The highest vampires in the world of the Witcher (The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)
In the original game, The Witcher 3 was like 2 high vampires. Regenerating in the catacombs and on Dandelion's quest, both of them transformed into Katakans, but the bestiary states that the Katakan are not the highest vampires, they are their primitive cousins. In the supplement Blood and Wine, the higher vampires are presented differently and when the princess asked whether Geralt had dealings with the higher vampires, he replied that he did not (except for Regis). So I got confused with their classification). Maybe all the same Katakan are the highest vampires, or at least as close to them as possible?I just found a similar topic. The question is closed. I'll read there.)
Before you ask a question, see if religion prohibits similar questions on the forum? Or a lack of gray matter?
_Ozymandias_
I am also struggling with such, but apparently, it's like peas against a wall, you just have to wait until such stupid people are gone and there are fewer blogs about the witcher. And now, they create such questions / polls, as if this is some kind of confa on Skype with schoolchildren, where you can write everything that comes to your head without hesitation, or maybe there are already similar questions? Maybe you shouldn't ask this obviously stupid question?
Bupycop The
question is actually not stupid. But the fact that repetitions are created is annoying.
Gennady Soloviev
"So I got confused with their classification)"
Developers themselves got confused in the bestiary. It is most correct to assume that the higher vampires are able to transform into a human, unlike the lower ones. The rest is already brothers and subspecies.
Wild Rider wrote: The question is actually not stupid
And I never said that he was stupid. The fact that it is not being asked for the first time is stupid. It's hard to read the lore about the universe of the witcher.
_Ozymandias_ lore
across the universe? I read a book and played all the games, but the only thing about the higher vampires was that they are very powerful and can turn into people, as the guy wrote above. The book seemed to mention that the katakanas belong to the category of higher vampires along with the nosferats, in the game, the katakanas are, as it were, higher (judging by the transformation of some characters into them), but the bestiary says the opposite, in the supplement they are presented in a completely different way (apparently nosferaty, although there is a minimum of information about them), in connection with the minimal answers to these questions in the game, my question arose. About the topic (what I created) is not right and I admit, apparently not very attentive, tk. looked at the forum for the presence of such topics before creating, but noticed exactly when he created it). I apologize to the fighters whom I offended by this, I will try not to make such mistakes anymore.
Gennady Soloviev,
I do not regard the witcher's games as a direct continuation of books. To me it's like an alternate universe, 90% similar. Like the Marvel and DC comics. In the games, some signs and many types of monsters are missing. Maybe in the next parts and will add Aguar, Hamadriad, Bobolakov and even neko. It's still a little different from the witcher I read about back in 2004.
not a stupid question and with meaning
Gennady Soloviev
Higher vampires have two shells: one of them is an internal vampire (somewhere in the depths there is a monster who longs to get out), and the second is human, that is, a human shell, and the lower vampires do not have a human shell.
KanoVoxLian
What category do brooks and alps belong to then? They are not considered superior, although as for me it would be worth
_Ozymandias_
Bupycop
Wild Rider
Not everyone lives on the forum to notice each of the 4000 created topics on the forum and search, instead of creating another, it's easier for an ordinary user. But the mania of writing the same comments under each such topic is a reason to think about your interest in this world. Good luck.
vvvjust
Connecting links between lower and higher vampires.
Alex Hawk
Exaggerate like a straw dog. The previous topic (at the time of writing my comment was exactly the same.) I see the sofa psychiatrists have not yet died out. Good luck blogging.
Alex Hawk
Over the last week, since the release of KiV, a bunch of similar topics flashed through. It is not difficult to notice, it is enough to go through the first pages of all subforums. The fact that some users find it easier to mess up the site, having received an answer to their question - I do not argue with that. But it will be much more difficult for normal users to navigate in this mess. We need to think about others as well.
And my post (and not only mine) is intended to reflect on those who still want to create another repeat topic, but accidentally came here. You are defending the wrong ones.
Same to you. Especially in the presentation of clearer claims to the moderator.
UPD My interest in the development of this site does not interfere in any way with the rest of my personal affairs, if you wanted to know.
Wild Rider wrote:
It is most correct to assume that the highest vampires can transform into a human, unlike the lowest.
In KiV Brooks is called a lower vampire, but at the very beginning, before the battle with her, we perfectly see her human appearance, the ability to speak and reason.
Wild Rider
I brought an example to your quote. Brooks from KiV knows how to transform into a human, and moreover, during the expansion, she is called a lower vampire / servant of the higher. So it is not correct to believe that the ability to turn into a human is the criterion for ranking him among the highest vampires in the opinion of the same developers. Now it is clear?)
Yennefer from Vengerberg
No, you did not understand me) At what point, in KiV, does it say that brooksa is an inferior vampire? I just don't remember it.
Wild Rider
In the cutscene, Geralt runs after Detlaff. Detlaf does not directly say that Brooks is a lower vampire, but asks Geralt why he dealt with his servant. At the very end, when the Brooks attack Regis, he says that these little creatures do not understand that I betrayed them (something in this style). From this it can be easily concluded that brooksa is a lesser vampire, just like a garkain with a fleder. The main purpose of which is to drink blood. This is what distinguishes them from the higher vampires in the first place.
Still, the main difference between higher and lower vampires is that the first does not need blood to survive. And this is not their main goal. Regis talks about this both in the book and partly in the game.
Yennefer from Vengerberg
My question does not contradict the inf from the topic: Geralt, most likely, had under the "higher" that subspecies of higher vampires, which could not be studied and they do not have a special name. But they are at the top of the vampire hierarchy. Those. these are not katakanas, alps or brooks.
"Still, the main difference between higher and lower vampires is that the former does not need blood to survive."
But at the same time, they (katakanas, brooks, alps) are reasonable, unlike ekimms, leeches, garkains, fleders) They cannot be unequivocally attributed to the lower wampas. Therefore, it is worth considering whether to distinguish them in a transitional stage or a subspecies of higher vampires.
UPD If we exclude all interpretations of Regis's words from the book and admit that this is still a transitional or, even more so, a lower form, then I will be completely disappointed in the game bestiary)
Wild Rider
Reasonableness brooks just borders on the instinct of survival and does not give them the right to be called the highest or there is some kind of supreme vampire. By and large, only animal instinct drives them. And even despite the possibility of human conversion, they are too primitive. And the main criterion for separating them - I wrote. Higher vampires may not drink blood at all, for them it is like wine. They can have feelings, love, and more. I repeat, Regis talks about all this both in the book and partially in the game, when he characterizes Detlaf. So Brooks is a kind of inferior vampire