doing for the first 1000 years after the conjunction (conjunction was 1500 years ago) prior to arriving on the continent. I assume they also had to deal with monsters or maybe the monsters were dropped only on the continent? No idea. The author was unfortunately not very consistent or clear on historic lore. Perhaps it was intended. I'm not sure.
Source: I spent way too much time looking at lore explanations and engaging on forums.