安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
But then again I'm a fan of the game. One could argue it's a little outdated today (it has some 5 years after all). If for anything else, buy for witcher 2' sake...
The two major complaints of the game is that A. The combat feels fairly one dimensional and B. sidequests are fairly repeitive being "Fetch me X number of drops from X Monster".
The Witcher 2 is the better game for sure.
I don't really agree with The Witcher 2 being the better game. The first game had better music and an atmosphere that was less fanciful. I also prefered Geralt's appearance in the first game, small as that gripe is.
Because the Middle Ages never had these problems. I see nothing particularily modern about the politics or problems for that matter.
Whatever you do, don't put the difficulty on easy though ;)
I suggest you take the time to read about how tens of thousands of Crusaders from the First Crusade held the city of Constantinople, for lack of a better term; hostage, or how in that same Crusade within many cities not just Muslims, but Jews were rounded up and put to the sword over religious and racial differences. The Order's operations within Vizima is quite obviously based on this.
When I was describing folklore, I was referring to many quests in Chapter One and Four but moreso in regard to how the mind of a poor medieval man would rationalize things that are unexplained.
For example: A child goes missing in the woods and turns up drowned in a river with no evidence or explanation. The child was a good swimmer and never got lost before, it must have been Faeries or Rusalka. Nowadays, we'd know otherwise, but back then common folk were superstitious. But what if it actually was Faeries or Rusalka? Welcome to The Witcher.
Superstitions exist even today, like some grannies cover TVs with a sheet, believing that it would help against radiation, or people placing cacti near monitors, or someone believing in existence of supernatural things like domovoy living in their closet.
But that's not the point here, Witcher is not about slaying monsters. It is more about politics and human nature. About those things that you don't want actually to argue about with your friends.
If you think that none of the men ordered to do these terrible things had any moral qualms about it then you are oversimplifying the human condition. Slaying women and children will have most people questioning their faith at the end of the day if they aren't already monsters. The act of genocide is inherrently abhorrant.
The superstitions of today are nothing in comparison to the superstitions back then.
I'll end with a definition and a few quotes:
"Setting - In works of narrative (especially fictional), the literary element setting includes the historical moment in time and geographic location in which a story takes place, and helps initiate the main backdrop and mood for a story."
"The setting is essentially just a representation of the middle ages where every folk tale and morality play is a matter of fact instead of superstition."
Is it inaccurate to say the setting of The Witcher is a representation of a medieval world where faery tale creatures exist? You started arguing on points that I never made in the first place.