No please, I know your upload schedule and you are going to make a witcher 3 video in 20 hours when Joseph Anderson is on his 2000th replaying and rewriting of the video. His mind will schism irreparably if you upload the third one. It is the video that must not be made. I say this for Joseph's sake, he cannot bear to witness this.
People who claim Geralt is actually neutral either didn't read the books or didn't understand the character. Neutrality and the witcher code are made up mombo jumbo to avoid being dragged into political issues. Geralt is a very moral character and always does what he thinks is right, usually to great cost to himself. He is just old and tired and done with everyone else's shit.
Sapkowski sold the video game rights for so cheap because he honestly didn’t understand how big video games were, and he also didn’t think The Witcher would sell as a video game. CDR explained it to him and offered a better deal, but Sapkowski simply wanted the “quick cash.”
Take in note, that he once sold rights for video game for Hexer, and this didn't worked at all. Tbh If I was him, I would do the same ( including sueing them later after how big these games turned out).
It's actually a shame that most tricky moral choices are just the unpredictable, though there's the few actually good dilemmas that I'll always cherish
@@monto4944His rant is onedimensional but what the hell did it have to do with capitalism? The IP isn´t even set in a society where such a construct can exist. It´s a pre-Magna Carta world.
A nice retrospective, but I have a few points I very much disagree with. Starting with the small things: - the world's mythology, monsters and locations are very much a mixed bag of european myths and legends, and it boils my blood when someone tries to generalize The Witcher's mythos as "eastern european" or "slavic", because, while it's a big part of it, it's definitely not the entirety. Sapkowski took inspiration from all-over, including arthurian legends and celtic myths, and then, more often than not, tried to make a spin or a subversion, often to parody and mock the age-old fantasy tropes and stories. When something is out of place, it is supposed to be out of place (although I do agree, CDPR's world's cohesion is a bit lacking sometimes, especially in this game), - the witcher code - yeah, it doesn't really exist. It's just a set of arbitrary rules and explanations used to get out of uncomfortable situations and preserve one's reputation. People will look down on a witcher if he declines them for no reason, but if he's backed by an *almost knightly* set of honor-based rules, they won't question him. I assume it's easy to guess my biggest gripe - the representation of the Order-Scoia'tael conflict. To make one thing clear - I don't think even amnesiac Geralt would choose the Order side, even if he initially doesn't mind Siegfried (the only semi-decent member we see, who gets more and more radicalized as the time progresses and as he gets closer to de Aldersberg). It's clear from the get-go, that they're a corrupt, zealous organisation based in human supremacy and religious fanaticism. But having said that - I don't think Geralt would side with the Scoia'tael either, in this instance. Yaevinn is, in his own right, a raging supremacist, and his commando is a terrorist group espousing the "you're either with us, or against us, and if you're against us, you deserve death" mentality, not just towards Geralt, but towards the elves and dwarves of the city. The only Scoia'tael group that does not fit this description are the elves in Murky Waters, who are lead by an established, reformed character from the books. I also dislike how you focused solely on the atrocities The Order commits, while diminishing the Scoia'tael actions. If it was the case of Geralt supporting either the nonhumans (in general) or the Order, I would 100% agree that Geralt would side with nonhumans. But it's not. It's a case of "does Geralt support the supremacist genocidal religious zealots with an arrogant murderous leader - or - does he support the supremacist genocidal terrorist group with an arrogant murderous leader", in which the answer, in my opinion, is - neither. Resources and power dynamic be damned. And that's before even thinking about what choosing either side would do to a witcher's reputation, but, let's face it, The Witcher games were never about mundane witchering, not really.
Well said. I generally appreciate this creator's content, but that ideological rant was frustrating. Plenty of people, if not most, make their decisions based on their own sense of ethics, so it's completely rational for someone to refuse to take a side in a conflict if both factions are ethically opposed to them. I think one of the other things that upsets me most is his use of Kreia's "apathy is death" quote. Just because one doesn't want to engage in a specific political conflict, doesn't mean that they are apathetic to all things in life. They can pick and chose their battles and their engagement will vary depending on the stakes. Also, Kreia is a perfect example of someone who resents both sides of the ideological conflict that is present in her world. She heavily criticizes both the Jedi and the Sith. It's odd he criticizes taking any neutral positions when using the words of a character who is notoriously morally grey and nuanced.
@@staffmitchellart agree. Seems like he was much more interested in some clumsy virtue signaling than really analyzing the sides in the Witcher 1 conflict. Funnily enough that video section felt more like a scoiatel propaganda than an actual fair assessment of the choices here.
Completely disagree on your take on siding with the elves. Because the problem is you are not siding with the elves - you are siding with the Scoia'tael specifically. And they are literal terrorists. They don't represent the nonhumans, in fact there are many non-humans who hate the squirrels, because their "resistance" makes everything worse for regular elves and dwarves. And many squirrels in turn despise the non-humans that refuse to join them, and view them as lowly as "dhoine". The rhetoric about "well the elves did something bad over there, who cares, humans did something bad too" doesn't make any sense.The fact that the anger and hatred of the non-humans in the setting is perfectly understandable doesn't make the actions of the squirrels justifiable. Yaevinn specifically - the person you are supposed to unite with in the game - was shooting innocent bypassers in the back from a bush, killing wounded soldiers in field hospitals, and is a very well established racist himself. If you've read the books you should know that, so ignoring that while bashing Siegfried for his intolerance of non-humans (which only starts to show by the end of the game, as he gets more and more brainwashed by the Order's "ideals", as before that he only had a problem with the scoia'tael specifically) is simply hypocritical. Let me also remind you how human soldiers were choosing to kill each other instead of getting captured alive by the squirrels during the war, not because of some weird pride or honor ideas like "You'll never get me alive!" but because they were terrified, and knew how absurdly cruel and torturous the squirrels are towards their human captives. Or play Thronebreaker and familiarize yourself with Eldain, who doesn't mind skinning people alive or setting wounded and maimed humans nailed to a tree on fire. The way you are trying to paint the picture is conflating siding with the scoia'tael with siding with non-humans, which is simply not true. The squirrels don't represent non-humans. Just like the order does not represent humans. It's a simpler conflict than you are trying to make it seem, which is ironic because at the same time you are trying to oversimplify the morality of it. Both sides are bad. Objectively. And every major player is either a liar or a hypocrite. And the neutral path is not as rewarding as taking a side because that's the point - it's more difficult. Because refusing to join either side makes you the enemy in the eyes of both. If you want to consider the conflict on a global inter-racial level - of course humans did terrible things to the elves, no one is denying that. But if you want to blame humans for committing a genocide against the elves - you have to acknowledge that the elves did the same to the vranns, and tried to do the same to the dwarves, except the dwarves turned out to be a tougher nut to crack. And let's not forget that the Aen Elle did do the same to humans in their own world. Aen Seidhe were never much different, they just failed to handle the "competition" when they had the chance. And what do we see yet again? Both sides are bad. And while you making statements in the video as if you've solved the moral dilemma of the setting is somewhat funny, you are also either being a hypocrite, or unknowingly misinform your viewers that are less familar with the setting.
Okay buddy but it's fiction written by a person trying to create a conflict with no good options because he has an agenda. People will mistakenly try to apply this lens to real world events that are superficially similar but have clear good and bad sides lol. Like oh, "the Native Americans raided settler villages and scalped innocent people so clearly they're just as bad as the invaders that are stealing their land after breaking treaties unprompted in a constant ethnic cleansing". Or, "I don't like how Israel bombs Gaza b-but Hamas are terrorists!" or "I don't agree with the Holocaust but the Soviets were oppressive too!" No. It's possible for both factions to do horrific things but for one side to be inarguably correct and worth supporting despite that. What's your angle? Are you a centrist? Or did the entire point blow over your head and you are actually getting upset trying to defend the purity of a work of fiction from critical analysis? You used the phrase "solved the moral dilemma of the setting". The author is not infallible. The work is not divinely inspired. The setting was invented by a human mind, informed by lived experience and material conditions. It is not a perfect reflection of reality with a real issue that can be "solved". The author creating a complex scenario where both parties have equal blame and both options are bad in almost equal ways does more to reveal the author's ideology than it does to convey anything meaningful about the world and history. What's more important to you? That people should simply learn everything about the Witcher universe for its own sake irrespective of what the work reveals about the author?
Once again gotta say just how wonderful your writing has grown over the years. You packed such an insane amount of analysis with points and takes that I haven’t really seen from anyone else covering the game. Calling out The Gamer was necessary and sublime. Your perspective is vital in this space and I really appreciate the real world parallels that you shine a light on rather than trying to ignore like a lot of people do in this space.
Crushed? Crammed? more like saved. Andres work would never have escaped the confines of the niche if RED didn't recognize its potential and expose it to a wider audience. his work will live on for far longer solely because it was crushed and crammed into the medium of video games.
but he got the short end of the deal its his fault because he thought that videogames suck and it wont get popular - but after the success of witcher games he actually sued to renegotiate his deal because he got basically a year of minimal wage for the rights to the IP 🤣Sapkowski is very old-fashioned and very boomer sometimes...
@@TheSaival not sure I agree entirely. RED acquiesced almost immediately. Sales skyrocketed thanks to W3, 2nd verse same as the first where the Netflix show is concerned regardless of anyone's take on how it's being handled. lemme ask you something. Would you know who the rude pudgy author of the Witcher is if not for the game? I'm just curious. because I wouldn't.
I disagree with your reading of elves, since given the power and opportunity they would absolutely go full racism on humans just like Roses did, but even with that in mind they are lesser evil (heh witcher themes or something heh) than being enlightened gamer or full knight order fash. p.s. as a Joseph Anderson's watcher I beg you don't release witcher 3 video please no it's gonna be so joever if you do.
Yes, the only difference between the Scoia'tael and the Order is in power, I thought it was pretty clear. The Squirrels are just as racist as the Order, just because their cause is just doesn't mean they're not bad people. The game forces you to make a choice, but neither of them are good.
The Scoia'tael also make it clear that they don't give a shit about the Elves that get caught in the cross fire. There's also the whole dancing around the fact that, if by some miracle, the Elves somehow bounce back and push down the humans, they're going to just turn on their Dwarf and Halfling allies in the process. But I actually don't remember if the game covers that the Squirrels are a supremacist movement as well, just a losing one.
Just like he said in the video, elves came into the world of Witcher before humans. So you 100% know (and with a bit of reading) that they've already done all the evils the order is doing to them currently, but it just happened to be that we're the newest in line. Considering all that, the scoia'tael is still probably the best choice
Kbash - Elves are not so bad! :( Witcher3 Eredin - Am I a joke to you? Elves if put in power would be the same levels of supremacy as humans and if you dont see that you really miss the point. Knife ear propaganda, thfoo.
I'm left wanting more of the discourse touched on in the real world parallels section. It went a long way to convincing me but I'm left with the many "buts" that im sure millions of others are. Such as, siding with and endorsing the Scoiatels acts of violence and terror because they're disenfranchised and "therefore it's an unequal power balance" leaves me with questions like: what happens if they actually succeed? Wouldn't they then just started ethnically cleansing humans? Does Geralt then switch sides and help humans once they become disenfranchised? Always helping the underdog no matter what has dire consequences. Something I'm now super keen to look into more on myself. Amazing piece on analysis!
Luckily Geralt will never have to worry about that, because it's impossible for the Elves to succeed, at least not through the tactics of the Scoiatel. Every elf that dies in pointless vengeance brings their species closer to final extinction.
If elves won the only thing that would change is that humans and elves would swap places. Before humans took over the continent, they were doing the same things.
Huh. I wonder if Kbash was eluding to a current event that's happening? Maybe one he can choose a side on with no real consequence to his own way of life, while happily strawmanning and equating people he dislikes to video characters? No. That would be ghoulish behavior. No way he'd do that.😅
Hello! for a whole year I've been enjoying your videos, even when the performative political commentary slides in. Book spoilers ahead. When I saw that you've uploaded this video I thought this was going to be a great time and it was, until 42:20 - You calling out the "Thermian Argument" falls flat on its face when, earlier in the video, when talking about how "geralt remains neutral in the books", omitted the crisis and delusion geralt goes in the 5th book, where he meets the queen of rivia (the country he lies about being from) and pulls the whole party into a year of mercenary soldier work for the sovereign defense of rivia against the nilfgaardian invaders (who had already overthrown the neighboring cintra; ciri's homeland). I must also mention the near entirety of the 6th book, where geralt decides to stay (and make everyone stay) in tousant, the idyllic "fairy tale country" as he takes the actual role of white questing knight for pbussy only to have a psychotic crisis when this turns out to be a ruse to push him out of the board so he doesn't learn about the eugenics experiments. -- What I'm getting at is that if you abide by the nonsensical consign of the Thermian Argument, which ultimately wants to claim that "everything is a political act, thus fiction is an expression of political desire", then your omission of these entire chunks of the plot (which I must add, do get adapted and explored in the sequels and dlcs) is also a political act, from your part; a disingenuous one made to rally the audience to "your cause" As a Peronist, I find this development disappointing and I do hope you will decamisate yourself out of the trite communist gobbledygook zeitgeist the internet has fallen into. ✌
I thought he was memeing but damn that shit was cringe, only difference between the order and the elves is current power. If the elves were the powerful ones they would be killing humans. At the end I was waiting for him to compare the elves to palenstine or some shit like that.
Like you, I also thought The Witcher looked like a very tiring, tryhard experience - too grim and gritty to be enjoyable. But I watched the Netflix series with my brother, who was a fan of the games, and was impressed with the amount of heart and thought put into this world. Nowhere near as cold and dismissive as I thought. These are heroes I can root for, and their values are skewed towards the positive in the face of so much cruelty and injustice. It's also got a pretty good sense of humor. I'm looking forward to playing the games. Great video as always. You've been on a hot streak the past couple years.
Well, if you actually try the game I have one warning for you. Its from europe, its from poland, its slav. What you call gritty is our everyday lives dude. But it doesnt mean that there isnt a sight of optimism in that.
Using the steam forums is cheating, the number 0 was invented by mathematicians that were trying to quantify the overall media literacy of posters there
I don't think I could ever side with the Order in this game, just like I couldn't side with the Scoiatel in the second game. But I don't agree with your analysis. Complete mischaracterization of the Crusades aside, the Scoiatel are actively harming the Elven (and Dwarven, and Gnomish) cause, and doing so at the encouragement of Niflgaard. Admittedly Geralt doesn't really know this due to the amnesia, but it's pretty clear in the books. Not to mention the first human/elven war is the reason the elves are in such a dire state as it is (because the kids all went off and got themselves killed, and whoops, most of the ones who didn't are too old to have children). Helping the few young elves that remain further the suicide of their people along with countless humans is the wrong path.
The crusades were evil, even from a Christian perspective since they were all fought for material causes under a religious pretext. The fourth one was about them them slaughtering and pillaging Orthodox Christian families for crying out loud. There's nothing in the Bible that says that you need land and wealth for religious salvation. If anything, it tells you to give those up.
>The Lady of the Lake is the perfect example, ... why is she here? _looks at the novels_ bruh... >unified vision of the setting Dost thou even Conjunct?!?
Something that needs said is that the Witcher games aren’t adapting the story of the Witcher books, but the setting. The first Witcher game takes place 5 years after the last book ends.
Very important thing to understand about the witchers code and Geralt There isn't really a witchers code, Geralt just has things he likes doing and things he doesn't like doing. Hunting an extremely powerful, flying, magic wielding (maybe), shapeshifting, highly intelligent dragon? Against the code Getting into politics? Against the code Drinking with the boys? NOT against the code Also it is possible to kill azar javed and keep berengar alive, and it makes a difference in the cutscene
...but like there's an actual code that's recited by Vesemir and is used by at least the School of the Wolf as an impromptu code. "Be a guardian of peace, as a slayer of monsters. Improve yourself through knowledge and training. Respect the goodness in all life. Aid others, but never control or coerce them. Use your powers to defend and to protect, not to control or manipulate." A lot of this is traced back to Alzur basing his perception on how Witchers should act on chivalric codes he liked as a child (Alzur being one of creators of the Witcher mutations).
@@Sablus Yes and no, I am pretty sure that books lore it was mostly just Geralt (because he is effectively MC) but it still vaguelly exists and is referenced by other characters. Hovewer it wasn't some codified, same wherever you code, written down commandments, not necessarily Geralt making it up as he goes and more witchers current and past making it up as they go but with a vague idea of what it should look like. A kinda sorta law instead of written in stone law.
And I bet you have a much more realistic take? KBash literally shows text from the history of the elves. You might want to look into the author’s politics and see where he stands on these types of issues. Keep on being a Gamer, my man!
@@MegamiShin Sapko, seeing the frequent switch between far left and far right states in his lifetime, is fairly disillusioned with politicking. He considers his books apolitical and sees the Netherlands as a country that's got things relatively figures out. So that should give you a pretty good impression that's he's not much of a prog.
I congratulate CDProjekt for just dropping the metahumans vs humans crap in Witcher 3. I love the way they write characters but they were never really great at making the sides feel interesting. The choices in the second game revolving around the leaders involved in the war are much more nuanced. I don't see Geralt joining with an Order that is involved in genocide, but I also don't see him joining a metahuman terrorist group. I don't think Geralt is really interested in a macro view, to be honest. He's all about "the lesser of two evils in the moment". If an elf was being hanged for something unfair, I think he'd save the elf. If a group of Scoia'tael were carving up some human kids, I think Geralt would jump them. He's that kind of guy. Making the political decision to shape the land is what I find interesting. Without spoilers, you can really make the world more or less hostile to mages and metahumans depending on who you help take over in W3.
Yeah, the squirrels are a revolutionary group but so is Taliban, lets not pretend they arent monsters because no matter how justified their cause is, they go out of their way to cause harm to non elves, they also have Very elven supremacist views.
lots of banger lines in this one and i'm so genuinely enthused you picked up this series finally, witcher 1 is a weird one but sets the tone of the story pretty perfectly imo
Ok, yeah, these gamers are dumb. Cool. I get it. But like, Some of these statements in this video are putting people on blast for deliberately avoiding unnecessary decision making in their actual real world life. For instance, I'm not interested in making decisions between political matters like the abortion debate when I, a GAMER, will never have sex and reproduce. Cool video though! Lord knows I was never going to play these games.
It's funny to think that if KBash did not take a peek at steam forum discussions, this may be a very different kind of video. Truly a punishment I wish on no man
Cant say I’ve played the first Witcher, but I’ve watched several playthroughs and this was a very entertaining and well done review imo. Can’t wait to see the reviews for Assassin of Kings and Wild Hunt, both of which I’ve played the crap out of many times 👍🏼
@@chexmixkittyI believe it, just saying i feel its a post 2014/2016 thing when it comes to politics. (i.e the years millennials got old and had to start paying taxes)
Tldr; gamers are infantalized manchildren wanting games to be respected as 'high art' but continually shriek when told that this means games can be analyzed and might have "themes"
You know, it really does stink of how fools get duped into supporting supremacy. People, playing as Geralt, think they belong with humans, when humans treat him and all other Witchers as the scum of society. The only reason Witchers came to exist was to shield humans from monsters, and without them monsters would slaughter the humans to extinction, but humans would still happily kill them all simply because they are different from them. Yeah, THOSE are the ones you should stand by. Don’t mind the sounds of them sharpening their daggers, just keep your back to them and everything will turn out fine! /s
"I hate elves so much I bring about the great evil elf to fight Rebel elves who sides with slavers claiming to be descended from elves" I just wanted to grill monsters with igni but if I have to choose I'm siding with the based dwarves, magical hotties, and hot vampire professor.
I understand people siding with the Scoiatel, naive as I may find it, but one of the few opinions I don't budge from in my day to day is "no negotiating with terrorists".
A "Terrorist" is just the term the authority in power uses to describe any other organization using the same violence they do in the same way to achieve their goals as the authority does. Planting IEDs in the path of Americans invading your country illegally is "terrorism" despite being cool and good and exactly what you should be doing.
@@SefirothPH Except that's not considered terrorism. Terrorism would be massacring civilian populations with machine guns or planting explosive devices in the middle of densely populated areas to spread fear and take lives, which is just as disgusting when the US does it as any other organization.
I've got to appreciate how you brought up TW1 predating Game of Thrones. The Witcher 1--whilst incredibly flawed--was almost a trailblazer in it's portrayal of fantasy fiction in gaming compared to it's contemporaries, yet a lot of analysis I've watched on it comes from the perspective of a post-Game of Thrones and post-Witcher media success world. The fact neither were a given when the game released significantly influences how one should consume this game. The fact that some small team of Polish developers known largely for working translations managed to adapt a piece of work from their native country managed to pull out something as compelling as the first Witcher game with their relative inexperience in the same year that Bioware's Mass Effect 1 came out is truly impressive, and it's something to be admired to. There's something to be said about Assassin of Kings being created, written and likely gone gold before Game of Thrones even started airing, coming out just a month later and that they wouldn't have been working under the influence of how popular "gritty low fantasy" was about to become and riding that wave to mega stardom *but* there's a sense of honesty in the first two games that make me enjoy playing them.
Kbash, your video is really insteresting... Specially in the point you make about having a grudge against gamers due this game. I bet that you will enjoy the series that Sophie from mars made about the Witcher, go take a look on it if you have the time
9:40 SPOT ON. And what a great game! I just gotta replay it every now and then for the story telling and atmosphere. There are so many routes to the endings! And the consequences of your decisions will usually slap you in the face. It's not even a long game and the combat is easy even on Hard, but it takes alchemical preparation and knowledge of the enemies so you can choose the best fighting style.
I'm 12 minutes into the video and the constant references to "The Gamer" are just grating. It feels like there's some inside joke I'm not getting and so it's just annoying instead of funny and I don't feel compelled to finish this one.
Not really a joke but rather a jab at a certain group of players who apply real life politics to a game and refuse to actually engage with the game on its own merits and reflecting on genuine decisions rather than "this sounds like x politics therefore I choose y" or trying to do an "enlightened centrist " position and attempting to do a "compromise?" Path for everything in games with choices, that's not how real life works and that's what he is arguing shouldn't work in-game either but rather engage.
I've had this game for years but I've never touched it since the broad discussion of it online is just "don't bother." This video made me interested in actually checking it out though, so kudos for actually taking the time to talk about the positives, it sounds like an interesting play
I used to hate this game starting out to the extent I would look up negative reviews to justify my feelings. its my favorite witcher game now. give it a shot, it'll probably grow on you.
The combat mod makes it better, CDPR made combat mods for all 3 games that essentially add a whole new combat system but the changes for the first game are the most prominent. Without it, 1 plays like a rhythm game.
I feel compelled to say that your simplification of crusaders as men trying to spread their religion by the sword is extremely awkward, given the Crusades came into being initially as a result of the forcible expansion of Islam via militant invasion in every direction. The Crusades were a part of a wider civilizational struggle where both sides demonized the other and actively sought the erasure of the cultures they came in contact with, either gradually or immediately via extreme violence. Both sides had leaders and regimes that were extreme to lesser or greater extents depending on the place and generation. I do not deny the atrocities of the Crusades, but keep in mind that it went both ways. Mind you, there *are* many examples where your points regarding militant Christian expansionism would be much more reasonable. Given the military conflict and attempted conquest of Europe that was ongoing until the Moors and the Ottomans began to destabilize and lose territory (that is to say, given the more than a thousand years of conflict between both sides at the fluctuating borders of their civilizations), it is significantly harder to sell the various European states' attempts to stop fighting each other and to instead aim to take possession of land that once belonged to the Byzantine empire as a result of the Greeks begging them to protect them from being destroyed conquered as initially a majorly horrible thing. The issue, obviously, is that this started a tradition of dehumanizing their declared enemies and radicalizing the members of subsequent crusades, who were free to shed as much blood as they wanted with a clear conscience due to being offered guarantees of salvation if they did this. The problem is that atrocities were enabled and a cultural trend toward recognizing it as okay to shed non-Christian blood was enabled by the initially relatively benign cause. This would mean that later history would see a Europe much more willing to commit evils abroad and justify things under falsely righteous premises. *That* is what is truly wrong about the Crusades. They were a cultural predecessor and causal factor in the eventual barbarism of Colonialist expansionism.
by the way Order of the Flaming Rose is Teutonic Knights in Poland/Lithuania inspired. It was pretty much all bad - genociding Lithuanians and old Prussians (Prussians successfully).
@@ajuc005 That is certainly worth noting. The later Crusades such as those which were caried out in Europe in order to stamp out the remnants of pagan worship (or, more specific to this case, the descendants of old Germanic religion) were certainly quite far-removed from the initial crisis that inspired the First, and given the symbolic connection, it certainly is apt to say that a group blatantly inspired by *that* generation of crusaders is unambiguously rotten. I do still think that it was necessary to draw up the broader context and would affirm that one should be more specific than just saying "crusaders" when one is bringing up these historical issues, though. It is best to be specific and represent history accurately, rather than painting in broad strokes like that, in principle.
@@ajuc005 Apologies for the confusion: I was meaning to suggest they stemmed from the same religious tradition as the old Germans who lived during the Roman times, not that the people themselves were of ethnic German descent at the time. I realize now that that should have been something I should have made more explicit during my original post, given the geographical area and the historical association with the Prussians with what would eventually become Germany the modern nation. I should also clarify that I very much do not mean to deny the unique development and nature of the Baltic mythology which had developed by that time, which certainly had developed significant differences from the more ancient roots it sprang up from.
> stemmed from the same religious tradition as the old Germans @@CeleriaRosencroix they didn't tho? Balts (old Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, etc.) had their own pagan religion - very close to the Slavic pagan religion. For example the Slavic god of thunder was Perun, the Prussian one was Perkūns. I guess all indoeruopean tribes started with similar pagan religions (so for example Lithuanian gods are surprisingly similar to Hindi gods), but the relationship with Germanic religion isn't particularly close, Balts were much closer to Slavs.
[SPOILER] Also another point (made more clear in witcher3 again) - its not just "ice age" you are talking about. The end of the world is a cosmological phenomena similiar to heat death of the universe. Thats why so many civilisiations try to escape it no matter the cost. If you have read the books then you would know that the witcher world actually happens in our timeline (one of the characters gets teleported to a modern city for example) so we might assume that our timeline discoveries (like the heat death theory) apply.
Not exactly. CDPR made it into a cosmological phenomena (or more likely, an entity) by the time of The Witcher 3, but in the books and in the Witcher 1 it is simply a catastrophic ice age that would encompass most of the lived-in world, that could not be stopped even by mages. And the Witcher world is absolutely separate from our own. The elder blood in Ciri's veins allows her to travel to different dimensions, not just the different times, and that's why the Aen Elle elves (themselves living on another world) want to capture her. That's why she's called The Lady of *Space* and Time. Sure, some of the dimension-hopping ends up in her visiting worlds simmilar to ours (and then bringing a plague with her), but we never know for certain what dimension she's in. Also the shape of the Witcher world is so vastly different from our own, that I don't think it could be Earth.
KBASH does The Witcher?!?! How unexpected and amazing! I can't wait to see what you cover next now that you've analyzed the fk outta JRPGS...unless you wanna cover Shin Megami Tensei 4 or something...
No please, I know your upload schedule and you are going to make a witcher 3 video in 20 hours when Joseph Anderson is on his 2000th replaying and rewriting of the video. His mind will schism irreparably if you upload the third one. It is the video that must not be made. I say this for Joseph's sake, he cannot bear to witness this.
Literally thought the same thing lol
It's all over for us Joe fans. Video in january for sure. He's almost done.
Next January
At this point I'll be able to find a girlfriend and marry her before Joe finally finished the Witcher 3 video..
the time to reach perfection is infinite. At this point, does it really matter if he releases the witcher 3 video?
People who claim Geralt is actually neutral either didn't read the books or didn't understand the character. Neutrality and the witcher code are made up mombo jumbo to avoid being dragged into political issues. Geralt is a very moral character and always does what he thinks is right, usually to great cost to himself. He is just old and tired and done with everyone else's shit.
Sapkowski sold the video game rights for so cheap because he honestly didn’t understand how big video games were, and he also didn’t think The Witcher would sell as a video game. CDR explained it to him and offered a better deal, but Sapkowski simply wanted the “quick cash.”
Take in note, that he once sold rights for video game for Hexer, and this didn't worked at all. Tbh If I was him, I would do the same ( including sueing them later after how big these games turned out).
@@Atok1111 oh yeah! I forgot that happened.
Sad to see this compared to the metro series and how much love the writer of the series has for it and even embraces the medium of video games
The elves have stupid haircuts. That's why they had to die.
What are you, some kind of hairstyle eugenicist? :p
@@Hanfgurkenhasser it makes phrenological assessments easier. They asked for it NGL.
How did you miss Siegfried???
Thank you for pointing out how stupid the discourse gets with this series' moral dilemmas, no punches pulled
It's actually a shame that most tricky moral choices are just the unpredictable, though there's the few actually good dilemmas that I'll always cherish
What he provides instead is yet another rant about le evil capitalism
@@monto4944Did he though?
@@monto4944His rant is onedimensional but what the hell did it have to do with capitalism? The IP isn´t even set in a society where such a construct can exist. It´s a pre-Magna Carta world.
The libs strike again with their big picture moralist finger wagging right fellow Meritocracy Free Market Manifest Destiny Chadbros?????
i'm glad to see kbash finally ascending to full gamerhood by delving into the Witcher series.
A nice retrospective, but I have a few points I very much disagree with. Starting with the small things:
- the world's mythology, monsters and locations are very much a mixed bag of european myths and legends, and it boils my blood when someone tries to generalize The Witcher's mythos as "eastern european" or "slavic", because, while it's a big part of it, it's definitely not the entirety. Sapkowski took inspiration from all-over, including arthurian legends and celtic myths, and then, more often than not, tried to make a spin or a subversion, often to parody and mock the age-old fantasy tropes and stories. When something is out of place, it is supposed to be out of place (although I do agree, CDPR's world's cohesion is a bit lacking sometimes, especially in this game),
- the witcher code - yeah, it doesn't really exist. It's just a set of arbitrary rules and explanations used to get out of uncomfortable situations and preserve one's reputation. People will look down on a witcher if he declines them for no reason, but if he's backed by an *almost knightly* set of honor-based rules, they won't question him.
I assume it's easy to guess my biggest gripe - the representation of the Order-Scoia'tael conflict. To make one thing clear - I don't think even amnesiac Geralt would choose the Order side, even if he initially doesn't mind Siegfried (the only semi-decent member we see, who gets more and more radicalized as the time progresses and as he gets closer to de Aldersberg). It's clear from the get-go, that they're a corrupt, zealous organisation based in human supremacy and religious fanaticism. But having said that - I don't think Geralt would side with the Scoia'tael either, in this instance. Yaevinn is, in his own right, a raging supremacist, and his commando is a terrorist group espousing the "you're either with us, or against us, and if you're against us, you deserve death" mentality, not just towards Geralt, but towards the elves and dwarves of the city. The only Scoia'tael group that does not fit this description are the elves in Murky Waters, who are lead by an established, reformed character from the books. I also dislike how you focused solely on the atrocities The Order commits, while diminishing the Scoia'tael actions.
If it was the case of Geralt supporting either the nonhumans (in general) or the Order, I would 100% agree that Geralt would side with nonhumans. But it's not.
It's a case of "does Geralt support the supremacist genocidal religious zealots with an arrogant murderous leader - or - does he support the supremacist genocidal terrorist group with an arrogant murderous leader", in which the answer, in my opinion, is - neither. Resources and power dynamic be damned.
And that's before even thinking about what choosing either side would do to a witcher's reputation, but, let's face it, The Witcher games were never about mundane witchering, not really.
Well said. I generally appreciate this creator's content, but that ideological rant was frustrating. Plenty of people, if not most, make their decisions based on their own sense of ethics, so it's completely rational for someone to refuse to take a side in a conflict if both factions are ethically opposed to them.
I think one of the other things that upsets me most is his use of Kreia's "apathy is death" quote. Just because one doesn't want to engage in a specific political conflict, doesn't mean that they are apathetic to all things in life. They can pick and chose their battles and their engagement will vary depending on the stakes.
Also, Kreia is a perfect example of someone who resents both sides of the ideological conflict that is present in her world. She heavily criticizes both the Jedi and the Sith. It's odd he criticizes taking any neutral positions when using the words of a character who is notoriously morally grey and nuanced.
@@staffmitchellart agree. Seems like he was much more interested in some clumsy virtue signaling than really analyzing the sides in the Witcher 1 conflict. Funnily enough that video section felt more like a scoiatel propaganda than an actual fair assessment of the choices here.
This video gets me hope that someday I will get a Witcher 3 vídeo. You go kbash!!
With how prolific kbash is, it'll be up in no time I'm sure. The dude never stops moving lmao
Completely disagree on your take on siding with the elves. Because the problem is you are not siding with the elves - you are siding with the Scoia'tael specifically. And they are literal terrorists. They don't represent the nonhumans, in fact there are many non-humans who hate the squirrels, because their "resistance" makes everything worse for regular elves and dwarves. And many squirrels in turn despise the non-humans that refuse to join them, and view them as lowly as "dhoine". The rhetoric about "well the elves did something bad over there, who cares, humans did something bad too" doesn't make any sense.The fact that the anger and hatred of the non-humans in the setting is perfectly understandable doesn't make the actions of the squirrels justifiable. Yaevinn specifically - the person you are supposed to unite with in the game - was shooting innocent bypassers in the back from a bush, killing wounded soldiers in field hospitals, and is a very well established racist himself. If you've read the books you should know that, so ignoring that while bashing Siegfried for his intolerance of non-humans (which only starts to show by the end of the game, as he gets more and more brainwashed by the Order's "ideals", as before that he only had a problem with the scoia'tael specifically) is simply hypocritical.
Let me also remind you how human soldiers were choosing to kill each other instead of getting captured alive by the squirrels during the war, not because of some weird pride or honor ideas like "You'll never get me alive!" but because they were terrified, and knew how absurdly cruel and torturous the squirrels are towards their human captives. Or play Thronebreaker and familiarize yourself with Eldain, who doesn't mind skinning people alive or setting wounded and maimed humans nailed to a tree on fire.
The way you are trying to paint the picture is conflating siding with the scoia'tael with siding with non-humans, which is simply not true. The squirrels don't represent non-humans. Just like the order does not represent humans. It's a simpler conflict than you are trying to make it seem, which is ironic because at the same time you are trying to oversimplify the morality of it. Both sides are bad. Objectively. And every major player is either a liar or a hypocrite. And the neutral path is not as rewarding as taking a side because that's the point - it's more difficult. Because refusing to join either side makes you the enemy in the eyes of both. If you want to consider the conflict on a global inter-racial level - of course humans did terrible things to the elves, no one is denying that. But if you want to blame humans for committing a genocide against the elves - you have to acknowledge that the elves did the same to the vranns, and tried to do the same to the dwarves, except the dwarves turned out to be a tougher nut to crack. And let's not forget that the Aen Elle did do the same to humans in their own world. Aen Seidhe were never much different, they just failed to handle the "competition" when they had the chance. And what do we see yet again? Both sides are bad. And while you making statements in the video as if you've solved the moral dilemma of the setting is somewhat funny, you are also either being a hypocrite, or unknowingly misinform your viewers that are less familar with the setting.
Okay buddy but it's fiction written by a person trying to create a conflict with no good options because he has an agenda. People will mistakenly try to apply this lens to real world events that are superficially similar but have clear good and bad sides lol. Like oh, "the Native Americans raided settler villages and scalped innocent people so clearly they're just as bad as the invaders that are stealing their land after breaking treaties unprompted in a constant ethnic cleansing". Or, "I don't like how Israel bombs Gaza b-but Hamas are terrorists!" or "I don't agree with the Holocaust but the Soviets were oppressive too!" No. It's possible for both factions to do horrific things but for one side to be inarguably correct and worth supporting despite that.
What's your angle? Are you a centrist? Or did the entire point blow over your head and you are actually getting upset trying to defend the purity of a work of fiction from critical analysis? You used the phrase "solved the moral dilemma of the setting". The author is not infallible. The work is not divinely inspired. The setting was invented by a human mind, informed by lived experience and material conditions. It is not a perfect reflection of reality with a real issue that can be "solved". The author creating a complex scenario where both parties have equal blame and both options are bad in almost equal ways does more to reveal the author's ideology than it does to convey anything meaningful about the world and history. What's more important to you? That people should simply learn everything about the Witcher universe for its own sake irrespective of what the work reveals about the author?
I love the balance of actually smart analysis and unhinged humor. Bless 🙏🏻 never change
Unironically, it is what made this video trend so much less that his other videos... Pretty sad tbh...
There are no good or bad Witcher I analysis videos, just choices and their ZANY consequences
Once again gotta say just how wonderful your writing has grown over the years. You packed such an insane amount of analysis with points and takes that I haven’t really seen from anyone else covering the game. Calling out The Gamer was necessary and sublime. Your perspective is vital in this space and I really appreciate the real world parallels that you shine a light on rather than trying to ignore like a lot of people do in this space.
This, totally
Not the JOMS we deserve, but the JOMS we get. Love you KBash
Crushed? Crammed? more like saved. Andres work would never have escaped the confines of the niche if RED didn't recognize its potential and expose it to a wider audience. his work will live on for far longer solely because it was crushed and crammed into the medium of video games.
but he got the short end of the deal
its his fault because he thought that videogames suck and it wont get popular - but after the success of witcher games he actually sued to renegotiate his deal because he got basically a year of minimal wage for the rights to the IP 🤣Sapkowski is very old-fashioned and very boomer sometimes...
@@TheSaival not sure I agree entirely. RED acquiesced almost immediately. Sales skyrocketed thanks to W3, 2nd verse same as the first where the Netflix show is concerned regardless of anyone's take on how it's being handled. lemme ask you something. Would you know who the rude pudgy author of the Witcher is if not for the game? I'm just curious. because I wouldn't.
It got a decent show adaptation before the games which got me into finding translations of the books.
tbh books were quite popular in central and eastern europe
The best Kbash vids get me to care about a game I had absolutely no interest in prior and get me extremely passionate to just play games at all
Great vid. I still have The Witcher on CDRom for PC. I don't even have a CD drive for my PC anymore, but I've held onto these CD's for 15 years. Ha.
I disagree with your reading of elves, since given the power and opportunity they would absolutely go full racism on humans just like Roses did, but even with that in mind they are lesser evil (heh witcher themes or something heh) than being enlightened gamer or full knight order fash.
p.s. as a Joseph Anderson's watcher I beg you don't release witcher 3 video please no it's gonna be so joever if you do.
Yes, the only difference between the Scoia'tael and the Order is in power, I thought it was pretty clear. The Squirrels are just as racist as the Order, just because their cause is just doesn't mean they're not bad people. The game forces you to make a choice, but neither of them are good.
The Scoia'tael also make it clear that they don't give a shit about the Elves that get caught in the cross fire. There's also the whole dancing around the fact that, if by some miracle, the Elves somehow bounce back and push down the humans, they're going to just turn on their Dwarf and Halfling allies in the process.
But I actually don't remember if the game covers that the Squirrels are a supremacist movement as well, just a losing one.
Just like he said in the video, elves came into the world of Witcher before humans. So you 100% know (and with a bit of reading) that they've already done all the evils the order is doing to them currently, but it just happened to be that we're the newest in line. Considering all that, the scoia'tael is still probably the best choice
Kbash - Elves are not so bad! :(
Witcher3 Eredin - Am I a joke to you?
Elves if put in power would be the same levels of supremacy as humans and if you dont see that you really miss the point. Knife ear propaganda, thfoo.
I watch your videos when I'm working out, and today you made me laugh hard enough to nearly trip on the treadmill.
Oh my... You don't know anything about how midevil muslim kingdoms actually operated do you?
I'm left wanting more of the discourse touched on in the real world parallels section. It went a long way to convincing me but I'm left with the many "buts" that im sure millions of others are.
Such as, siding with and endorsing the Scoiatels acts of violence and terror because they're disenfranchised and "therefore it's an unequal power balance" leaves me with questions like: what happens if they actually succeed? Wouldn't they then just started ethnically cleansing humans? Does Geralt then switch sides and help humans once they become disenfranchised? Always helping the underdog no matter what has dire consequences.
Something I'm now super keen to look into more on myself. Amazing piece on analysis!
Luckily Geralt will never have to worry about that, because it's impossible for the Elves to succeed, at least not through the tactics of the Scoiatel. Every elf that dies in pointless vengeance brings their species closer to final extinction.
If elves won the only thing that would change is that humans and elves would swap places. Before humans took over the continent, they were doing the same things.
Huh. I wonder if Kbash was eluding to a current event that's happening? Maybe one he can choose a side on with no real consequence to his own way of life, while happily strawmanning and equating people he dislikes to video characters? No. That would be ghoulish behavior. No way he'd do that.😅
You literally just did the thing you're complaining about. Say it with your chest, coward.
Hello! for a whole year I've been enjoying your videos, even when the performative political commentary slides in. Book spoilers ahead.
When I saw that you've uploaded this video I thought this was going to be a great time and it was, until 42:20 - You calling out the "Thermian Argument" falls flat on its face when, earlier in the video, when talking about how "geralt remains neutral in the books", omitted the crisis and delusion geralt goes in the 5th book, where he meets the queen of rivia (the country he lies about being from) and pulls the whole party into a year of mercenary soldier work for the sovereign defense of rivia against the nilfgaardian invaders (who had already overthrown the neighboring cintra; ciri's homeland). I must also mention the near entirety of the 6th book, where geralt decides to stay (and make everyone stay) in tousant, the idyllic "fairy tale country" as he takes the actual role of white questing knight for pbussy only to have a psychotic crisis when this turns out to be a ruse to push him out of the board so he doesn't learn about the eugenics experiments. -- What I'm getting at is that if you abide by the nonsensical consign of the Thermian Argument, which ultimately wants to claim that "everything is a political act, thus fiction is an expression of political desire", then your omission of these entire chunks of the plot (which I must add, do get adapted and explored in the sequels and dlcs) is also a political act, from your part; a disingenuous one made to rally the audience to "your cause"
As a Peronist, I find this development disappointing and I do hope you will decamisate yourself out of the trite communist gobbledygook zeitgeist the internet has fallen into. ✌
I thought he was memeing but damn that shit was cringe, only difference between the order and the elves is current power. If the elves were the powerful ones they would be killing humans. At the end I was waiting for him to compare the elves to palenstine or some shit like that.
"As a Peronist" Oh good just what we need, more vibes-based political "science". Good meme.
Like you, I also thought The Witcher looked like a very tiring, tryhard experience - too grim and gritty to be enjoyable. But I watched the Netflix series with my brother, who was a fan of the games, and was impressed with the amount of heart and thought put into this world. Nowhere near as cold and dismissive as I thought. These are heroes I can root for, and their values are skewed towards the positive in the face of so much cruelty and injustice. It's also got a pretty good sense of humor. I'm looking forward to playing the games.
Great video as always. You've been on a hot streak the past couple years.
Well, if you actually try the game I have one warning for you.
Its from europe, its from poland, its slav.
What you call gritty is our everyday lives dude.
But it doesnt mean that there isnt a sight of optimism in that.
Melancholy is the prime export of eastern european art. The world is grim but there is love and beauty underneath all that grey sadness.
the netflix series is a joke lol
Ok but why are you recording at the house from the album cover of The Devil And Good Are Raging Inside Me?
Ah yes, Witcher 1, the only non-Neverwinter Nights Aurora Engine game.
Boy was that engine not good at anything other than NWN.
M8, as someone who lives in a country with terrorists organizations sometimes you are real glad the power dinamic is not balanced.
Using the steam forums is cheating, the number 0 was invented by mathematicians that were trying to quantify the overall media literacy of posters there
/hj Dang, The Witcher sucked all the subtlety out of KBash... the poor bastard
I also hate communism.
I don't think I could ever side with the Order in this game, just like I couldn't side with the Scoiatel in the second game. But I don't agree with your analysis. Complete mischaracterization of the Crusades aside, the Scoiatel are actively harming the Elven (and Dwarven, and Gnomish) cause, and doing so at the encouragement of Niflgaard. Admittedly Geralt doesn't really know this due to the amnesia, but it's pretty clear in the books. Not to mention the first human/elven war is the reason the elves are in such a dire state as it is (because the kids all went off and got themselves killed, and whoops, most of the ones who didn't are too old to have children). Helping the few young elves that remain further the suicide of their people along with countless humans is the wrong path.
The crusades were evil, even from a Christian perspective since they were all fought for material causes under a religious pretext. The fourth one was about them them slaughtering and pillaging Orthodox Christian families for crying out loud.
There's nothing in the Bible that says that you need land and wealth for religious salvation. If anything, it tells you to give those up.
>The Lady of the Lake is the perfect example, ... why is she here?
_looks at the novels_ bruh...
>unified vision of the setting
Dost thou even Conjunct?!?
Sweet! Thanks for another amazing video, keep up the good work.
This video really made me FEEL like a true video gamer
Something that needs said is that the Witcher games aren’t adapting the story of the Witcher books, but the setting. The first Witcher game takes place 5 years after the last book ends.
all the games happen past the main story because the main story ends in a pretty concrete way
I wasn’t expecting this video. You are truly too good for this internet.
Very important thing to understand about the witchers code and Geralt
There isn't really a witchers code, Geralt just has things he likes doing and things he doesn't like doing.
Hunting an extremely powerful, flying, magic wielding (maybe), shapeshifting, highly intelligent dragon? Against the code
Getting into politics? Against the code
Drinking with the boys? NOT against the code
Also it is possible to kill azar javed and keep berengar alive, and it makes a difference in the cutscene
...but like there's an actual code that's recited by Vesemir and is used by at least the School of the Wolf as an impromptu code.
"Be a guardian of peace, as a slayer of monsters.
Improve yourself through knowledge and training.
Respect the goodness in all life.
Aid others, but never control or coerce them.
Use your powers to defend and to protect, not to control or manipulate."
A lot of this is traced back to Alzur basing his perception on how Witchers should act on chivalric codes he liked as a child (Alzur being one of creators of the Witcher mutations).
@@Sablus Yes and no, I am pretty sure that books lore it was mostly just Geralt (because he is effectively MC) but it still vaguelly exists and is referenced by other characters. Hovewer it wasn't some codified, same wherever you code, written down commandments, not necessarily Geralt making it up as he goes and more witchers current and past making it up as they go but with a vague idea of what it should look like. A kinda sorta law instead of written in stone law.
Your tenuous grasp of both real world and Witcher history makes your rant about the whole Scoiatel issue pretty hard to take seriously.
And I bet you have a much more realistic take? KBash literally shows text from the history of the elves. You might want to look into the author’s politics and see where he stands on these types of issues. Keep on being a Gamer, my man!
@@MegamiShin Sapko, seeing the frequent switch between far left and far right states in his lifetime, is fairly disillusioned with politicking.
He considers his books apolitical and sees the Netherlands as a country that's got things relatively figures out. So that should give you a pretty good impression that's he's not much of a prog.
I congratulate CDProjekt for just dropping the metahumans vs humans crap in Witcher 3. I love the way they write characters but they were never really great at making the sides feel interesting. The choices in the second game revolving around the leaders involved in the war are much more nuanced. I don't see Geralt joining with an Order that is involved in genocide, but I also don't see him joining a metahuman terrorist group. I don't think Geralt is really interested in a macro view, to be honest. He's all about "the lesser of two evils in the moment". If an elf was being hanged for something unfair, I think he'd save the elf. If a group of Scoia'tael were carving up some human kids, I think Geralt would jump them. He's that kind of guy.
Making the political decision to shape the land is what I find interesting. Without spoilers, you can really make the world more or less hostile to mages and metahumans depending on who you help take over in W3.
Yeah, the squirrels are a revolutionary group but so is Taliban, lets not pretend they arent monsters because no matter how justified their cause is, they go out of their way to cause harm to non elves, they also have Very elven supremacist views.
lots of banger lines in this one and i'm so genuinely enthused you picked up this series finally, witcher 1 is a weird one but sets the tone of the story pretty perfectly imo
doing the order route simply out of spite now :)
We’re so back baby
Ok, yeah, these gamers are dumb. Cool. I get it.
But like, Some of these statements in this video are putting people on blast for deliberately avoiding unnecessary decision making in their actual real world life.
For instance, I'm not interested in making decisions between political matters like the abortion debate when I, a GAMER, will never have sex and reproduce.
Cool video though! Lord knows I was never going to play these games.
It's funny to think that if KBash did not take a peek at steam forum discussions, this may be a very different kind of video.
Truly a punishment I wish on no man
Thanks for this video. I wish I could put into english words how amazing this video is.
Cant say I’ve played the first Witcher, but I’ve watched several playthroughs and this was a very entertaining and well done review imo. Can’t wait to see the reviews for Assassin of Kings and Wild Hunt, both of which I’ve played the crap out of many times 👍🏼
Ima be real, i played witch 1 in 2012, when i looked up what side was worth siding with...it didn't bring up communism.
I swear every steam game forum has troll posts like that just to get points.
@@chexmixkittyI believe it, just saying i feel its a post 2014/2016 thing when it comes to politics. (i.e the years millennials got old and had to start paying taxes)
@@XxXVideoVeiwerXxXPost 2016 it seems everything went tits up and will never simmer down
Oh boy, oh jeez.
Didn't expect a Kbash video on kino eurojank.
Just kino nippojank
Tldr; gamers are infantalized manchildren wanting games to be respected as 'high art' but continually shriek when told that this means games can be analyzed and might have "themes"
"Except for Resident Evil 4." He's right you know.
I like how you are shit talking the most widely recognized Polish poet of the romantic period.
It might be the translation though
You know, it really does stink of how fools get duped into supporting supremacy. People, playing as Geralt, think they belong with humans, when humans treat him and all other Witchers as the scum of society. The only reason Witchers came to exist was to shield humans from monsters, and without them monsters would slaughter the humans to extinction, but humans would still happily kill them all simply because they are different from them.
Yeah, THOSE are the ones you should stand by. Don’t mind the sounds of them sharpening their daggers, just keep your back to them and everything will turn out fine! /s
Witcher? I hardly know 'er
33:59 is very funny. Great choice of music.
how dare you talk shit about sigfried's sick haircut
240 views in 9 minutes. I can't believe KBash fell off 😢
Also, my mom watches your videos, and she said your hair is magnificent.
BECAUSE IT IS. That hair is godly
I dunno which side to take in the big ethnic cleansing woopsie, I mean it's so complicated
"I hate elves so much I bring about the great evil elf to fight Rebel elves who sides with slavers claiming to be descended from elves"
I just wanted to grill monsters with igni but if I have to choose I'm siding with the based dwarves, magical hotties, and hot vampire professor.
your opinions on a lot of popular game discourse are so refreshing lol.
Niccccceee...very sneaky Kbash, very good~
I understand people siding with the Scoiatel, naive as I may find it, but one of the few opinions I don't budge from in my day to day is "no negotiating with terrorists".
A "Terrorist" is just the term the authority in power uses to describe any other organization using the same violence they do in the same way to achieve their goals as the authority does. Planting IEDs in the path of Americans invading your country illegally is "terrorism" despite being cool and good and exactly what you should be doing.
@@SefirothPH Except that's not considered terrorism. Terrorism would be massacring civilian populations with machine guns or planting explosive devices in the middle of densely populated areas to spread fear and take lives, which is just as disgusting when the US does it as any other organization.
I've got to appreciate how you brought up TW1 predating Game of Thrones.
The Witcher 1--whilst incredibly flawed--was almost a trailblazer in it's portrayal of fantasy fiction in gaming compared to it's contemporaries, yet a lot of analysis I've watched on it comes from the perspective of a post-Game of Thrones and post-Witcher media success world. The fact neither were a given when the game released significantly influences how one should consume this game.
The fact that some small team of Polish developers known largely for working translations managed to adapt a piece of work from their native country managed to pull out something as compelling as the first Witcher game with their relative inexperience in the same year that Bioware's Mass Effect 1 came out is truly impressive, and it's something to be admired to.
There's something to be said about Assassin of Kings being created, written and likely gone gold before Game of Thrones even started airing, coming out just a month later and that they wouldn't have been working under the influence of how popular "gritty low fantasy" was about to become and riding that wave to mega stardom *but* there's a sense of honesty in the first two games that make me enjoy playing them.
If you focus on igni (fire spell) you can actually kill the unkillable boss in the game. Fun times.
early bird report
Witch1s remake should leave the combat untouched. I will not elaborate.
BOTTOM TEXT.
You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the crusades but that's ok. I don't have to like your political opinions to watch your videos. 👍
Everything about this video makes me so glad I subbed. Rock on comrade.
Yo This video is great, goated even, will watch more to find out
Fuck dude fuck I don't have time I gotta actually finish the Witcher 3 before kbash inevitably drops the video
That Alvin bastard is definitely "the fan" from oblivion as a child, Ciri probably did this...
It really is hard being a gamer
oh god Witcher 1, its crazy how far theyve reach and still in Cyberpunk, felt like an AA typified jank.
Kbash, your video is really insteresting... Specially in the point you make about having a grudge against gamers due this game. I bet that you will enjoy the series that Sophie from mars made about the Witcher, go take a look on it if you have the time
Second !!!
Yo!!! Hell yes.
The chapter 3 Comments about communism😂 that caught me so offguard😂😂😂😂
9:40 SPOT ON. And what a great game! I just gotta replay it every now and then for the story telling and atmosphere. There are so many routes to the endings! And the consequences of your decisions will usually slap you in the face. It's not even a long game and the combat is easy even on Hard, but it takes alchemical preparation and knowledge of the enemies so you can choose the best fighting style.
Boy, I wished Joseph Anderson had finished his witcher saga. Damm.
Wait… did Kbash reference “I like beeg wepons, surrr” at 26:04 … 💀
Based understanding of the Witcher lore comrade. Andrej Sapkowski was pretty clear about how he felt in the novels
I know you have a habit of changing the title of your videos, but i hope this one at least last the week because it's so fucking hilarious of a title
I think i kept a pretty neutral stance in my playthrough... but i do hate communists :P
👎
Sapowski must be punching himself everyday to this day for refusing to take a portion of the franchise revenues instead of the flat 10k dollars
I mean as far as I know he got 1 mln dollars (or even more) from CD Projekt as part of settlement after he sued them.
another one!!
I'm 12 minutes into the video and the constant references to "The Gamer" are just grating. It feels like there's some inside joke I'm not getting and so it's just annoying instead of funny and I don't feel compelled to finish this one.
Not really a joke but rather a jab at a certain group of players who apply real life politics to a game and refuse to actually engage with the game on its own merits and reflecting on genuine decisions rather than "this sounds like x politics therefore I choose y" or trying to do an "enlightened centrist " position and attempting to do a "compromise?" Path for everything in games with choices, that's not how real life works and that's what he is arguing shouldn't work in-game either but rather engage.
Missed the old kbash!
Please don't change the thumbnail
does anyone know the name of the game that shows up at 1:50?
"I'M GAMING" My new favorite line.
cant wait for the monster hunter 1 review
Yo Kbash hitting us with the politics?! Respect
I've had this game for years but I've never touched it since the broad discussion of it online is just "don't bother."
This video made me interested in actually checking it out though, so kudos for actually taking the time to talk about the positives, it sounds like an interesting play
I used to hate this game starting out to the extent I would look up negative reviews to justify my feelings. its my favorite witcher game now. give it a shot, it'll probably grow on you.
The combat mod makes it better, CDPR made combat mods for all 3 games that essentially add a whole new combat system but the changes for the first game are the most prominent. Without it, 1 plays like a rhythm game.
The Witcher 1 is arguably the best in terms of story and overall atmosphere
I feel compelled to say that your simplification of crusaders as men trying to spread their religion by the sword is extremely awkward, given the Crusades came into being initially as a result of the forcible expansion of Islam via militant invasion in every direction. The Crusades were a part of a wider civilizational struggle where both sides demonized the other and actively sought the erasure of the cultures they came in contact with, either gradually or immediately via extreme violence. Both sides had leaders and regimes that were extreme to lesser or greater extents depending on the place and generation. I do not deny the atrocities of the Crusades, but keep in mind that it went both ways.
Mind you, there *are* many examples where your points regarding militant Christian expansionism would be much more reasonable. Given the military conflict and attempted conquest of Europe that was ongoing until the Moors and the Ottomans began to destabilize and lose territory (that is to say, given the more than a thousand years of conflict between both sides at the fluctuating borders of their civilizations), it is significantly harder to sell the various European states' attempts to stop fighting each other and to instead aim to take possession of land that once belonged to the Byzantine empire as a result of the Greeks begging them to protect them from being destroyed conquered as initially a majorly horrible thing.
The issue, obviously, is that this started a tradition of dehumanizing their declared enemies and radicalizing the members of subsequent crusades, who were free to shed as much blood as they wanted with a clear conscience due to being offered guarantees of salvation if they did this. The problem is that atrocities were enabled and a cultural trend toward recognizing it as okay to shed non-Christian blood was enabled by the initially relatively benign cause. This would mean that later history would see a Europe much more willing to commit evils abroad and justify things under falsely righteous premises.
*That* is what is truly wrong about the Crusades. They were a cultural predecessor and causal factor in the eventual barbarism of Colonialist expansionism.
by the way Order of the Flaming Rose is Teutonic Knights in Poland/Lithuania inspired. It was pretty much all bad - genociding Lithuanians and old Prussians (Prussians successfully).
@@ajuc005 That is certainly worth noting. The later Crusades such as those which were caried out in Europe in order to stamp out the remnants of pagan worship (or, more specific to this case, the descendants of old Germanic religion) were certainly quite far-removed from the initial crisis that inspired the First, and given the symbolic connection, it certainly is apt to say that a group blatantly inspired by *that* generation of crusaders is unambiguously rotten.
I do still think that it was necessary to draw up the broader context and would affirm that one should be more specific than just saying "crusaders" when one is bringing up these historical issues, though. It is best to be specific and represent history accurately, rather than painting in broad strokes like that, in principle.
@@CeleriaRosencroix it was Baltic not Germanic pagans. Old Prussians were Balts. Teutonic Knights genocided them and replaced with Germanic people.
@@ajuc005 Apologies for the confusion: I was meaning to suggest they stemmed from the same religious tradition as the old Germans who lived during the Roman times, not that the people themselves were of ethnic German descent at the time. I realize now that that should have been something I should have made more explicit during my original post, given the geographical area and the historical association with the Prussians with what would eventually become Germany the modern nation.
I should also clarify that I very much do not mean to deny the unique development and nature of the Baltic mythology which had developed by that time, which certainly had developed significant differences from the more ancient roots it sprang up from.
> stemmed from the same religious tradition as the old Germans
@@CeleriaRosencroix they didn't tho? Balts (old Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, etc.) had their own pagan religion - very close to the Slavic pagan religion. For example the Slavic god of thunder was Perun, the Prussian one was Perkūns. I guess all indoeruopean tribes started with similar pagan religions (so for example Lithuanian gods are surprisingly similar to Hindi gods), but the relationship with Germanic religion isn't particularly close, Balts were much closer to Slavs.
Princess Crown is amazing!
Pleasant video, cool script.
[SPOILER] Also another point (made more clear in witcher3 again) - its not just "ice age" you are talking about. The end of the world is a cosmological phenomena similiar to heat death of the universe. Thats why so many civilisiations try to escape it no matter the cost. If you have read the books then you would know that the witcher world actually happens in our timeline (one of the characters gets teleported to a modern city for example) so we might assume that our timeline discoveries (like the heat death theory) apply.
Not exactly. CDPR made it into a cosmological phenomena (or more likely, an entity) by the time of The Witcher 3, but in the books and in the Witcher 1 it is simply a catastrophic ice age that would encompass most of the lived-in world, that could not be stopped even by mages.
And the Witcher world is absolutely separate from our own. The elder blood in Ciri's veins allows her to travel to different dimensions, not just the different times, and that's why the Aen Elle elves (themselves living on another world) want to capture her. That's why she's called The Lady of *Space* and Time. Sure, some of the dimension-hopping ends up in her visiting worlds simmilar to ours (and then bringing a plague with her), but we never know for certain what dimension she's in.
Also the shape of the Witcher world is so vastly different from our own, that I don't think it could be Earth.
KBASH does The Witcher?!?! How unexpected and amazing! I can't wait to see what you cover next now that you've analyzed the fk outta JRPGS...unless you wanna cover Shin Megami Tensei 4 or something...
do Deus Ex next.
Before watching the video you must know that if you dislike the witcher 1 (amen) I dislike you
JOMS