Book or game? (The Witcher)
What's better?And, I warn you, after the books of Sapkowski, other fantasy literature, with a typical division into good and evil, and mournful Happy End, is impossible to read ...
Golden words. Oh, gold ... Respect who said, respect from the bottom of my heart ...
On the topic: both the book and the game. Everything is fine. Pan Andrzej personally supervised the development process. There are no inconsistencies, everything is as it should be. Presumptive inconsistencies cease to be such if you know the contents of the books by heart and, as someone here correctly noted, you understand that the game is not a specific sequel of books, but a kind of expansion of the universe. Since Sapkowski decided so, I just have to believe him, and nothing else is needed.
Unfortunately, there will be no sequel to the books, it has long been known. But this is sadness with a knowing smile. That is, I understand that every story must have an end. Good or bad, but must be. He came. And the more valuable is the game because it is possible ... But this is a completely different story (c) R. Kipling.
Gold words. Oh, golden ...
Master, let me disagree a little, there is other fantasy literature that is no less interesting.
For example Perumovskaya or I really like Pekhov, The Chronicles of Siala, and the cycle, The Seekers of the Wind.
And "The Chronicles of Siala" - it generally seems to me the best over the last decade in this genre (at least the Russian spill), only the Lord of the Rings is higher.
I will allow myself with you, Sanya ..... drum roll .... AGREE! There is, of course there is. I spoke slightly radically. Of course there is. For example, Nick Perumov has greatly expanded the boundaries of understanding good and evil in the sequel to "The Lord of the Rings".
All the same, I will explain my comment. Perumov is too academic. Real in descriptions (corpses, wounds, battle scenes), and academic, like Tolkien, in dialogues. And Sapek is real in both this and that, and he paints his multicolored vision of the vagueness of the concepts of Good and Evil in a language that is understandable, interesting and funny to everyone. And wise at the same time. His characters utter everyday wisdom in the same way as ordinary Russian men do in real life in a light drink: in their own words, but accurately conveying the essence. I quote Yarpen Zigrin:
- Progress is like a herd of pigs. This is how one should look at this progress, and this is how it should be regarded. Like a herd of pigs roaming the barn and yard. The fact of the existence of a herd brings benefits to agriculture. There are knuckles, there is corned beef, there is jellied meat with horseradish. In a word - benefit! And therefore there is nothing to turn up your nose because, they say, it's shit everywhere.
And he, who put a chic end to the last philosophical dispute with Geralt:
- Progress ... will illuminate the darkness, for that is why progress exists, as, for example, ... but for ... shit. Everything will be brighter, less and less we will be afraid of the darkness and the Evil lurking in it. Perhaps the day will come when we will stop believing that something is lurking in this darkness. Let's ridicule such fears. Call them childish. Be ashamed of them! But there will always, always be darkness. And there will always be Evil in the dark, there will always be fangs and claws, murder and blood in the dark. And witchers will always be needed.
In the game, this spirit was developed in the style of Sapek. For which I respect them. Honestly, at one time I really almost shed a tear when I heard the mention of the Strange Company in the game. Immediately I remembered one more thing, from the book:
... there was a long silence.
- For the archer Milva! - Zoltan Chivay cleared his throat, raised his glass. - For the Nilfgaardian. For Regis the herbalist, who treated travelers with mandrake moonshine in his hut. And for that Angouleme, whom I did not know. Let them rest in peace. Everyone. Let them there, in the other world, have plenty of everything that was lacking in this. And let their names live in songs and legends forever and ever. Let's have a drink.
- Let's drink, - Buttercup and Yarpen Zigrin repeated dully. Let's drink, the witcher thought.
Let's drink!
the book is excellent I will go through the game, and the series is complete nonsense
I believe that neither the game nor the film can surpass the book. And this applies not only to The Witcher. I have not yet met a decent film adaptation of a book, or an embodiment of a book in a game ... yes, in principle, apart from The Witcher, I no longer know games based on books. And the TV series killed me altogether. Today I finished watching the last episode, in some scenes everything looks so ridiculous that I want to laugh. But Dandelion alone is worth something - some kind of drunkard, who, well, does not at all look like a favorite of women, no, he is not like that, Buttercup, in the book. And that's not to mention the twisted events in the show, oh, I don't like that. Anyway.
But I'm not saying that the game is bad. The toy turned out to be very, very successful. I was especially pleased with the atmosphere, in my opinion, the atmosphere is well conveyed in the game, although the fry does not have enough gloom, or something ... But the characters in the toy have learned to be unsuccessful, IMHO. Triss and Geralt himself, well, some are not like that. The first is a licentious witch, namely a witch, not a magician; the second is a scumbag. And it's a pity that the characters themselves from the book are few ... Well, there is nothing more to complain about, and not a hunt, because "The Witcher" is one of my favorite games.
And the TV series killed me altogether. Today I finished watching the last episode, in some scenes everything looks so ridiculous that I want to laugh.
Well, I disagree about the show. Of course, it is far from being a book, and there are a lot of various minor flaws. But you need to take into account that this is not a million-dollar Hollywood project that can afford any kind of special effects and expensive bells and whistles. As for Dandelion, I agree, I didn't like him either. As well as Triss (in the book she is completely different). But Geralt turned out very well, the actor is talented and played him well (again, within the framework of the proposed script, which, alas, is really not so hot). Although I agree with the fact that no film adaptation can be compared to a book. Alas, many good books in film adaptations lose some of their charm.
As for the game, I am grateful to her for having “discovered†Sapkovsky and his books.
Elly55
Yes, this is not a Hollywood blockbuster, but besides the cool bells and whistles, the film still needs to have good acting and a gripping storyline. I saw neither one nor the other. The series "sluggish" I fell asleep a couple of times under it, the actors are like sleepy flies. True, the exception is Michal Zhebrowski himself, here I agree with you, if not for him, I would not have watched the series at all. And I didn't like Geralt in the game. Well, I don’t know, some kind of idol, and that's it.
Both the book and the game are cool. I learned about the books after the game, read it, and then it was as if I went through The Witcher again for the first time.
Undoubtedly a book !!!! Book, book and book again!
And although Andrzej Sapkowski himself participated in the development of this game, as far as I know, he was still dissatisfied with it.
I also really liked the game, but my book is still in the first place; on the second film / TV series "Vedzmin" (original in Polish), and then the game.
The game lacks a lot, for example, there is no Ciri, no Yenefer, but what about without them ?! Why is there Triss, some kind of incomprehensible, when there is Yenever? ..% / - this, as for the incomprehensible. And there is something that I understand, but with which I disagree, but I will not delve into these collisions.
In the game, Geralt does not really seduce me, there is something painfully disgusting in him (. But it was interesting to play, although I understand that first of all I want to play only to feel at least a little, though illusory, in the shoes of an imperturbable witcher hero ...
The game lacks a lot, for example, there is no Ciri, no Yenefer, but what about without them ?!
It is explainable. The time of action in the game is a few years after the well-known events at the tavern. Ciri presumably walks in other worlds. Where Yennefer is is unknown, but it should be so, the story revolves around Geralt, and his appearance and memory loss. So it's okay with that. The game, as conceived by the developers, was not supposed to be a continuation of the history of the Geralt / Yennefer / Cyril relationship. As the great Kipling said: "This is a completely different story ...".
My question is: the last two books "for fans", you 8 and 9, are related to the game? I don't know whether to read them or not ... I was told that you can spoil the impression.