Game News The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Patch 1.3 Released

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: CD Projekt; Witcher 2, The

<p>Patch 1.3 for <strong>The Witcher2: Assassins of Kings</strong> has been released.</p>
<p>Changelog and patch <a href="http://en.thewitcher.com/patch1-3/" target="_blank">available here</a>.</p>

 

[Grunker]

A patch that adds support for my screen, adds a quest, and reduces the power of Quen. And a bunch of other assorted fixes. Nice patch. This, however:

Option to fist fight woman praying at a statue in Vergen has been deactivated.

is massive decline. Equality goes both ways - it is nothing but enforcement of stock institutionalism to remove a quest because some people find it offensive to beat a woman by default. What, are female boxers chauvanism too?

 

[Regdar]

Equality goes both ways - it is nothing but enforcement of stock institutionalism to remove a quest because some people find it offensive to beat a woman by default. What, are female boxers chauvanism too?

Are you implying The Witcher is big on gender equality?

 

[Konjad]

Fucking women. I can't even beat the up.

 

[Admiral jimbob]

Sorceress' Lodge (particularly Triss, Sile and Phillippa), Saskia, sort of Adda? It might be a prejudiced world, but it's one with its fair share of empowered females.

 

[Grunker]

Equality goes both ways - it is nothing but enforcement of stock institutionalism to remove a quest because some people find it offensive to beat a woman by default. What, are female boxers chauvanism too?

Are you implying The Witcher is big on gender equality?

Pretty much, yeah? It has women as key political players in a traditional medieval world. Gender-equality isn't the denial of historic fact (unless you're a stupid post-feminist) or completely ignoring the differences between sexes. If you mean Geralt's James Bond-like sexing up 'dem females, most of the key ones in the game, and certainly the ones in the book, aren't really what you can describe as door-mats.

Either way, the removal of a boxing-fight with a girl is a pretty clear bow to the worst form of political correctness - the arbitrary one.

 

[Oriebam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk9rvw0eH6I
"These graphics are the best right now, this game must be sh-
HOLY THIS THIS GAME IS FUCKING AWESOME
OH MY GOD I'M BEATING RANDOM GLITCHED WOMEN JESUS CHRIST
I JUST GOT HIT BY A INVISIBLE THING
FUCK YES THIS IS THE BEST GAME EVER!"

 

[Mrowak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk9rvw0eH6I
"These graphics are the best right now, this game must be sh-
HOLY THIS THIS GAME IS FUCKING AWESOME
OH MY GOD I'M BEATING RANDOM GLITCHED WOMEN JESUS CHRIST
I JUST GOT HIT BY A INVISIBLE THING
FUCK YES THIS IS THE BEST GAME EVER!"

I think they addressed that in the patch 1.3. - both the fact that she stands that way and that you can beat her. Actually, this may be the true reason why they cut fighting with her out - they couldn't fix the fist fight so they got rid of it.

 

[Rivmusique]

Hmm this pushes my next playthrough of Witcher 2 forward, was going to throw in a Fallout 2 playthrough before that but I guess I will start it after I finish Fallout to check out that new quest. Better be better than Troll Troubles.

 

[Elwro]

Don't get your hopes up; it's supposed to be rewarding for "players with a lot of patience".

 

[Rivmusique]

Don't get your hopes up; it's supposed to be rewarding for "players with a lot of patience".

Aren't all of Twitcher 2 quests? Rewarding to the players who have enough patience to wait for Witcher 3 to see if their decisions will ever actually change gameplay.

 

[Regdar]

Pretty much, yeah? It has women as key political players in a traditional medieval world. Gender-equality isn't the denial of historic fact (unless you're a stupid post-feminist) or completely ignoring the differences between sexes. If you mean Geralt's James Bond-like sexing up 'dem females, most of the key ones in the game, and certainly the ones in the book, aren't really what you can describe as door-mats.

Either way, the removal of a boxing-fight with a girl is a pretty clear bow to the worst form of political correctness - the arbitrary one.

I think you'll agree that the Sorceress' Lodge wouldn't have that kind of power if it's members weren't sorceresses able to call down a rain of meteors or influence a king's mind with a spell. That, and the fact that 90% of them are scheming bitches. It's actually pretty well explained in the context of the setting.

On the other hand, all the other women are pretty much what you'd expect - dirt farmers or prostitutes, with a few exceptions (the elf, Malena and that witch girl come to mind). They are physically weaker than men, so you don't see them wearing full plate and fighting on the front lines - an incline of realism in fantasy games, to be sure. The game is pretty much guaranteed to give a heart attack to female gamers used to Bioware games. Luckily, they aren't the target demographic.

 

[Grunker]

Dol Blathanna is controlled by a woman, and the most key member of the squirrels is a girl. Not to mention the only religion looked upon with some kindness by Sapkowski is female (Melitele).

I'm not saying there are no prostitutes in The Witcher. Only having empowered females isn't equality, it's just ignorance.

You make the case that The Witcher is particularly chauvinist though, and I don't see it. The whole storyline about the cursed princesses revolves around twisting the structural deposition of women in fairy-tales and disney-adventures.

 

[Jools]

Even ME2 lets you punch the backstabbing journalist whore!

 

[Regdar]

You make the case that The Witcher is particularly chauvinist though, and I don't see it. The whole storyline about the cursed princesses revolves around twisting the structural deposition of women in fairy-tales and disney-adventures.

It's definitely not chauvinist per se. I'd say it's chauvinist but only from a certain (limited) point of view and only in comparison with the usual fare of fantasy settings, where women have equal opportunities as men in all things. In FG, a female halfling barbarian is only 2 strength behind a male human one. And that's fine - it is a fantasy game, after all.

All I'm trying to say is that The Witcher's more or less realistic (and I would say honest) approach to the difference between genders can understandably be seen as chauvinist, when modern social context is taken into consideration.

 

[Jools]

You make the case that The Witcher is particularly chauvinist though, and I don't see it. The whole storyline about the cursed princesses revolves around twisting the structural deposition of women in fairy-tales and disney-adventures.

It's definitely not chauvinist per se. I'd say it's chauvinist but only from a certain (limited) point of view and only in comparison with the usual fare of fantasy settings, where women have equal opportunities as men in all things. In FG, a female halfling barbarian is only 2 strength behind a male human one. And that's fine - it is a fantasy game, after all.

All I'm trying to say is that The Witcher's more or less realistic (and I would say honest) approach to the difference between genders can understandably be seen as chauvinist, when modern social context is taken into consideration.

I think The Witcher is chauvinistic only if one really wants to see it that way, like most of anything else, hollywood movies, fantasy books, scifi, the Olympics, anything really. Even in the usual fare of fantasy settings women have had "equal opportunities" only recently, and yet still in a very sly and, in a way, "chauvinistic" way (and probably only because of the recent "politically correct" shitstorm, not out of sheer innovation or originality). But again, is it really chauvinism or is it just the way that kind of "culture" (forgive the word) has been forged along the years?

 

[Grunker]

So, Jools, you're basically saying that because something has become part of 'culture' (I'd use the word 'become an institution), one can't critize its morals? :S

I'd advocate the exact opposite. It's just that in my eyes The Witcher does not in any particular way advocate the institution of male supremacy.

 

[Jools]

So, Jools, you're basically saying that because something has become part of 'culture' (I'd use the word 'become an institution), one can't critize its morals? :S

I'd advocate the exact opposite. It's just that in my eyes The Witcher does not in any particular way advocate the institution of male supremacy.

I probably expressed myself horribly as per usual. What I meant is that, as anything else, even The Witcher can be instrumentalized to support one cause or another, but it would mean "forcing" a purpose onto it, that the game itself doesn't have. In other words, The Witcher depicts a world that might be chauvinistic (inherently, as most fantasy worlds are), but that is not the game's purpose.

For example, nobody criticizes the instituted "morals" of the Olympic Games, but they could easily pass as chauvinistic, if one really wanted them to.

All I'm saying is, people should take it easy and try not to see stuff where there isn't. But then again, there are a lot of people with shitloads of chips on their shoulders, out there. It's a free world, after all.

 

[Grunker]

I see your point, and I agree. Though I would say that although it is not the objective of something to enforce an institution, it can do it all the same in some instances

 

[Phelot]

ROFL does the woman actually fight back and do awesome finish 'em moves on Geralt as well? If so, that's a little ridiculous...

I'd say the first game was pretty chauvinistic and Geralt was one of the most unlikable characters for me. He seemed to be this condescending prick that runs around fucking random people's wives and shit only to break into retarded philosophy with his buds from time to time.

He seems much better in TW2. More reserved and less macho. But I still don't really get why you even have to get involved. I mean, why not be like "Hey bros, I didn't kill that king, ask those kids over there." I mean, didn't the kids see?

 

[Jools]

I'd say the first game was pretty chauvinistic and Geralt was one of the most unlikable characters for me. He seemed to be this condescending prick that runs around fucking random people's wives and shit only to break into retarded philosophy with his buds from time to time.

But that was -your- choice... In no way TW1 forced you to be the chauvinist macho who shagged pretty much every living thing with a hole between her legs. It's not even like Dragon Age 2, where you actually have NPCs initiate that kind of conversation on the PC. In TW1, there was the option, yes, but that's what it was, an option. In fact, when it came to something which was closer to "real" stuff, involving feelings and all (Shani or Triss, whichever one chose), TW1 did much more of a better job at portraying emotions and states of mind than any RPG I can think of (of course, it was still quite far from reality, but I like it like that).

 

[Phelot]

I'd say the first game was pretty chauvinistic and Geralt was one of the most unlikable characters for me. He seemed to be this condescending prick that runs around fucking random people's wives and shit only to break into retarded philosophy with his buds from time to time.

But that was -your- choice... In no way TW1 forced you to be the chauvinist macho who shagged pretty much every living thing with a hole between her legs. It's not even like Dragon Age 2, where you actually have NPCs initiate that kind of conversation on the PC. In TW1, there was the option, yes, but that's what it was, an option. In fact, when it came to something which was closer to "real" stuff, involving feelings and all (Shani or Triss, whichever one chose), TW1 did much more of a better job at portraying emotions and states of mind than any RPG I can think of (of course, it was still quite far from reality, but I like it like that).

There was no noticeable consequence for NOT sexing up an entire gutter town. It wasn't reflected that you're showing restraint, you simply didn't get the cool heart by your sekret love diary.

And the feelings he shows towards Triss and Shani never seem consistent with what else is going on. He's a mega asshole towards humans in one conversation, contemplates settling down with Shani in another, and then tries to put the sweet talk on some elf woman in a cave. Where's the "HAI BAYBAY ID LOVE 2 SHAG, BUT MY HOOMAN GF AND I R IN LOVE!!!" I understand it's "my choice" but in the end, it feels more like I'm breaking what the game expects me to be LARPing rather than giving me actual consequences. If the game allows me to get away with something, why shouldn't I do it?

Geralt's character flowed much better in TW2 and he rarely broke from his personality.

 

[Jools]

I'd say the first game was pretty chauvinistic and Geralt was one of the most unlikable characters for me. He seemed to be this condescending prick that runs around fucking random people's wives and shit only to break into retarded philosophy with his buds from time to time.

But that was -your- choice... In no way TW1 forced you to be the chauvinist macho who shagged pretty much every living thing with a hole between her legs. It's not even like Dragon Age 2, where you actually have NPCs initiate that kind of conversation on the PC. In TW1, there was the option, yes, but that's what it was, an option. In fact, when it came to something which was closer to "real" stuff, involving feelings and all (Shani or Triss, whichever one chose), TW1 did much more of a better job at portraying emotions and states of mind than any RPG I can think of (of course, it was still quite far from reality, but I like it like that).

There was no noticeable consequence for NOT sexing up an entire gutter town. It wasn't reflected that you're showing restraint, you simply didn't get the cool heart by your sekret love diary.

And the feelings he shows towards Triss and Shani never seem consistent with what else is going on. He's a mega asshole towards humans in one conversation, contemplates settling down with Shani in another, and then tries to put the sweet talk on some elf woman in a cave. Where's the "HAI BAYBAY ID LOVE 2 SHAG, BUT MY HOOMAN GF AND I R IN LOVE!!!" I understand it's "my choice" but in the end, it feels more like I'm breaking what the game expects me to be LARPing rather than giving me actual consequences. If the game allows me to get away with something, why shouldn't I do it?

Still boils down to being a choice of yours. You don't even get XP from the shags, and the fact that you just did it because you -knew- in advance that it would have had no consequences, that's just random metagaming. I concur, though, that it would have been nice if the game had had some kind of feedback for being a shag-a-lot ass (but again, you couldn't know that it didn't, so it was your choice to "cheat" on your partner of choice: in fact, I remember not having indulged in any extrra debauchery after having the thing going with Shani, on my first playthrough).

edit - And yes, it's kinda LARP-y, but that goes down as a merit of the game for having me make Geralt be a considerate boyfriend.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

The lack of witty quips in this news post is severely disturbing.

 

[PrzeSzkoda]

For all you Sapkowski fanboys, he actually had female frontline badass warriors in his books. Rayla the Black/the Gray, the two warrior-bodyguards of the

Spoiler

gold dragon dude in that short story.

the brigand band calling themselves the Rats was also half-female (a good excuse for hawt lesbian sex, very mature), and that crazy-ass killer gal from the story The Lesser Evil who almost gave Geralt a run for his money (she was something of an abomination/mutant though). There must have been many more, but I haven't read the lot of his writings.

 

[Lesifoere]

So, Jools, you're basically saying that because something has become part of 'culture' (I'd use the word 'become an institution), one can't critize its morals? :S

I'd advocate the exact opposite. It's just that in my eyes The Witcher does not in any particular way advocate the institution of male supremacy.

I probably expressed myself horribly as per usual. What I meant is that, as anything else, even The Witcher can be instrumentalized to support one cause or another, but it would mean "forcing" a purpose onto it, that the game itself doesn't have. In other words, The Witcher depicts a world that might be chauvinistic (inherently, as most fantasy worlds are), but that is not the game's purpose.

For example, nobody criticizes the instituted "morals" of the Olympic Games, but they could easily pass as chauvinistic, if one really wanted them to.

All I'm saying is, people should take it easy and try not to see stuff where there isn't. But then again, there are a lot of people with shitloads of chips on their shoulders, out there. It's a free world, after all.

Lol, regardless of everything else talking about a piece of media's "purpose" is fucking stupid. Death of the author, hello.