The Witcher 3

ERG89 · 04-09-2018 4:46pm

Ah was hoping they'd pull Mads Mikkelsen instead although Cavill did say he was very nterested in the role during an interview a few months ago.

Gbear · 04-09-2018 4:49pm

ERG89 wrote: »

Ah was hoping they'd pull Mads Mikkelsen instead although Cavill did say he was very nterested in the role during an interview a few months ago.

Mikkelsen's 60-odd now. Bit ould for an action hero.

I know Geralt's like a hundred years old but he's a spry 100 year old.

Edit: He's 52. I think the point still applies.

ERG89 · 04-09-2018 5:21pm

Gbear wrote: »

Mikkelsen's 60-odd now. Bit ould for an action hero.

I know Geralt's like a hundred years old but he's a spry 100 year old.

Edit: He's 52. I think the point still applies.

Most of the best action movie stars are old now.

He can damn sure act though, I've never felt gripped by anything Cavill does. Good looking lad alright but that's about it. That stuff is harder to hide in a movie than a series which I assume will focus heavily on Geralt. Maybe he will flourish, hope he does

Zero-Cool · 04-09-2018 5:37pm

Bollox Mads would have been perfect. Big difference between wooden and emotionless. Mads would nail it.

Sonics2k · 04-09-2018 6:47pm

I have to say I'm not actually displeased with this.

Cavill did (in my opinion) do a decent job with Superman, was just let down by a shoddy script.

04-09-2018 6:55pm

I was hoping for an actor I didn't know at all

nix · 04-09-2018 7:08pm

Well thats that then, one season is about all we can expect with that casting :mad:

Robert ninja · 04-09-2018 7:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Not delighted with that

With makeup I think it could work, and it was always going to be a makeup heavy role. Could've been worse. Could've gotten a titans-tier casting.

Cavil is actually great actor though. Pretty good job in that mission impossible film, albeit a little bland and emotionless at times but that works for Geralt.

EoinMcLovin · 04-09-2018 7:25pm

Boss logic did a mock-up last month

Dj-TOH3U0AEIUh1?format=jpg&name=orig

04-09-2018 7:54pm

EoinMcLovin wrote: »

Boss logic did a mock-up last month

Looks the part! I actually think he's well suited for the role.

Potential-Monke · 04-09-2018 8:13pm

I'll reserve judgement. His stoney face Superman may work in his favour...

Sonics2k · 04-09-2018 8:15pm

Zero-Cool wrote: »

Bollox Mads would have been perfect. Big difference between wooden and emotionless. Mads would nail it.

I love Mads, but he's a bit old for the role. Geralt is in his 30's (?) or so in the earlier books.

The plus side of course is that Cavill is a massive fun of the trilogy and books, so it's not as if they hired a random bloke for the part.

Only person who would have been better is Maul Cosplay :pac:

Zero-Cool · 04-09-2018 8:20pm

Henry can't even wink FFS, how's he spose to pull off this role :pac:

Ave Sodalis · 04-09-2018 8:27pm

This reminds me that I must hurry up with my Yen costume before it becomes pop culture*

*may be the most hipster thing I've ever said

ancapailldorcha · 05-09-2018 10:14am

I've a general dislike of playing games in the wrong order. The original doesn't look like it has great gameplay (CDPR were likely tiny back then). Would playing the first two be necessary? Might do so anyway.

CatInABox · 05-09-2018 10:25am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've a general dislike of playing games in the wrong order. The original doesn't look like it has great gameplay (CDPR were likely tiny back then). Would playing the first two be necessary? Might do so anyway.

I played 3 and only 3, and I never felt as if I was missing out on the story. It's handled pretty well.

Stone Deaf 4evr · 05-09-2018 10:30am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've a general dislike of playing games in the wrong order. The original doesn't look like it has great gameplay (CDPR were likely tiny back then). Would playing the first two be necessary? Might do so anyway.

never played 1, got the second one free with xbox games with gold,
gameplay wise, 2 is kinda dated now and the combat is poor enough, its a good story though for the most part, and introduces the world well, in terms of how dwarfs and elves are essentially treated as second class citizens. You do have a share of characters from 2 that pop up in 3, but not much beyond a few token encounters.
there's also a sort of weird story disconnect between how 2 ends and 3 starts.

chrislad · 05-09-2018 10:55am

CatInABox wrote: »

I played 3 and only 3, and I never felt as if I was missing out on the story. It's handled pretty well.

Agreed. I did play about half of 2 back in the day when it was released on the Xbox but for whatever reason, I didn't finish it, though I do remember enjoying it. When 3 was announced, I said I'd retry playing 1 and 2 - 1 was just difficult to enjoy, the controls were awkward, so I just watched a recap video and went straight to 3 - I also read the first first book of short stories, and that sheds some light on the relationship with Yennefer so that might be worth a read.

05-09-2018 11:13am

Second one is definitely worth playing. I rushed through the second half though as the mechanics got a bit boring.

Potential-Monke · 05-09-2018 12:58pm

Yeah, I started with 2 as I didn't have a PC to run 1 when I got into the series. And I believe 2 is the reason I picked a certain romance path, so you may miss out on that. At the very least, I would read up or watch the cut scenes from the first 2, but as others have said, it's not 100% necessary.

Gbear · 05-09-2018 2:02pm

I think 2 is a fantastic game.

In some ways it's a cleaner more gripping story because it's more linear and you're not pissing about chopping up nekkers half way across the planet.

There's an official patch or mod to the game that's worth installing that makes the early game less of a slog - you get one of the branches of the skill tree filled out and it makes the combat a bit more intuitive (although it's still not brilliant).

It's worth it for the story, and even if not mechanically satisfying, the gameplay is aesthetically satisfying.

nix · 05-09-2018 2:37pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've a general dislike of playing games in the wrong order. The original doesn't look like it has great gameplay (CDPR were likely tiny back then). Would playing the first two be necessary? Might do so anyway.

Even if you play the first two games, you will still come across characters and recollections of tales that are not in those games in part three. So its in no way necessary to play them before playing part 3.

If you wanted to be fully versed prior to starting 3, you would have to play the two games and then read 7 books. Though to do it in order, you would have to read the 7 books and then start on the first game. The first game begin 5 years after the last book ends.

You wont be missing much by just starting on three, it bares little impact on the game. Most of the characters Geralt has met before will just be like "oh i havent seen you since such and such" and then thats it, all new stuff, maybe the odd throw back comment, but again not necessary to know going forward.

Another thing that might pop up is alot of people refer to Geralt as the "Butcher of Blaviken", which i always thought was an instance from the prior games, which it turns out was in neither. You learn he earned the name told in a short story from the very first book.

Now if you read alot of books, i do recommend them, ive only read the first one so far, and i did so after playing W3. Its great, i have the second but i dont get to read much, just when i go traveling usually.

dreamers75 · 05-09-2018 2:42pm

Anyone playing 2 i would suggest you dont have to kill someone in particular but maybe become mates with them, they may becomes very useful in 3

1 and 2 are clunky but still good games they havent aged very well tho.

05-09-2018 2:48pm

I'd even go as far as to say the main plot line in 2 is better than the main plot line in 3.

Potential-Monke · 05-09-2018 5:25pm

dreamers75 wrote: »

Anyone playing 2 i would suggest you dont have to kill someone in particular but maybe become mates with them, they may becomes very useful in 3

1 and 2 are clunky but still good games they havent aged very well tho.

Roche?

Skerries · 05-09-2018 6:32pm

I thought he was talking about

Letho

I have actually played the first one twice and even though it is a bit clunky compared to the later ones I did enjoy it

I have just started reading the latest Witcher book that has been translated

dreamers75 · 05-09-2018 10:46pm

^^

Letho

If you have a decent relationship he will join you at Kaer for the fight, and he is fcuking badass

Assuming you find him in 3.

06-09-2018 8:35am

dreamers75 wrote: »

Anyone playing 2 i would suggest you dont have to kill someone in particular but maybe become mates with them, they may becomes very useful in 3

1 and 2 are clunky but still good games they havent aged very well tho.

If you don't play 2 and go straight to 3 there is a part in it where it recaps the story and let's you do all the choices which affect the gameplay in 3. You're sitting down being shaved, choices come up as Geralt is telling the story to barber or whoever it was.

Heckler · 08-09-2018 11:52am

So fired it up last night. Just got through the few tutorials and killed a few ghouls and am about to head away on the hoss.

Initial impressions ? As a total noob to RPGs it was an amazing start. Loved how the Witcher story was told in comic panel form.

I'm just used to wasd shoot and maybe QE peek so I think the combat is going to be challenging for me.

The soundtrack from the start is fantastic, has a real cinematic feel, and the voice acting is great. Already it feels like living a LOTR film or GoT episode.

Running it on an i52500k(not overclocked) and a gtx1060 3 gb and it looks great and runs great.

Think I'll be sinking a lot of time into this.

Potential-Monke · 08-09-2018 12:52pm

Heckler wrote: »

Think I'll be sinking a lot of time into this.

If you're that impressed by the tutorial area, there's no thinking, you will be. Enjoy it! Wish I could play through it again for the first time.

The Witcher 3

Comments