Game News CD Projekt Summer Conference: Witcher 3 pre-order and trailer, Witcher digital board game, and more

[Grunker]

This thread perfectly demonstrates why simulationists should not be taken seriously.

 

[ioanvonhans]

It is moot to talk about drawing a sword since, as a rule, a sword would always be unsheathed when entering battle (this also applies to Japanese samurai, as opposed to the spergy movie depictions on the matter). Furthermore, the swords were typically carried in hand (sheathed in their scabbard), and very rarely worn.

Not sure where you are getting this info. I've seen a ton of depictions of europeans and japanese samurai with swords (in movies, paintings, statuettes, etc), and in pretty much all of them, the swords were "worn", not carried in hand. In fact, the point you make later on in one of your posts , that swords were primarily a secondary weapon in battle (which i agree with) supports them being "worn", since obviously a side-arm would be kinda useless if it had to be carried in your hands.

As far as weapons being unsheathed when entering battle, yeah that's probably true in most cases, but we are playing RPG/adventure games, not battle simulators. Just moving around the world as an adventurer/mercenary, you wouldn't have advance warning the same way a soldier entering battle would, so it would be very important for you to be able to draw out your weapon at a moment's notice.

From books (say Gladiatoria), from discussions with medieval fencing teachers.

One instance is civilian life, the other is warfare. The point I was making is that a lot of the stuff that happened in medieval life would not necessarily look cool in games/books/movies, and it doesn't I guess since none of it is historically accurate by any stretch of the imagination. Ha!

In civilian life, nobles and knights would often carry their sword, not wear it. Like a marshal would wear his baton if you will. It was a matter of showing off their status. Since only these people could legally carry instruments they could kill other people with, guess what, they wanted to let everyone know they were rich and powerful and everyone else wasn't. Of course they would wear it in battle, I never claimed they didn't.

In any case, since Geralt isn't a noble or a knight, he would be forbidden to carry a sword in a medieval setting. Less so on his back or up his ass, or whatever. However, I do not think anyone would care to read a book about a dude who beating monsters with a club or an axe or karate chop the fuck out of some full plate man of arms.

Up to late 19th century, the elite wore swords loosely attached to their belts with literal gold chains, so they could always keep their hand on the sword, handle forward, like an swinging erect dick. Beats me why. Make me rich and important and I will wear the fuck out of whatever highlights my status to everyone else.

Of course none of this was common place, because rich elite weren't common place, it would defeat the point of being elite, wouldn't it? But do not take my word for it.

Also, to whoever said that the setting in Witcher 2 is not a battlefield. It actually is. 75% of the game takes place in warcamps, during preparation to battle, during sieges or full blown battlefields.

I am not saying that the game or the book should be historically accurate. Matter of fact, expecting a sword and sorcery fantasy to satisfy this criteria is silly in my opinion.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

In civilian life, nobles and knights would often carry their sword, not wear it. Like a marshal would wear his baton if you will. It was a matter of showing off their status. Since only these people could legally carry instruments they could kill other people with, guess what, they wanted to let everyone know they were rich and powerful and everyone else wasn't. Of course they would wear it in battle, I never claimed they didn't.

I dunno man, I could see someone carrying a sword for a ceremony or something like that, but even in civilian life it makes more sense to wear it on your belt, if simply for the convenience. Even in the picture you linked, they are still wearing the swords.

One instance is civilian life, the other is warfare. The point I was making is that a lot of the stuff that happened in medieval life would not necessarily look cool in games/books/movies, and it doesn't I guess since none of it is historically accurate by any stretch of the imagination. Ha!

...

I am not saying that the game or the book should be historically accurate. Matter of fact, expecting a sword and sorcery fantasy to satisfy this criteria is silly in my opinion.

Well, again, I feel like people only consider two extremes, let's either make the game completely realistic and historical to the point of OCD (which would obviously suck), or let's just throw all realism and common sense out the window, because you know, it's just video games. Why not take a more balanced approach, get rid of historical/realistic aspects where they hurt the gameplay, but still actually do some research about how stuff was used and apply it on some level?

 

[Cadmus]

I gotta say, nothing against The Witcher 3, might turn out to be a great game, but after watching the realistic historical gameplay footage of Kingdom Come: Deliverance, The Witcher trailers just looks so silly. I realize all games take liberties with realism, but something about a guy walking around with two two-handed swords on his back makes me smile. Considering their length, he wouldnt be able to get either out of their sheath, but if he did, he d then run around with the other still on his back messing with him, which is especially ironic considering how much he rolls (based on previous games). And then the spell casting during fighting, so Bethesda-like. I expect this kind of thing from Elder Scrolls, but seems given The Witcher's mature themes, they might have been better served with a more realistic and toned down combat system. That's just me though.

They are bastard-swords, there is no physical law that prevent you from unsheathing a sword in that position as long as the scabbard is firmly fastened to your back. There is also a reason because whitchers bring 2 swords with them and this reason is coherent with the setting (one sword is a common steel sword, and the other one is a magical sword made out of silver that works only against monsters).

Of course, this series has nothing to do with historical accuracy, but when it comes to this particular topic, people have often all sort of strange (and wrong) ideas. Stuff like you can't run (o roll) in plate-armor, you can't wield a warhammer single handed, a bow is 10 times faster then a crossbow, etc...

You can't draw the sword from a sheath on the back, it's impossible if the sword is too long and impractical if it isn't.
Funnily, Geralt sometimes doesn't draw it the normal way but kinda props it into the air and catches it which would be possible (even though dangerous). I don't remember which game this was in, I guess only TW1 maybe?

I don't understand the rest of your post, people get the wrong idea thinking these things are not possible?

Generally, I'm fucking sick of the magnetic swords and shields stuck on people's backs for lazy reasons.

 

[Dr Schultz]

It is moot to talk about drawing a sword since, as a rule, a sword would always be unsheathed when entering battle (this also applies to Japanese samurai, as opposed to the spergy movie depictions on the matter). Furthermore, the swords were typically carried in hand (sheathed in their scabbard), and very rarely worn.

Not sure where you are getting this info. I've seen a ton of depictions of europeans and japanese samurai with swords (in movies, paintings, statuettes, etc), and in pretty much all of them, the swords were "worn", not carried in hand. In fact, the point you make later on in one of your posts , that swords were primarily a secondary weapon in battle (which i agree with) supports them being "worn", since obviously a side-arm would be kinda useless if it had to be carried in your hands.

As far as weapons being unsheathed when entering battle, yeah that's probably true in most cases, but we are playing RPG/adventure games, not battle simulators. Just moving around the world as an adventurer/mercenary, you wouldn't have advance warning the same way a soldier entering battle would, so it would be very important for you to be able to draw out your weapon at a moment's notice.

From books (say Gladiatoria), from discussions with medieval fencing teachers.

I don't know what teacher you talking to, but he told you bullshits. The (almost) correct part of your post is that during specific periods of middle-age (absolutely not in the first half, for instance) only nobles, knights and public officers were allowed to carry weapons during peace times. The incorrect part is that swords weren't worn to the flank. For fuck sake, there is even a late middle age sword called "Spada da Lato" (side sword), and guess what? It was called that way because it was worn to the flank. There are also tons of archeological evidences and historical fonts that show swords worn to the flank in any kind of situation.


http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/364-3_large.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=29471&view=previous&h=1000&w=720&tbnid=HOJxkQuS-b-eXM:&zoom=1&docid=O0HrexapXrmZKM&ei=WOmWU6GtMOm9ygOI9ICwCQ&tbm=isch&ved=0CC0QMyglMCU4ZA&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=536&page=5&start=114&ndsp=33


http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://www.weapons-universe.com/Swords/13th_Century_French_Soldier.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.weapons-universe.com/Swords/Medieval_Weapons.shtml&h=617&w=289&tbnid=8p5KyCok2mdJFM:&zoom=1&docid=_sm8-9q6oxY6nM&ei=cemWU-2ZCILMygP-oIDQBw&tbm=isch&ved=0CF4QMyhWMFY4rAI&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=312&page=13&start=385&ndsp=14


http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/download.php%3Fid%3D11334&imgrefurl=http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11077&h=699&w=566&tbnid=7SCAQm3OouyjQM:&zoom=1&docid=BNGRoPFpwtenzM&ei=cemWU-2ZCILMygP-oIDQBw&tbm=isch&ved=0CF0QMyhVMFU4rAI&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=192&page=13&start=385&ndsp=14imgurl=http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/download.php%3Fid%3D11334&imgrefurl=http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11077&h=699&w=566&tbnid=7SCAQm3OouyjQM:&zoom=1&docid=BNGRoPFpwtenzM&ei=cemWU-2ZCILMygP-oIDQBw&tbm=isch&ved=0CF0QMyhVMFU4rAI&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=192&page=13&start=385&ndsp=14



Of course, I agree that games don't need to be historically accurate for being fun. But they can be both fun and accurate: it's all about execution. There are tons of misconceptions about "unfunny things in middle-age".


As for Geralt, swords are Witcher's "tools". Given that their services are hold in high-esteem, they are allowed to carry how many swords they want.

 

[Raghar]

Sword drawing animation is different in the first Witcher, he kinda jerks it out of the scabbard and grabs it in the air, I preferred it that way mostly for gameplay reasons as it was much faster. Many times in Witcher 2 when the cutscene ended enemies would charge you with their swords already out beating up on Geralt while he draws the sword from his back (and on top of that you couldn't roll with your sword sheathed so it was often very hard to avoid that first post-cutscene enemy attack).

You have massive advantage of anticipating the combat already over Gerald. If he anticipated the combat, he would have sword in hands before the cutscene would end. So don't complain. Imagine on how hard it was for him. You are playing the easy mode.

 

[Dr Schultz]

A second gameplay video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wNiiQpDPJE

 

[Cadmus]

THIS IS GERALT, HE IS OUR PROTAGONIST, YOU FUCKING RETARDS, IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD, WE'LL WASTE THIS PRESENTATION ON EXPLAINING WHAT THE GAME IS ABOUT TO FUCKING PEASANT FAGGOT IDIOTS INSTEAD OF SAYING INTERESTING THINGS

 

[Metro]

I R RETARD

 

[Cadmus]

go fuck a duck, Metro

u spelt id wong

 

[Raghar]

What this discussion about swords didn't dragged out to 50 pages already?

 

[made]

Like I'm going to take the word of some nerd and his ugly gf with their plastic swords over that of Pan Sapkowski, novelist and historian extraordinaire.

Also: magnets