The Witcher author Andrzej Sapkowski's disdain of games

[Iznaliu]

A society protected by giants its members were ignorant of. His work makes clear the Shire would never have existed without Gordor or Arnor.

Tied into the Shire is the sentiment that despite it being a bubble that fact didn't exclude it from having good qualities which were represented in its people.

Gondor had possessed the power projection of a limp fish and Arnor was dead, but the Shire still somehow survived.

I never said the people of the Shire were shit; in fact it is too idealistic, and Tolkien, coming from a well-off background, did not know the true hardship of rural life.

There is more to culture than art and science. The Empire was national endeavor that took centuries and looked ludicrous from the get go. It all began with the revival and repurposing of the old Anglo-Saxon title of their king as the Lord of the Seas in Elizabethan times, originally meant to convey their rule over the English Channel.

That claim replaced the old Norman claims to France as the national endeavour of the people and compelled them to expand out into the world instead of sitting around producing wool to sell to the Flemish.

Societies needs purpose just as individual people do and its no surprise the British ran into trouble once they fulfilled their claim and struggled to find a new one to replace it. Countering German hegemony in Europe took over, but it was largely re-purposing their decline in a form of self-sacrifice.

That in no way stops it from being shitty.

No Britain, like much of the rest of the West, have nothing to strive for and are consumed with self-doubt, the only thing they seem to busy themselves with is making themselves as happy as they can, contentment is never condition that produces real grow in people or society.

True, but looking back at Britain's glory days is even worse for the survival of the UK. British culture is exported around the world, and the British don't bother to notice. Cultural influence is a more sustainable and healthy form of hegemony than empire.

Except no person is ever something like that, we are shades of many things and it is up to us what we chose to make ourselves represent. If you think of yourself as nothing but trash you will never be anything more than trash.

The point I was making was that you need to be honest with yourself.

The British set a high standard for themselves to meet and strove to reach as closely to it as they can without whitewashing their mistakes, but those same high standards leave them open to attack by ignorant idiots who only see them claiming to be something more than they presently are.

I would say the fuckwits that think the soggy isle is great without having to lift a finger (except for obligatory flag-waving) are a greater threat.

 

[Beastro]

Gondor had possessed the power projection of a limp fish and Arnor was dead, but the Shire still somehow survived.

That is the entire point. They were there to protect the Shire, one was wiped out in the process and the other is a shadow of itself, there is nothing protecting the Shire and the its people live in ignorance of the world around them and the danger they are in, looking upon those that take interest in it and go out into it as unstable weirdos at best.

in fact it is too idealistic

It's called contrast, and it ended with the Scourging of the Shire when the Hobbits found that crushed, old figure of evil with a pack of henchmen were enough to take over their land and devastate it after the real threat that would have wiped them out in a flash had been defeated.

That in no way stops it from being shitty.

No, not at all and we readily point it out, but originally we did so to admit fault and learn from our mistakes, today most of the Anglosphere just heaps hate on itself out of hatred of wanting to be something more than what we are.

True, but looking back at Britain's glory days is even worse for the survival of the UK. British culture is exported around the world, and the British don't bother to notice. Cultural influence is a more sustainable and healthy form of hegemony than empire.

And the British being hung up on the past is the thing plaguing them today. Be it out of regret and fear of what they might do if they seek to aim for greatness again, or if they simply are sitting back looking back on better days, they are living in the past and not working to make a new future for themselves. Empire and rule of the world ocean was a goal the last real goal they had and they have failed to find something new to replace it and are dying as a culture as a result.

Western civilization as a whole largely is to. The World Wars killed the desire for empires and conquest as a national goal in much of the West and Europe has been struggling ever since to find something new to replace it, worse they seem to hate taking pride in anything about themselves and simply want to make themselves comfortable as they drift into the waste bin of history.

The British knew the winds were changing, however, it is why they surrendered their hegemony to America peacefully during WWII something incredibly rare in history to the point of being unique. They then tried what you describe in the Commonwealth, but that has continually failed in the face of the ennui that plagues them.

America did learn from Britain and their culture is an improvement upon that in regard that they have never sought empire in the old conventional sence, but only sought enough hegemony for Western civilization to continue to grow and flourish. That may be the one real ray of hope in an empire largely built on greed and ambition, that it produce new societies with new ways of thinking within the same old Anglo-Saxon mold that have gone on to do what they can to better things while repeating less of the mistakes of the past than their forbarers.

The point I was making was that you need to be honest with yourself.

And the English are, too much to the point, that was the weakness I was explaining.

They were once slave owners, they're not anymore and are ashamed of once being slave owners. Many people not only don't give a fuck about something like that, they still practice slavery.

The issues is today, we only like to dwell on fact that they were once slave owners and other terrible things. I can see why, the good is now taken for granted, but it is telling only one side of the story and English culture is a part of the tradition in the West that led to the end of things like slavery. The problem with many English is that they are so accustomed to hating culture and what it did that it feels too weird to take pride in anything about themselves and there is not future in that for any people.

They instinctively jump to point out the bad and counter the good pointed out and it's an exaggeration of the English tendency to make a big deal about yourself while ruthlessly making fun yourself at the same time to show how at ease you are with yourself. To the English mind, one sided boasting and chest thumping means you have something to hide, because if you really didn't you'd be pointing out all your flaws and how trivial they are to your greatness.

I would say the fuckwits that think the soggy isle is great without having to lift a finger (except for obligatory flag-waving) are a greater threat.

If all they do is simply wave flags, then they are accomplishing, at best, nothing but resting on their laurels. They are at least not taking pick axes to the self-esteem of their culture and any desire to be something more than a back of inbred, Vitamin D deficient odd balls on the ass end of the European continent.

TO put it another way, as annoying as they are, optimists make the future, pessimists never do shit but whine.

I'm reminded of a friend who was sexually abused over the course of her childhood on several occasions. The lesson she took from that was that the only thing she was good for was sex and to be used by others for it, that if anyone was being nice to her or helped her, they wanted something from her and that was what they wanted. It took her a long time to work that thinking out of her mind,and I'm happy I played my part, but imagine if everyone had encouraged her to be nothing more than what she thought she was? And more so, to dare to be something better was actively mocked and criticized as being foolish and impossible given who she was, just as people today love to attack Westerners for being the descendants of empire builders and slave owners.

The British, the West, needs to give itself a break and do so before it destroys so much of itself it winds up taking pride in the evil its done because it showed strength it now lacks, or worse, they are too far gone to even do that and continue this death spiral believing that they are too terrible to be redeemed and have a future.

 

[Iznaliu]

That is the entire point. They were there to protect the Shire, one was wiped out in the process and the other is a shadow of itself, there is nothing protecting the Shire and the its people live in ignorance of the world around them and the danger they are in, looking upon those that take interest in it and go out into it as unstable weirdos at best.

The lack of protection for the Shire happened a long time before any real threat emerged; and the emergence of the threat was arguably only due to Bilbo's poking around.

It's called contrast, and it ended with the Scourging of the Shire when the Hobbits found that crushed, old figure of evil with a pack of henchmen were enough to take over their land and devastate it after the real threat that would have wiped them out in a flash had been defeated.

That doesn't change the fact that the Shire was an unrealistically idealistic society. It's rather telling that Tolkien needed outside intervention to defeat it.

No, not at all and we readily point it out, but originally we did so to admit fault and learn from our mistakes, today most of the Anglosphere just heaps hate on itself out of hatred of wanting to be something more than what we are.

The main reason why this is pointed out is that there is a sizable contingent of people who think that the British Empire did nothing wrong.

And the British being hung up on the past is the thing plaguing them today. Be it out of regret and fear of what they might do if they seek to aim for greatness again, or if they simply are sitting back looking back on better days, they are living in the past and not working to make a new future for themselves. Empire and rule of the world ocean was a goal the last real goal they had and they have failed to find something new to replace it and are dying as a culture as a result.

Western civilization as a whole largely is to. The World Wars killed the desire for empires and conquest as a national goal in much of the West and Europe has been struggling ever since to find something new to replace it, worse they seem to hate taking pride in anything about themselves and simply want to make themselves comfortable as they drift into the waste bin of history.

This is not some sort of new and unprecedented development. Most societies in history have found themselves at a want for purpose, since not everyone is lucky enough to be empire-builders. There are societies that have it far worse off than Britain, but the classic British pessimism makes this unable to be seen.

The British knew the winds were changing, however, it is why they surrendered their hegemony to America peacefully during WWII something incredibly rare in history to the point of being unique. They then tried what you describe in the Commonwealth, but that has continually failed in the face of the ennui that plagues them.

I would not call the Commonwealth a failure. Britain is actually still quite influential, but the British themselves don't realise it.

The issues is today, we only like to dwell on fact that they were once slave owners and other terrible things. I can see why, the good is now taken for granted, but it is telling only one side of the story and English culture is a part of the tradition in the West that led to the end of things like slavery. The problem with many English is that they are so accustomed to hating culture and what it did that it feels too weird to take pride in anything about themselves and there is not future in that for any people.

The majority of the British population didn't do anything about slavery. England has plenty to be proud of, but the abolition of slavery was not representative of British culture. Pride needs to be justified, not just a vacant look at your past accomplishments.

 

[Beastro]

The lack of protection for the Shire happened a long time before any real threat emerged; and the emergence of the threat was arguably only due to Bilbo's poking around.

It was only a matter of time before something would come for them, the entire War of the Ring revolved around a distant conflict happening that the Shire was indirectly a hostage to. If it wasn't that it would have been something else, just as the Battle of Greenfields was in their past where they fought against orcs that found their way into their little bubble.

That doesn't change the fact that the Shire was an unrealistically idealistic society. It's rather telling that Tolkien needed outside intervention to defeat it.

And that's where the contrast comes in, and in more ways than one.

The first bit is it's use in the heroes journey and its relation to age. The hobbits leave the Shire effectively as children, and through their experiences abroad are matured and do so through what tests them in each of their own ways. They then come back changed and see the Shire differently, they know better to see the bubble they lived in, but given the horror they witness, they are also able to appreciate the good and the innocent bits, even if the days of those things are past for both them and the Shire as well.

That ties into how many children, especially those born in late 19th Century Britain, viewed the society they grew up in. We all deal with that to some extent until the larger world intrudes and we realize the safe little world of our childhood wasn't real and it never was history demolishes that fact once you really start to dig into that.

There's a much deeper one though, and that relates to British society and how they viewed war before and after WWI. Before then they looked upon it as an adventure. Sure you might die or be injured, but it would be glorious, the usual outcome was experience a lot of interesting things, seeing a lot of interesting places, fighting a lot of interesting people and coming back home with a real neat life story and maybe a bit of loot that you were able to come across.

Then young British boys went into WWI and were wiped out by the hundreds of thousands in a war that really wasn't fun at all.

Whats the contrast with that in Tolkien work? Look at the Hobbit and how kiddie the drama is. In world, Frodo got to hear of the neat adventure Bilbo went on where he did interesting things, saw interesting places, fought interesting people, even met a dragon, heck it turned out he came out of it with a bit of loot in a neat ring!

Frodo then goes out on his own adventure and once outside the Shire the grimdark sets in immediately and his adventure just isn't fun at all, worse it's fucking with him and he's suffering, really suffering, but he keeps going because of what is at stake. At the end he comes back a broken person while the other three come back wounded in their own ways, with Sam trying his best to be a father and husband despite what he witnessed with Frodo, while the other two largely live the life of the post-WWI adventure Brits aimed for, but they're still quiet about it and not enthusiastically eager to go on about what happened.

Coupled with that they also see the toll Bilbo's adventure actually had on him and how the Ring was screwing with him, but the end of LOTR he's not the same person he is, heck he's not all that much by the time they meet him in Rivendell.

Now, going into Tolkien's own life, he was raised on straight faced Harry Flashman novels essentially and went into WWI thinking it was going to be fun and games like he was told the Napoleonic War was, only to meet hell and then to realize that it must have taken its toll on soldiers in times past as well, just like Bilbo's adventure eventually revealed its demons.

To me that is both a condemnation of the Little England he grew up in as well as one that tragically acknowledges the good that was in it, but that that good has no place in the world, that it's time in Britain and the rest of the West is over, but people still must strive to find a way to make good in the world despite that realization.

The main reason why this is pointed out is that there is a sizable contingent of people who think that the British Empire did nothing wrong.

But those people have almost no influence over Britain and haven't for quite some time. My worry is the fact that those in the opposite camp aren't simply in power, but have entrenched themselves so deeply they might not be able to be rooted out before the British kill their society from self-loathing.

This is not some sort of new and unprecedented development. Most societies in history have found themselves at a want for purpose, since not everyone is lucky enough to be empire-builders. There are societies that have it far worse off than Britain, but the classic British pessimism makes this unable to be seen.

Except that "classic" British pessimism is part of the self-loathing that overtook and is crushing the honest self-deprecation. It's what I call flinty eyed optimism.

It's what makes a movie like Zulu so fucking funny when much of it has nothing historical in it. It's simply to show the essence of that in the British to honestly admit how dire a situation is and their chances of survival and then go on to not give a fuck because they're still going to try to live through it and many manage to do so despite the odds.

That is still a apart of them and they can restore it to its former place, but it won't long as this cultural malaise continues. That's the positive thing in Brexit, even if many voted for it out of spite, the British are still British enough for spite to influence their actions enough that the rest might still be salvageable.

The thing is, you see more of that Anglo-Saxon optimism in America these days. They're annoying, whiny and make a big deal about everything, but keep trying to do better no matter how much the way they go about it grates against everyone's nerves.

I would not call the Commonwealth a failure. Britain is actually still quite influential, but the British themselves don't realise it.

It's not, but compared to what it was originally intended to be it is. Britain re-purposed it for cultural influence when it really was intended to maintain something of the Empire through the use of some really soft power.

The majority of the British population didn't do anything about slavery. England has plenty to be proud of, but the abolition of slavery was not representative of British culture. Pride needs to be justified, not just a vacant look at your past accomplishments.

The majority of humanity has done shit to make the world a better place. Again, need to focus on the rare things societies do differently and when it comes to slavery people in the future might very well look on modern Western civilization as an aberration and will become a human universal once again in time.

And it is justified that at least some in their society fought to work it out of their nation and in doing so, helped start working it out fo Western Civilization as a whole. All the more so with America given that America has never done anything with its people lock step with everyone else, everything that would cause a controversy today if it was done caused one at the time from their War of Independence, to their Civil War, to the war with Spain, against the Indians, even the World Wars.

Compare that to WWII era Germany where the big figures of admiration are a handful of school kids that were murdered for speaking out against the Nazi's and what few military officers tried to get rid of Hitler, but only after it was clear that the Nazi's had lost the war for Germany. That is a vacant look at ones past accomplishments and trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

 

[Perkel]

You could do more with her about the story because in books all subplots roll around her.
Geralt is there just because, he could be replaced with any henchman, she couldn't.
In books she is more mature at times and demented, fucked up crazy little bitch. In TW3 she's a little Disney princes because...mass appeal.

That part was mostly because of events. She changed from being bandit to normal chick rather quickly.

Imo her being bandit and bonhart deal was best part of novel. Imo it would be way more interesting to make her follow Falka path with Geralt playing as sort of safety valve for her rather than what she ended up in books.

I think this is where novel did biggest mistake. Playing safe with Ciri in later parts.

 

[HoboForEternity]

https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/art...the-authors-behind-the-witcher-and-metro-2033

interesting article. dmitri seems to be a cool guy, but adrzej is a pile of salty ass

 

[Morality Games]

Every time I see the this thread in the index I think it is going to read, "Witcher author Andrzej Sapkowski dies."

Then I remember there is a thread about his disdain of games.

 

[Taluntain]

"The belief, widely spread by CDPR, that the games made me popular outside of Poland is completely false. I made the games popular. All of my translations in the West—including the English one—were published before the first game."

 

[Des]

"The belief, widely spread by CDPR, that the games made me popular outside of Poland is completely false. I made the games popular. All of my translations in the West—including the English one—were published before the first game."

At least his interviews never fail to amuse people.

 

[Storyfag]

At the time of publishing the 1st game, his English publications were limited to the 1st volume of short stories and the 1st novel. Even though, from a story perspective, it is the 2nd volume of short stories that ties into the novel cycle. Mmmmyeah, made the games popular. Muh populariteh.

 

[Ezeekiel]

"Where's the room for depth or sophisticated language with which games could elevate culture? There's none." — Andrzej Sapkowski

1) Who cares?
2) Was there depth or sophisticated language in the Witcher novels???

All jokes aside, is he actually serious or is this just his way of making fun of things?
The games sure have their flaws, but..

 

[DeepOcean]

You know the shit videogames are on in terms of writing that even fantasy writers feel like making little of them.

 

[Taluntain]

"Where's the room for depth or sophisticated language with which games could elevate culture? There's none." — Andrzej Sapkowski

1) Who cares?
2) Was there depth or sophisticated language in the Witcher novels???

All jokes aside, is he actually serious or is this just his way of making fun of things?
The games sure have their flaws, but..

No, he's actually like that in every interview ever. Delusions of grandeur and all that.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

I bought all 7 books and read them. Very entertaining unlike, say, a turd of ice and fire which was so mindbogglingly boring i stopped reading it at some point, and at least for me it is true that I got the books because of the games and not the other way around.

 

[Keppo]

No, he's actually like that in every interview ever. Delusions of grandeur and all that.

not sure if it was linked here or if there is translation:
http://www.eurogamer.pl/articles/20...e-ze-nie-spodziewal-sie-sukcesu-gier-wiedzmin

tl;dr;
it was his call to grab money not %, as he didnt believe in game success(hard to blame him after movie and another game that was never released)
He also said that game is well done.
At the end he sais that he got nothing against gamers and games, he just doesnt like playing himself.

So yeah, thats the one only interview ever I know of in which he is positive... Sober + antidepressants?

Not related to that particular interview, his counseling to game development was minimal. In w3 it was only about names of places and geography(each time you have a look at map you can imagine his approval stamp). Dont know anything about w1 and w2... Knowing that he doesnt approve plot at all, its probably similar.

I dont think he has any involvment in Witcher 2 or Witcher 3, and minimal in Witcher 1. He said that he dont understand games, and when they started with Witcher 1 he refuse to work with them.

 

[Iznaliu]

he refuse to work with them

Sapkowski: Master Businessman!

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Sapkowski is 70 year old drunk, why are people always surprised that he's a bit out of touch with the world? That's what happens, give the guy a break.

 

[Ezeekiel]

Sapkowski is 70 year old drunk, why are people always surprised that he's a bit out of touch with the world? That's what happens, give the guy a break.

His initial reaction is understandable based on that... But once witcher 3 began development, I would have expected him to change his mind and climb aboard basically.

Then again other authors tried to go the game route and it kind of sucked... Richard Morgan's influence on Crysis....2? was basically not noticeable unless you knew about it and looked real hard... And even then it just all comes out as unimportant and banal.

I guess Sapkowski isn't wrong when he says that writing for games and writing novels are very different things... Still. Witcher is an adaption of his actual work/world after all. I'd want to have a say in things going on in the game if it was me.

 

[BelisariuS.F]

I've stumbled upon a quite interesting interview with Sapkowski

 

[Warlod]

I've stumbled upon a quite interesting interview with Sapkowski

Thanks. He speaks about the game around minute 35 for anyone who is interested

 

[Kuattro]

It doesn't have a lot to do with games (well, it does, but you know what I mean), but I suspect he is about to change his tune as fast as his bank account is about to get bigger.

The Witcher is heading to Netflix

EDIT: Why do I never check if there's a post talking about it in another subforum, god damn it.

 

[Perkel]

Sapkowski is 70 year old drunk, why are people always surprised that he's a bit out of touch with the world? That's what happens, give the guy a break.

uhh. You should read few interviews with him and his articles. He isn't 70 year old drunk nor he is like other old people yelling at cloud. He doesn't play games nor he understand them or like them.

He comes annoyed for most people because everytime he does interview people ask him about games etc. when he doesn't want to have anything to do with them in first place.

When he released books in english his publisher even used some crappy artwork from Witcher 2 and also was pretty annoyed by that.

I mean if i would be him and be constantly nagged by people about games when you don't want nothing to do with it because you don't earn single buck on it i would be pretty annoyed too.

 

[Codexlurker]

Sapkowski is 70 year old drunk, why are people always surprised that he's a bit out of touch with the world? That's what happens, give the guy a break.

uhh. You should read few interviews with him and his articles. He isn't 70 year old drunk nor he is like other old people yelling at cloud. He doesn't play games nor he understand them or like them.

He comes annoyed for most people because everytime he does interview people ask him about games etc. when he doesn't want to have anything to do with them in first place.

When he released books in english his publisher even used some crappy artwork from Witcher 2 and also was pretty annoyed by that.

I mean if i would be him and be constantly nagged by people about games when you don't want nothing to do with it because you don't earn single buck on it i would be pretty annoyed too.

Yea, I know about the artwork because I ordered those books lol. I would of preferred that all of the books had that nice black hardcover that only one book that I ordered had.

 

[Fargus]

He sold rights to Witcher for 4000$ lol... Don't know if it's true, but if it is no wonder there is so much bile coming out of him for years. He's just salty old fuck.