iâm thinking of doing a book-geralt playthrough and this post made me think deeply! i see your point, because the very term âbook geraltâ is in-of-itself, very broad. geralt at the very beginning of the series is as much a âbook geraltâ as geralt at the end of lady of the lake. and even in one book or short story, he is a different person by the end of it, because thatâs just how character arcs work (unless itâs a flat character arc)
also, sapkowski makes a point that geralt in the books can be unpredictable and unknowable, when things shift out of his perspective (blood of elves ch 5, time of contempt ch 2) so even though there are some pretty ânot-geraltâ choices in the games, the borders are probably more blurred than people think.
and what counts as âevilâ is really dependent on the narrative and how itâs framed. for example, geralt in the very first short story cuts down three men in a bar fight because they harassed him, and this isnât given moral judgement â but when ciri does it baptism of fire, i think it is more intended to show her moral decay (as a book ago she was horrified at killing a man)
this point also explains a lot of âmisâcharacterization of the games, even though that logic might not change the purely emotional reaction (for example, my annoyance is why regis in blood and wine is so depressed, even though it makes complete and utter sense for him to be, in the context of the story they were trying to tell in BaW⌠i admit itâs literally just a personal bias i have, i irrationally just miss the optimist from the books, even though in this context, he wouldnât exist anymore)
on the other hand, i think part of the fun is deciding what that âbook versionâ of the characters means for yourself. the appeal for me is that itâs almost like someone asking you: âwhat do you think is the most book-like decision hereâ and asking you to defend your answer, like a personal debate in my head.
and then thereâs also the more fanon and personal interpretation. like iâm sure book geralt might visit brothels occasionally, but i donât, because i donât have anything to care about there. so itâs not as much of limitation, like being on a diet, but more like interpretation, like choosing how what kinds of and how much seasoning to add to your food to make it fit your palate. the roleplaying is just for fun, like character analysis on the flyâŚ
overall, people will definitely have different experiences, i see story-driven video games like this as very personal and individualized experiences, despite giving us all (versions of) the same story.
i think the problem is insisting that everyone make the same choices, when thatâs obviously contrary to how the games, with their decision-making, exist. at the same time, itâs also valid to critique certain choices from that âbooks perspectiveâ and debate over whether or not a character would do it
i will say that reading the books changed my whole perspective on geralt and enhanced the playability/replayability of the games, but they were also just as enjoyable without having read the books. i did a lot of things that, objectively, âbook geraltâ would not have done, but i had a lot of fun playing. that said, now that iâm more of a book fan, i canât get âbook geraltâ out of my head, so now iâd rather roleplay as him than do my own thing.
this really makes me question how i will approach witcher iv, but i feel like i will personally be more lenient because ciri in the books is a much more morally grey character, at different times in the saga she embodies both good and evil, and then in the end becomes something else, that sapkowski wonât tell us đ but i predict that i would find more satisfaction from an âevilâ run of witcher iv, than i would of witcher 3 đ¤
sorry for the essay, as i said, this made me think đ