Think that also kind of gets muddied by Sapkowki's own bad blood he'd previously expressed towards CDPR regarding his original licensing of the IP. Sure they've said they've reconciled since then, but given the way the author had responded, I can't be surprised in the least if his statements are made out of some lingering animosity.
Though I'd also point to the statements that CDPR did a lot of direct lifting of lore and setting. While they created new narrative, they did build on a lot of existing canon to do so. A lot of the lore inconsistencies ends up coming out of game mechanics and player choice, though there are still some to levy at the writing.
Think that also kind of gets muddied by Sapkowki's own bad blood he'd previously expressed towards CDPR regarding his original licensing of the IP. Sure they've said they've reconciled since then, but given the way the author had responded, I can't be surprised in the least if his statements are made out of some lingering animosity.
Though I'd also point to the statements that CDPR did a lot of direct lifting of lore and setting. While they created new narrative, they did build on a lot of existing canon to do so. A lot of the lore inconsistencies ends up coming out of game mechanics and player choice, though there are still some to levy at the writing.
That's kind of the point, though: even the "I'm just a stickler for staying true to the creator's vision" argument isn't as consistent as we like to act. As very obviously evidenced by the public *and* book fan reception of the Witcher games/show.
The games made some major changes, such as the overall power of Signs. It would be like Disney neutering the Jedi's Force powers for new movies/games.
On the DVD extras, Peter Jackson talks extensively about why they had to change things.
Also, different mediums require a lot of different approaches.
Doesn't help that Tolkien was not very good at characters. Not his forte, he was busy elsewhere in the world building.
Then, of course, there's the changing of things for no good reason. Director sez 'I had this idea....'
That's the thing, it makes sense to change things in order to translate one medium for another but some people use it as an excuse so they can use a property as a jumping point for their own vision.
Yup. And that is my breaking point. A novel is not a movie is not a TV Show. So things HAVE to change to adapt from one to the other. Sometimes even characters have to be cut or merged because you simply cannot introduce them all in the allotted time.
But today, there is far too much using "a property as a jumping point for their own vision".
If I was lured in because of a fondness for the IP, then about the surest way to discourage me is tremendous deviation from the IP. Someone else's vision created that IP; not yours. I want to see their ideas; not yours. Your interpretation of an IP is the most likely reason why I will close the door on your project.
That's how I feel. Creators just don't get me, I suspect.
"Using an IP for a jumping off point for their own vision" is my breaking point. The notion of using someone else's property to create your own property is running rampant within all sorts of entertainment media. Paying insane amounts of money to use an IP for their own vision is what I would call stupidity at an extreme degree.
I disagree.
Nobody would even give a shit about Sapkowski's books if CDPR hadn't created a great game, and they didn't mimic the book storylines to do so. Sapkowski himself said the games are nothing like the books. But I think the world, if we're being honest, would declare the video games more valuable to society than his books.
By your measure, the video games are the problem. But the problem with that is: blindly applied, you're actually losing value.
See, I didn't even know that there was a connection between the Witcher series of CDPR games and an existing IP. Thanks for that info.
But, was CDPR heavily focused on using the IP to sell their game? Witcher stands alone as a game, without knowledge of the books. I've not seen any evidence that CDPR was promoting their games as "Sapkowski's Witcher series", whereas the various LotR projects heavily state their ties to the fictional works. If a company is selling me on the idea of an existing IP, then I expect that IP. As far as I can tell, CDPR didn't try to sell their games as a representation of Sapkowski's works. I can treat them as separate entities based on parallel ideas, much like many games use 'Nazis'.
"The Witcher" -games are named after "The Witcher" -book series, just like all Lord of the Rings -games and movies tend to have "Lord of the Rings" in their name.
They use those names pretty equally, and any difference comes more from The Lord of the Rings books being much more known that The Witcher books were.
I would mostly agree, though I'm not deep into Witcher lore in general. Signs themselves were poorly described most of the time in the books, with some of them not being explained at all such as Quen or Yrden.
Sort of the continued challenge of player choice in gaming to live up to the books in terms of focusing on signs, or even evoking them in different game scenarios. CDPR can be poked for enabling more broad use of them, and that does actually parallel Star Wars already in the proliferation of what was otherwise originally more subdued use of force powers, as well as evoking uncommon abilities.
I would mostly agree, though I'm not deep into Witcher lore in general. Signs themselves were poorly described most of the time in the books, with some of them not being explained at all such as Quen or Yrden.
Sort of the continued challenge of player choice in gaming to live up to the books in terms of focusing on signs, or even evoking them in different game scenarios. CDPR can be poked for enabling more broad use of them, and that does actually parallel Star Wars already in the proliferation of what was otherwise originally more subdued use of force powers, as well as evoking uncommon abilities.
Aye, which is why I simply don't get too worked up over IP changes/evolution in and of itself. I try to take them as they come and judge them on their individual merits.
Ironically, I didn't enjoy the first episode of Rings of Power enough to continue. No small part of that is due to my exhaustion with the fantasy genre in general. I've become a sci-fi guy in my 30s. Give me more shows like The Expanse, with or without an underlying book source IP.
Nobody would even give a shit about Sapkowski's books if CDPR hadn't created a great game, and they didn't mimic the book storylines to do so. Sapkowski himself said the games are nothing like the books. But I think the world, if we're being honest, would declare the video games more valuable to society than his books.
By your measure, the video games are the problem. But the problem with that is: blindly applied, you're actually losing value.
It's impressive how much ignorance, cultural arrogance and logical fallacy you have managed to squeeze into such a short post.
Sapkowski was a pretty big deal long before the games were created. That was kind of the reason why CDPR chose to adapt his works in the first place. His fame goes back to the early 90's and his works were translated into many languages long before the English speaking world even knew about the guy. Sapkowski was huge throughout Central Europe at least a decade before the first game was released. But since none of his works were available in English at that time, it surely means that "nobody gave a shit about Sapkowski", right?
Your "insightful" remarks on "value" of books vs games is just sad, really. Would you care to elaborate on how you have determined the superior value of the games? Sales? Number of players vs readers? Because there is no comparison in terms of value between the two media, apart from meaningless numerical benchmarks completely irrelevant to the cultural or societal value. The arrogance of you declaring on behalf of the world what has more value to the society is truly impressive; the fact that it is based on your ignorance and cultural arrogance is depressing, to be honest.
Nobody would even give a shit about Sapkowski's books if CDPR hadn't created a great game, and they didn't mimic the book storylines to do so. Sapkowski himself said the games are nothing like the books. But I think the world, if we're being honest, would declare the video games more valuable to society than his books.
By your measure, the video games are the problem. But the problem with that is: blindly applied, you're actually losing value.
It's impressive how much ignorance, cultural arrogance and logical fallacy you have managed to squeeze into such a short post.
Sapkowski was a pretty big deal long before the games were created. That was kind of the reason why CDPR chose to adapt his works in the first place. His fame goes back to the early 90's and his works were translated into many languages long before the English speaking world even knew about the guy. Sapkowski was huge throughout Central Europe at least a decade before the first game was released. But since none of his works were available in English at that time, it surely means that "nobody gave a shit about Sapkowski", right?
Your "insightful" remarks on "value" of books vs games is just sad, really. Would you care to elaborate on how you have determined the superior value of the games? Sales? Number of players vs readers? Because there is no comparison in terms of value between the two media, apart from meaningless numerical benchmarks completely irrelevant to the cultural or societal value. The arrogance of you declaring on behalf of the world what has more value to the society is truly impressive; the fact that it is based on your ignorance and cultural arrogance is depressing, to be honest.
Lol not even Sapkowski would agree with you here.
You should lay off with the insults, because you look stupid as hell trying to claim, with inane haughtiness, the video games and TV show didn't bring the books to a much wider audience.
Edit - Do us all a favor and check out Witcher book sales in 2014, then in 2015 before you post again. And check the total sales worldwide for the books vs. the video games.
Man, all this bickering back and forth about staying true to Tolkiens works or not. I wonder how bad things would get if we were discussing an actually good writer….. Yeah, how about that?
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I would mostly agree, though I'm not deep into Witcher lore in general. Signs themselves were poorly described most of the time in the books, with some of them not being explained at all such as Quen or Yrden.
Sort of the continued challenge of player choice in gaming to live up to the books in terms of focusing on signs, or even evoking them in different game scenarios. CDPR can be poked for enabling more broad use of them, and that does actually parallel Star Wars already in the proliferation of what was otherwise originally more subdued use of force powers, as well as evoking uncommon abilities.
Aye, which is why I simply don't get too worked up over IP changes/evolution in and of itself. I try to take them as they come and judge them on their individual merits.
Ironically, I didn't enjoy the first episode of Rings of Power enough to continue. No small part of that is due to my exhaustion with the fantasy genre in general. I've become a sci-fi guy in my 30s. Give me more shows like The Expanse, with or without an underlying book source IP.
Would say I do the same, though we may have different values or weights for making the decision. I can take a lot of variations and general adaptations to make something work, assuming the core setting, characters, and lore is not changed in a way as to alter broad parts of the narrative and pivotal story beats.
Kind of like that Durin example before for LOTR. Changing how the line of Durin works has broader implications for the Dwarves and the mechanics of the setting, much as changing about events in the timeline or changing attribution and motive of characters is something that alters the state of the world.
I'm fine with some changes, just not ones that lean into actively retconning much larger scope of the setting thanks to choices within the narrative.
Like the difference compared to Shadow of Mordor/War. Those games did a lot of things new and different, but they operated in the scope of what ultimately was destined to happen in the canon, and the actions of the characters as a result becomes an ancillary story that lives alongside the original events instead of supplanting them. Certainly still lore quibbles to be had, but there was a conscious choice to respect boundaries of the existing lore as well.
Bit of that thing of does one respect and build on the source, or alter and obfuscate.
The Witcher games can be called out for their departures, but they can also be noted for the depth of lore and narrative they build on from the novels. It's an irony on that end that the show similarly departs from the novels, but is seen more favorably by the author.
Have to divine what integrity the author is trying to hold up there too as a result.
Not so mething so easily applied to Tolkien's works, since outside of radio readings, Tolkien didn't live to oversee or judge the adaptations to his works that the majority of the public now consume.
Not sure what example the bible is meant to be. It's already a collection of a variety of writings, with some added or removed over time along with edits. Aside from being a collective work subject to gestalt interpretation, it also calls back to the distinction between evoking name directly or using it as the basis for a new narrative.
Bit like D&D, Melee, etc being based on LOTR, they derive themselves from a good chunk of the lore, but they still carry their own banner.
The Rings of Power will be in episode 4 of a planned 50 tonight. It's a bit early to say whether it will be a "respectful building on" or an obfuscation, don't you think?
Also.... who shall judge its respect to the source?
I thought comparing how Tolkien fanatics protect their canon and different interpretations of the bible by a multitude of congregations, each firmly believing that theirs is the only true interpretation and everyone else is going to hell, seemed pretty obvious with all the pedantic shit floating around anyone who dares change anything in their eyes.
Not that this is new. When I played LotRO there was a vociferous portion of the player base that absolutely lost their shit, first over the Loremaster's magic-like abilities and then over the more overtly magical Runekeeper.
Not to mention the Tolkien zealotry displayed in the endless bombing of the Peter Jackson movies way back when.
If you're not seeing the similarities with religious zealotry in the Tolkien faithful's behavior, that's on you because they're pretty damn obvious.
And I'm not even going to get into the company Tolkien fanatics are keeping in all the current Rings of Power review bombing and social media hate except to mention that I see a large dose of snarl cliches used prominently in this hate campaign.
You all need to take a chill pill.
What do you mean who shall judge its respect to the source? How about all the people who have read them? Or do you conveniently label them all "fanatics", "zealots", "bigots", "reactionaries" (now here's a word that I have not seen much used since the fall of communism - I guess in some parts of the world it will now see a revival?) and any other simplistic label you will wish to use just to be able to stick to your tired narrative.
You know, just browsing the random users reviews out there, your idea of "zealots" conspiring to bring down the user score is even funnier. Completely ignoring the fact that a substantial share of users (in the random selection of Metacritic user reviews I would say a good 8/10) are complaining about the quality, accuracy and faithfulness to the world created by Tolkien. They argue on substance and merit. You don't.
It's surprisingly similar to what's happening now with Warframe's recent Steam reviews. With a very negative reaction to the recent update (leaving aside the numerous thumbs down reviews due to a single change, there have been actually several legitimate concerns with this update), you see quite a few 10/10 reviews simply saying 'Lol, the game is being review-bombed, so I give 10/10 to piss them off' or something along those lines.
In both cases, it's little more than a simplistic spiteful reaction without actually giving much thought or even attention to the issue.
Is it simpler and safer for you to just reduce all criticism to "zealotry"? Are you unable to address the substance beyond repetitive name calling? Or have you actually never read the works (especially Simmarillion) to do anything else?
What is exceedingly clear to me is that the reason for Tolkien's cordial dislike of Disney also applies to this situation: what Disney did to the Brothers Grimm is what Amazon is doing to JRRT. Distortion, deliberate misinterpretation and corruption of the source works are a real problem.
When you talk to someone about Cinderella, how many will actually know the original tale, as opposed to the bastardised version created by Disney? There are so many beautiful (and often dark and gruesome) folk tales and I can only hope they will manage to escape the attention of Hollywood. That's fate worse than death for them...
@Uwakionna: Touché, and hereditary lines are important for those dwarves, so I can see how that would be a sticking point for you here.
I've mentioned elsewhere that LotR is a tough IP to adapt because it takes itself very seriously in building a well-realized world with specific history. Even small deviations can irk fans in a big way. However, that expected treatment of the IP is not a rule so much as an instance here in my opinion.
We should avoid extrapolating it into a wider argument for the aforementioned discussion RE: the Witcher.
Bit of that thing of does one respect and build on the source, or alter and obfuscate.
The Witcher games can be called out for their departures, but they can also be noted for the depth of lore and narrative they build on from the novels. It's an irony on that end that the show similarly departs from the novels, but is seen more favorably by the author.
Have to divine what integrity the author is trying to hold up there too as a result.
Not so mething so easily applied to Tolkien's works, since outside of radio readings, Tolkien didn't live to oversee or judge the adaptations to his works that the majority of the public now consume.
Not sure what example the bible is meant to be. It's already a collection of a variety of writings, with some added or removed over time along with edits. Aside from being a collective work subject to gestalt interpretation, it also calls back to the distinction between evoking name directly or using it as the basis for a new narrative.
Bit like D&D, Melee, etc being based on LOTR, they derive themselves from a good chunk of the lore, but they still carry their own banner.
The Rings of Power will be in episode 4 of a planned 50 tonight. It's a bit early to say whether it will be a "respectful building on" or an obfuscation, don't you think?
Also.... who shall judge its respect to the source?
I thought comparing how Tolkien fanatics protect their canon and different interpretations of the bible by a multitude of congregations, each firmly believing that theirs is the only true interpretation and everyone else is going to hell, seemed pretty obvious with all the pedantic shit floating around anyone who dares change anything in their eyes.
Not that this is new. When I played LotRO there was a vociferous portion of the player base that absolutely lost their shit, first over the Loremaster's magic-like abilities and then over the more overtly magical Runekeeper.
Not to mention the Tolkien zealotry displayed in the endless bombing of the Peter Jackson movies way back when.
If you're not seeing the similarities with religious zealotry in the Tolkien faithful's behavior, that's on you because they're pretty damn obvious.
And I'm not even going to get into the company Tolkien fanatics are keeping in all the current Rings of Power review bombing and social media hate except to mention that I see a large dose of snarl cliches used prominently in this hate campaign.
You all need to take a chill pill.
What do you mean who shall judge its respect to the source? How about all the people who have read them? Or do you conveniently label them all "fanatics", "zealots", "bigots", "reactionaries" (now here's a word that I have not seen much used since the fall of communism - I guess in some parts of the world it will now see a revival?) and any other simplistic label you will wish to use just to be able to stick to your tired narrative.
I read and enjoyed the books many years ago but I'm not a zealot. Zealot is a different thing both in Tolkien and in religion. All Christians and Muslims are not zealots but some certainly are.
Reactionary is a good word for the "everything is too woke" crowd. It's actually more polite than they deserve,
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Man, all this bickering back and forth about staying true to Tolkiens works or not. I wonder how bad things would get if we were discussing an actually good writer….. Yeah, how about that?
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I do not think he was a great writer, but I think he was an extraordinary world builder and laid the template for those that followed. Its why it irks me so much when folks go an change his world. The one he put so much time and excruciating detail into building.
This isn't Star Wars with a really rough and fluid backstory (that Lucas changed as he went). This is a history mapped out over thousands of years with races, languages, cultures, rises and falls of nations, maps...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
@TheDalaiBomba Maybe, as said there's wiggle room for change and adaptation. As it applies to Witcher, it's the question "is CDPR invalidating the novels with their works?" Do the changes they made actively contradict the author in ways that affects the narrative, characters, timeline, or dramatically alters the setting?
It's part of that quibble too of what's changed for mechanic purposes, and what's left in player hands to align or deviate from the books. There's a difference between a game forcing you to take Geralt to go play Gwent, versus that being a result of players regularly engaging in a side activity of a game.
Kind of like that signs example as well. With the books leaving things vague, it's harder to pin express values or quibble when they are adapted to serve as a more robust game mechanic. This is indeed a contrast to an IP like LOTR that has a lot of detail even for content well beyond the narrative of the novels.
Nobody would even give a shit about Sapkowski's books if CDPR hadn't created a great game, and they didn't mimic the book storylines to do so. Sapkowski himself said the games are nothing like the books. But I think the world, if we're being honest, would declare the video games more valuable to society than his books.
By your measure, the video games are the problem. But the problem with that is: blindly applied, you're actually losing value.
It's impressive how much ignorance, cultural arrogance and logical fallacy you have managed to squeeze into such a short post.
Sapkowski was a pretty big deal long before the games were created. That was kind of the reason why CDPR chose to adapt his works in the first place. His fame goes back to the early 90's and his works were translated into many languages long before the English speaking world even knew about the guy. Sapkowski was huge throughout Central Europe at least a decade before the first game was released. But since none of his works were available in English at that time, it surely means that "nobody gave a shit about Sapkowski", right?
Your "insightful" remarks on "value" of books vs games is just sad, really. Would you care to elaborate on how you have determined the superior value of the games? Sales? Number of players vs readers? Because there is no comparison in terms of value between the two media, apart from meaningless numerical benchmarks completely irrelevant to the cultural or societal value. The arrogance of you declaring on behalf of the world what has more value to the society is truly impressive; the fact that it is based on your ignorance and cultural arrogance is depressing, to be honest.
Lol not even Sapkowski would agree with you here.
You should lay off with the insults, because you look stupid as hell trying to claim, with inane haughtiness, the video games and TV show didn't bring the books to a much wider audience.
Edit - Do us all a favor and check out Witcher book sales in 2014, then in 2015 before you post again. And check the total sales worldwide for the books vs. the video games.
Again, the arrogance of your post is astounding. Now you're talking on behalf of Sapkowski, do you?
I read some of Sapkowski's short stories back in mid-90's. Mostly because of his booming popularity. He was a big name back then. People in Europe (especially Central Europe) know it very well; Sapkowski knows it very well (he even mentioned in a couple of times in interviews). If you only learned of his works thanks to the games, that's your loss - millions of others were enjoying his books decades ago.
Book sales of 2014 and 2015 show only one thing: the English speaking world started to get interested. You can remain as ignorant as you are about Sapkowski's history and his following in Central Europe in the 90's and in broader Europe later on, it does not change the fact that he was a big name in fantasy literature long before the games came out.
Your surprisingly reductive optics of "value" through sales of books and games are just sad. Your posts show that you know nothing about European literature, you know less than nothing about Central European literature, you assign "value" to art based on sales and popularity. Like I wrote - ignorance and cultural arrogance. Not unlike what we see in several posts about Tolkien and his work, right?
Man, all this bickering back and forth about staying true to Tolkiens works or not. I wonder how bad things would get if we were discussing an actually good writer….. Yeah, how about that?
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I do not think he was a great writer, but I think he was an extraordinary world builder and laid the template for those that followed. Its why it irks me so much when folks go an change his world. The one he put so much time and excruciating detail into building.
This isn't Star Wars with a really rough and fluid backstory (that Lucas changed as he went). This is a history mapped out over thousands of years with races, languages, cultures, rises and falls of nations, maps...
My comment was actually a bit ‘joking but not joking.’ On a descriptive level Tolkien is a genius, a world builder as you call it. On a story telling level he was quite average, rather simplistic stuff covered in lots and lots of exposition.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Man, all this bickering back and forth about staying true to Tolkiens works or not. I wonder how bad things would get if we were discussing an actually good writer….. Yeah, how about that?
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I do not think he was a great writer, but I think he was an extraordinary world builder and laid the template for those that followed. Its why it irks me so much when folks go an change his world. The one he put so much time and excruciating detail into building.
This isn't Star Wars with a really rough and fluid backstory (that Lucas changed as he went). This is a history mapped out over thousands of years with races, languages, cultures, rises and falls of nations, maps...
While it's been many decades since I read the Silmarilion, if Amazon had done it like the book, it would have been a relatively dry historical documentary.
Certainly changing things without some good story-based (or time/money production) reasons are just wasting the IP you paid good moolah for. Hollywood is Hollywood though.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
@TheDalaiBomba Maybe, as said there's wiggle room for change and adaptation. As it applies to Witcher, it's the question "is CDPR invalidating the novels with their works?" Do the changes they made actively contradict the author in ways that affects the narrative, characters, timeline, or dramatically alters the setting?
It's part of that quibble too of what's changed for mechanic purposes, and what's left in player hands to align or deviate from the books. There's a difference between a game forcing you to take Geralt to go play Gwent, versus that being a result of players regularly engaging in a side activity of a game.
Kind of like that signs example as well. With the books leaving things vague, it's harder to pin express values or quibble when they are adapted to serve as a more robust game mechanic. This is indeed a contrast to an IP like LOTR that has a lot of detail even for content well beyond the narrative of the novels.
CDPR used the amnesia argument to both link their story to Sapkowski's books and go their own way - without major spoilers, Geralt in the games remembers a key event at the end of his story in the books, but forgets everything else and embarks on new adventures (some of which are about his efforts to remember his past).
Where Netflix was adapting actual books, CDPR's games created their own stories (with strong links and references to the books). It's not exactly accurate as some mentioned in their posts that Sapkowski disliked the games. He did talk about them less favourably at some point, but then changed his line a bit. He actually liked some of the art that he saw and also liked what he learned about the games (not too much though - and he never played them).
But ultimately he clearly stated that books are the Witcher. Nothing else to him can tell the Witcher story, not as a prequel, sequel or side stories. To him, the games were simply their own thing. The good thing about the games was that CDPR - being Sapkowski's fans - did a very faithful representation of the world and characters.
At this point the lore changes are small potatoes. The show is straight up dull and none of their attempted big moments feel earned. Even the Wheel of Time show was more entertaining than this.
People will blame the low scores on racists, but the show just isn't very good. At least not yet. and each episode is at least 15 minutes too long imo.
At this point the lore changes are small potatoes. The show is straight up dull and none of their attempted big moments feel earned. Even the Wheel of Time show was more entertaining than this.
People will blame the low scores on racists, but the show just isn't very good. At least not yet. and each episode is at least 15 minutes too long imo.
I haven't watched. I do not want to compare to HoD so I'm waiting until that ends.
So far I give HoD a 6.5-7. Nothing great, nothing horrible.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I really do like the new Jack-the-Ripper show though. In the new one, Jack is actually a teenager in New Jersey in the 1950's, and he likes to bake cookies for the poor.
But hey, it's still Jack-the-Ripper, right? I mean, his name is still Jack and all.
Bit of that thing of does one respect and build on the source, or alter and obfuscate.
The Witcher games can be called out for their departures, but they can also be noted for the depth of lore and narrative they build on from the novels. It's an irony on that end that the show similarly departs from the novels, but is seen more favorably by the author.
Have to divine what integrity the author is trying to hold up there too as a result.
Not so mething so easily applied to Tolkien's works, since outside of radio readings, Tolkien didn't live to oversee or judge the adaptations to his works that the majority of the public now consume.
Not sure what example the bible is meant to be. It's already a collection of a variety of writings, with some added or removed over time along with edits. Aside from being a collective work subject to gestalt interpretation, it also calls back to the distinction between evoking name directly or using it as the basis for a new narrative.
Bit like D&D, Melee, etc being based on LOTR, they derive themselves from a good chunk of the lore, but they still carry their own banner.
The Rings of Power will be in episode 4 of a planned 50 tonight. It's a bit early to say whether it will be a "respectful building on" or an obfuscation, don't you think?
<snip> (for brevity)
You all need to take a chill pill.
Fans have been "taking a chill pill" for decades now. Personally, I'm all "chill pilled" out.
They came for Star Wars and I "took a chill pill."
They came for the comic books and I took a "chill pill."
They came for any old TV show and I took a "chill pill."
They came for beloved movies and I took a "chill pill."
They came for Wheel of Time and I dumped my "chill pill" bottle.
They're now coming for Lord of the Rings and I am fighting back!
How do we ALL know "Rangs of Amazon" is shit? Their marketing and interviews have told us all. 'Nuff said, don't you think?
The reason they corrupt beloved IPs is they know they come with a built in fan base. Why was Star Wars so "expensive?" Fans. Why was Marvel so expensive? Fans.
WE (fans) make the IP successful or not.
On the plus side, in a decade or two, I'LL be able OWN Star Wars (for maybe $100), Marvel (maybe $10), DC (I'll still have pay off their debts!), and Tolkien for ($1). See you all in 2040
[Edited out the [political rant}
Says the guy who also said "...but some "women's studies" major who wants to attach their name to a true master."
Is it Tolkien or women's studies that's really winding you up?
Yes. They are not mutually exclusive
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Rewriting elements without grasping impact on the overall setting and narrative does bother me though. Like a prior example of the Durin lineage being considered a reincarnation, and was not hereditary. But now in the show, it is and we have two Durin at the same time.
While, yes, the show is quite early, it's already been changing things that reaches beyond its own narrative.
It's a little crass to throw that all under the bus because of others bandwagoning.
And sure, "zealotry" can be called out. But it can also be getting evoked as a dismissive argument to ignore otherwise reasonable points. Similarly, zealots and fanatics don't exist just as representatives of fandoms. When you see someone firing out arguments to justify or defend a new media, are they not also possibly a "zealot"? I recall an article linked in a prior thread that tried justifying some lore by ripping quotes out of context and misplacing events and people in the timeline. Are they not a zealot for vehemently defending their chosen media, with misinformation of all things?
It's a reductive argument to present, because just as you apply it to fans of the original, so too does it swing the other way, and worse it relies on devaluing the people over discussing the subject.
Thing is that the Rings of Power does not need defending nor have I ever attempted to do so. It is its own thing set in that universe.
Is it Tolkien? Well since the guy is dead, no it isn't...duh.
I judge it solely on whether it entertains me or not, the same as the Peter Jackson movies and the various video games set in that universe. And I judge it relative to the fantasy TV series genre which has historically been a rather low bar until very recently after all.
All these reconciliation attempts with the One Lore are annoying noise. It's Middle Earth enough for my enjoyment of tales in a place I care enough about to want new tales set there,
The constant whining about the show is annoying though.
EXACTLY! I am no gate keepoer, though I wish "modern day activists" would stay away from IPs that I know and enjoy. I'm not going to ask your ISP to ensure you (or anyone else) is physically blocked from consuming any entertainment you desire. I don't have that power, nor do I want it.
Maybe stop watching or reading "hit pieces?" However, I certainly understand conversations like this are hard to avoid
Like I said with the Wheel of Time series, enjoy it. Consume it. Just realize it is NOT set in the Wheel of Time universe. Same with Rings of Amazon. Enjoy it. Consume it. Just realize that this show has no intention of being true to Tolkien's world.
My mission is to let it be known that "creators" (I use this word very loosely) today can't write a good story, let alone any "adaptation" of writers they can not hold a candle to. Remember, many good stories old were written by now older white men. This "species" is now frowned upon by inferior "activists" who make any 5 year old's stories seem like Shakespeare by comparison.
On the plus side, I don't buy new much "new entertainment" these days. I do get pleasantly surprised now and again. Why do "progressives" want to REGRESS society into oblivion?
PS: For the "It's ONLY entertainment" responses... Why does matter to YOU enough to feel "it needs changing/modernizing?"
Post edited by AlBQuirky on
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Think that also kind of gets muddied by Sapkowki's own bad blood he'd previously expressed towards CDPR regarding his original licensing of the IP. Sure they've said they've reconciled since then, but given the way the author had responded, I can't be surprised in the least if his statements are made out of some lingering animosity.
Though I'd also point to the statements that CDPR did a lot of direct lifting of lore and setting. While they created new narrative, they did build on a lot of existing canon to do so. A lot of the lore inconsistencies ends up coming out of game mechanics and player choice, though there are still some to levy at the writing.
That's kind of the point, though: even the "I'm just a stickler for staying true to the creator's vision" argument isn't as consistent as we like to act. As very obviously evidenced by the public *and* book fan reception of the Witcher games/show.
The games made some major changes, such as the overall power of Signs. It would be like Disney neutering the Jedi's Force powers for new movies/games.
Along this line of thought, George Lucas created the Star Wars universe. In the original movies "the force" was a mystical, magical thing. In the prequels, he "scientific-ized" the force by introduced "mydichlorians" to erase the mystical aspects. The creator went a direction that did not click with me.
What's a fan to do?
I just episode 4, 5, &6
Luckily. I have purchased enough books, movies, and original TV shows to last me the rest of my life
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I can take a lot of variations and general adaptations to make something work, assuming the core setting, characters, and lore is not changed in a way as to alter broad parts of the narrative and pivotal story beats.
This right is me in s nutshell.
In fantasy and science fiction,they are set in different worlds, even though sci-fi may be futuristic in a familiar area space.
In the Wheel of Time series, they messed with the very foundation of thew world by implying that females can "the dragon." No, that foundation was laid out that only men go crazy by toughing their own (male) side of the source. Without this distinction, the world falls apart. Mr. Jordan wrote into his world the message that men and women need to work TOGETHER to overcome great evil, like the coming of the MAN who would tear the world asunder. The TV series is all about muh strong whamans with"toxic masculinity" traits.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
Though I'd also point to the statements that CDPR did a lot of direct lifting of lore and setting. While they created new narrative, they did build on a lot of existing canon to do so. A lot of the lore inconsistencies ends up coming out of game mechanics and player choice, though there are still some to levy at the writing.
The games made some major changes, such as the overall power of Signs. It would be like Disney neutering the Jedi's Force powers for new movies/games.
They use those names pretty equally, and any difference comes more from The Lord of the Rings books being much more known that The Witcher books were.
Sort of the continued challenge of player choice in gaming to live up to the books in terms of focusing on signs, or even evoking them in different game scenarios. CDPR can be poked for enabling more broad use of them, and that does actually parallel Star Wars already in the proliferation of what was otherwise originally more subdued use of force powers, as well as evoking uncommon abilities.
Ironically, I didn't enjoy the first episode of Rings of Power enough to continue. No small part of that is due to my exhaustion with the fantasy genre in general. I've become a sci-fi guy in my 30s. Give me more shows like The Expanse, with or without an underlying book source IP.
It's impressive how much ignorance, cultural arrogance and logical fallacy you have managed to squeeze into such a short post.
Sapkowski was a pretty big deal long before the games were created. That was kind of the reason why CDPR chose to adapt his works in the first place. His fame goes back to the early 90's and his works were translated into many languages long before the English speaking world even knew about the guy. Sapkowski was huge throughout Central Europe at least a decade before the first game was released. But since none of his works were available in English at that time, it surely means that "nobody gave a shit about Sapkowski", right?
Your "insightful" remarks on "value" of books vs games is just sad, really. Would you care to elaborate on how you have determined the superior value of the games? Sales? Number of players vs readers? Because there is no comparison in terms of value between the two media, apart from meaningless numerical benchmarks completely irrelevant to the cultural or societal value. The arrogance of you declaring on behalf of the world what has more value to the society is truly impressive; the fact that it is based on your ignorance and cultural arrogance is depressing, to be honest.
You should lay off with the insults, because you look stupid as hell trying to claim, with inane haughtiness, the video games and TV show didn't bring the books to a much wider audience.
Edit - Do us all a favor and check out Witcher book sales in 2014, then in 2015 before you post again. And check the total sales worldwide for the books vs. the video games.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Kind of like that Durin example before for LOTR. Changing how the line of Durin works has broader implications for the Dwarves and the mechanics of the setting, much as changing about events in the timeline or changing attribution and motive of characters is something that alters the state of the world.
I'm fine with some changes, just not ones that lean into actively retconning much larger scope of the setting thanks to choices within the narrative.
Like the difference compared to Shadow of Mordor/War. Those games did a lot of things new and different, but they operated in the scope of what ultimately was destined to happen in the canon, and the actions of the characters as a result becomes an ancillary story that lives alongside the original events instead of supplanting them. Certainly still lore quibbles to be had, but there was a conscious choice to respect boundaries of the existing lore as well.
You know, just browsing the random users reviews out there, your idea of "zealots" conspiring to bring down the user score is even funnier. Completely ignoring the fact that a substantial share of users (in the random selection of Metacritic user reviews I would say a good 8/10) are complaining about the quality, accuracy and faithfulness to the world created by Tolkien. They argue on substance and merit. You don't.
It's surprisingly similar to what's happening now with Warframe's recent Steam reviews. With a very negative reaction to the recent update (leaving aside the numerous thumbs down reviews due to a single change, there have been actually several legitimate concerns with this update), you see quite a few 10/10 reviews simply saying 'Lol, the game is being review-bombed, so I give 10/10 to piss them off' or something along those lines.
In both cases, it's little more than a simplistic spiteful reaction without actually giving much thought or even attention to the issue.
Is it simpler and safer for you to just reduce all criticism to "zealotry"? Are you unable to address the substance beyond repetitive name calling? Or have you actually never read the works (especially Simmarillion) to do anything else?
What is exceedingly clear to me is that the reason for Tolkien's cordial dislike of Disney also applies to this situation: what Disney did to the Brothers Grimm is what Amazon is doing to JRRT. Distortion, deliberate misinterpretation and corruption of the source works are a real problem.
When you talk to someone about Cinderella, how many will actually know the original tale, as opposed to the bastardised version created by Disney? There are so many beautiful (and often dark and gruesome) folk tales and I can only hope they will manage to escape the attention of Hollywood. That's fate worse than death for them...
I've mentioned elsewhere that LotR is a tough IP to adapt because it takes itself very seriously in building a well-realized world with specific history. Even small deviations can irk fans in a big way. However, that expected treatment of the IP is not a rule so much as an instance here in my opinion.
We should avoid extrapolating it into a wider argument for the aforementioned discussion RE: the Witcher.
Reactionary is a good word for the "everything is too woke" crowd. It's actually more polite than they deserve,
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
This isn't Star Wars with a really rough and fluid backstory (that Lucas changed as he went). This is a history mapped out over thousands of years with races, languages, cultures, rises and falls of nations, maps...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It's part of that quibble too of what's changed for mechanic purposes, and what's left in player hands to align or deviate from the books. There's a difference between a game forcing you to take Geralt to go play Gwent, versus that being a result of players regularly engaging in a side activity of a game.
Kind of like that signs example as well. With the books leaving things vague, it's harder to pin express values or quibble when they are adapted to serve as a more robust game mechanic. This is indeed a contrast to an IP like LOTR that has a lot of detail even for content well beyond the narrative of the novels.
I read some of Sapkowski's short stories back in mid-90's. Mostly because of his booming popularity. He was a big name back then. People in Europe (especially Central Europe) know it very well; Sapkowski knows it very well (he even mentioned in a couple of times in interviews). If you only learned of his works thanks to the games, that's your loss - millions of others were enjoying his books decades ago.
Book sales of 2014 and 2015 show only one thing: the English speaking world started to get interested. You can remain as ignorant as you are about Sapkowski's history and his following in Central Europe in the 90's and in broader Europe later on, it does not change the fact that he was a big name in fantasy literature long before the games came out.
Your surprisingly reductive optics of "value" through sales of books and games are just sad. Your posts show that you know nothing about European literature, you know less than nothing about Central European literature, you assign "value" to art based on sales and popularity. Like I wrote - ignorance and cultural arrogance. Not unlike what we see in several posts about Tolkien and his work, right?
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Certainly changing things without some good story-based (or time/money production) reasons are just wasting the IP you paid good moolah for. Hollywood is Hollywood though.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
CDPR used the amnesia argument to both link their story to Sapkowski's books and go their own way - without major spoilers, Geralt in the games remembers a key event at the end of his story in the books, but forgets everything else and embarks on new adventures (some of which are about his efforts to remember his past).
Where Netflix was adapting actual books, CDPR's games created their own stories (with strong links and references to the books). It's not exactly accurate as some mentioned in their posts that Sapkowski disliked the games. He did talk about them less favourably at some point, but then changed his line a bit. He actually liked some of the art that he saw and also liked what he learned about the games (not too much though - and he never played them).
But ultimately he clearly stated that books are the Witcher. Nothing else to him can tell the Witcher story, not as a prequel, sequel or side stories. To him, the games were simply their own thing. The good thing about the games was that CDPR - being Sapkowski's fans - did a very faithful representation of the world and characters.
People will blame the low scores on racists, but the show just isn't very good. At least not yet. and each episode is at least 15 minutes too long imo.
So far I give HoD a 6.5-7. Nothing great, nothing horrible.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR