Nonek

He still wanted to pork his own daughter, just saying.... That said Nilfgaard is the bad guy in the sense of the country itself, It isn't like the Northern Kings are all that nice either. Heck in my Witcher 2 playthrough I will carry into Witcher 3 let's just say Geralt wasn't quite as innocent of Kingslaying as he could have been...... >_> He never wanted to, as a wise man he simply saw the benefit in accruing the power inherent in the prophecy, especially considering the stability of the throne that Duny knows all too well, however he turned aside from this for Moral reasons. In the crucial moment he made the right choice, I trust him more because of this, not less as I stated. Besides totalitarian empire or feudal monarchy, Geralt will still be a reviled mutated freak.

And I think it would have been better if you could hear them out, go "wait a minute... this actually kinda makes sense", then shrug and let them do whatever they were planning to do You wanted to let their enslaved Dragon eat you? That's a bit silly, I mean i'm fine with helping Sile, but i'm not commiting suicide for them. Edit: Though personally I think they were just as short sighted as the rest of the northern monarchs, barring Radovid, to be raising rebellion in Aedirn with Nilfgaard practicaly salivating on the norths doorstep.

Except that he was just working for someone else. As has always been the plot with the Witcher the real enemy is Nilfgaard, and as usual they are pretty much winning. Nilfgaard isn't my Geralt's enemy, Emhyr proved his good intentions the last time they met and my Witcher has no interest in politics or loyalty to the north. In fact as Ciri's father i'd say that there's a degree of respect there, especially after his decision to abandon prophecy and power for the sake of morality. Edit: Now the Aen Elle, those I would say are Geralt's enemy.

True enuff, some of them were. A pity that they were designated antagonists Personally I thought that was a bonus, I like good and challenging antagonists, and the Lodge ladies were not my enemies at any point merely an obstacle to overcome when they tried to raze Loc Muinne. And I judged their desire to back (and manipulate) Saskia's usurpation as a largely moral one, certainly just as worthy as any of the Northen Kingdoms feudal monarchs. If i'm defeating tired tropes or McGuffin slaves the victory is hardly sweet, more pitiful and pointless. Another reason why I respected the Viper as an antagonist, he bested competition that was in and of itself fearsome, and could be said to have won the game simply with Foltest's assassination.

A pity if the world does not contain bawdy houses and strumpets, not for the titillation factor, as i'm not particularly attracted to pixels or text descriptions, but for the depth and cohesiveness of the world as a whole. One can imagine doxies and madames being excellent sources of information and possible informants, especially if they're an unusual take on the profession. As I said earlier the crowded streets of Sigil spring to mind in Torment, personally I found that implementation very well done, especially in terms of fleshing out the harsh, hopeless nature of the hive. Then again that was hardly explicit, it did a lot with a little, the hallmark of good design I suppose.

Can you name a male NPC in The Witchers or other mainstream RPG's which do better? For myself I can find few male characters in the Witcher who can match Philippa and the other ladies of the Lodge, Letho obviously and Iorveth and Roche as your primary allies. However the whole plot of Assassins of Kings is partly the work of the Lodge, from their attempted coup in Aedirn to Nilfgaard's agents using this to fuel their own plans, they show admirable self motivation, intelligence and ambition. This is perhaps best displayed in the Philippa scene where she emerges from the sickbed of Saskia, all we get is a small smirk, but it's clear on a replay that she has discovered the Virgin Maids true nature and is altering her plans to account for this. You don't often get female characters acting with such cunning in modern games, where they usually simply follow the protagonist around for years at a time without pay or any personal considerations. Of course Triss being kidnapped and cut out of the goings on does limit her effectiveness, but we do see that this was just a quirk of fate interrupting her investigations of the Lodge that she helped form. The Sorceress is human and vulnerable like anybody else in the games, and just like Geralt repeatedly needing her aid in the first game, where she saved his life three or four times as I remember, she now needs anothers aid. This doesn't make her useless, merely human to me. She displayed enough strength in the first game, saving Geralt repeatedly, forming the alliance that would take down Salamandra and one assumes bringing Foltest back to the capital when Adda's motivations became clear. Overall I thought the ladies of the Witcher were potent, independent and clever, and even when they slept with Geralt retained their independence. They did not need his mutated organ to *cure* them, in the strangely distasteful manner that many games advocate. Edit: A pity that we never got to see Dol Blathanna or Enid.

To be honest I thought the Witcher handled its subjects quite well, in that it approached them in the manner of a bawdy romp, a somewhat Chaucer-ish manner that was to me rather endearing. Sex, flirting, promiscuity and ribald tales all handled with a sly wink and a good helping of ridicule. Maybe it is because I was brought up on Chaucer's tales, my English heritage or simply that there's a certain joy in lifes more fun pursuits, which I think the Witcher captured quite well rather than the puritanical tittering of say Bioware, which always seemed more schoolboy-ish. Though that impression may just come from the moronic characters of said games. What was nice for me is that this did not clash too much with the masterfully done tragedy of the Witcher, with Geralt longing for a life he cannot have, his guilt at failing young Alvin, and the gut wrenching conclusion of that whole episode. As well as of course the oft discussed theme of monstrousness, as encapsulated by the discussion with Mr Chivay. To be honest I didn't even mind the little masturbatory jokes in each of the sex cards of the first game, the gratuitous felne shots, the lady choking the chicken, the woman fondling the coin purse etcetera, but then again i'm old and of a rather laid back nature. Prone more to laughter than outrage with every passing year.

Don't do either Keyrock, play the enhanced edition content, it begins in the main square of Loc Muinne as I recall, near the tower with the Eye sigil. I assume your following Iorveth's path. Very good quest.

Oh I like some fine obscenity, some times good vulgarity can be almost poetic in its delivery and inventiveness. Of course in the polite society of Poe one wouldn't expect to hear such things, but belowstairs and in the wider world I believe it would be unnatural to not encounter it. Of course as a sane and reasonable gentleman I am against romance in any shape or form, but I think that hardly needs stating.

I have to admit my favourite obscenity of recent years has to be: Your mother sucks Dwarf male chicken. Personally i'd prefer a modicum of honest vulgarity and obscenity in appropriate places rather than the Bioware staple of tee hee, I said a rude word or made a childish allusion to bodily functions. Seems too twee and cutesy, there may be diabetics playing. Edit: I thought Torment handled adult subjects in an appropriate manner, though I still wonder what Morte actually did?

Ah yes one remembers now, it installed by default under Interplay. I think I may have misplaced the Ghouls playing Tragic and talking about Morte from the second game into the first.

Just don't talk about it on the BSN what. Don't need those kind of "customers" eh? Ha.

Oh I do apologise, I thought the gentlemen had worked on all the Black Isle games in some manner. Of course I knew about Troika but considering his lupine problems I thought that was a jape.

It would be rather immodest to name one own work however, wouldn't it?

They're attacking Vesemir, hence they're dead naked Ewoks.

One wouldn't have thought elephants would be of much use in mountainous terrain, as I remember from my history lessons Hannibal was only able to bring two of the beasts into Italy because of his mountainous route. The rest died, suffered accidents or were eaten.

I liked Dungeon Siege 3 immensely, however my taste is not mirrored by many so I can't vouch for that being enough of a recommendation. Pro's: A very strong, logical and sensible narrative. The combat is reactive and quick. Perks are given frequently and reinforce ones playstyle. There are a few ways to build your characters, and each character is fairly diverse. The boss fights are quite spectacular and tough. Difficulty is on the whole pleasingly challenging, and unlike the original Dungeon Siege the game doesn't play itself. The plot will react to certain of your choices, and your ending will be different consdiering them. Lots of loot. The cast is largely very likable, Reinhart and Katarina especially so. Playable offline. Con's: Linear, maybe a touch too much. PC controls (M&K) are far more gruelling than a controller. Not much world reactivity. Builds arise from skills far more than equipment, unlike D3. Not sure if a con? The camera angle is a touch too restrictive. In co-op you are forced to stay far too near your partner. I don't think the game still has a large fan base, but I only play couch co-op with my lad. The respawning can be somewhat irritating. Lots of loot. Lucas and Anjali pale in comparison to their counterparts, and are a bit too earnest. Addendum: The expansion is very good, highly recommended if you choose to purchase the game. Just for clarification I haven't played Diablo 3.

Splendid idea, that knowing Obsidians track record, will most likely be implemented. Personally i'm also hoping for a power behind the throne role, as a visble head of state is far too visible, and vulnerable. Of course not everything can go to plan, even when the plan is almost foolproof, and events have a way of wriggling free of even the most determined grasp.

Yes I agree Mr Panda however to become a seperate species the fantastical peoples must have: A) Split off from the human race millions of years ago and been in isolation ever since, slowly becoming an entirely different folk. In the same manner that different races of humanity have unique skull shapes and genetic traits. B) Be born of a totally different branch of creatures, and thus probably not share the same habitat as early man again, because of the absolutes of competition. C) Some form of plane travelling by one species or other fantastical reason. In all these scenarios one thing remains constant, they must have met at some point and this is the point where i'm sure conflict must have arisen. How was that resolved and would anybody in the world of Poe remember it, or have any written evidence? John Beddoes natural history of Arcanum springs to mind here, such an interesting idea to explore and build upon.

One is quite interested in the dissolution of the Templar order by the French king, i've been told that the knights play a central role against the Hashish eaters of this series, I assume this will be exploring the end of that order due to the Paris setting? I've never actually played one due to bad press from friends saying that I would dislike them intensely, I wonder if this might be an ideal place to enter the series?

I think an interesting situation arises here because of different sapient species existing, with the varying races of humanity we have a shared species ability to mate and produce offspring, thus reinforcing our commonality. However with the other species, Dwarves, Elves etcetera, we do not have that. What differences does this raise? Has there been species specific prejudice, and if so how was it resolved? It seems something that really cannot be handwaved away, and I expect will not be considering the Orlan situation. Does the common possession of Souls mean that these different species accept each other a little more than we for instance would accept a competing species? I'm thinking of something like the end of the Minbari war on humanity in Babylon Five.

Moments when you realise you're a jaded old cynic and pessimist #342: During Agent Smith's virus speech in the Matrix you shrug, sigh and realise he's probably correct.

Was there ever a culture or country where racism didn't thrive? I thought the very first instinct would be, the stranger (looks different, sounds different) is the enemy, and thus the formation of tribes etcetera.

As I remember the Celts of the Po valley were quite discriminated against by Roman society before Hannibal's crossing of the Alps. and thus served as a fertile recruiting ground of skilled warriors for him during his protracted campaigning. I wonder if we'll see something similar in Poe? Or perhaps the forced exodus of Jewish moneylenders from England that Longshanks forced just prior to his loans becoming due, an almost prototypical piece of medieval ruthlessness. Or maybe Karla Magnus' crusade against the heathen saxons, or the Knights Teutonic's push east? Very fertile ground with masses of examples. An ironic one, the harrowing of the north, where the Normanni sought to pacify/purge the Norsemen of the Danelaw.

Personally i've always loved getting lost in a metropolis, and gradually becoming used to the layout, so that I am able to navigate without a second thought come the end. When I first emerged from the sewers in Vizima for instance, saw Sigil arching overhead for the first of many times, trudged into Britain from the fields of Paws, or going further back exploring Dun Darach as Cuchulain. I like the sense of adventure and the sheer scale dwarfing you, such inherent possibility.