In the first Witcher game they had fishmen gills, but I suppose they did away with it in the second and third games to match the actual mythological creature a bit better. Most of these monsters are absolutely no threat to Geralt (since he's a mutant with enhanced strength, magical items and spellcasting abilities) when it's a one-on-one battle, but they can be more than a nuisance when there are a lot of them. They're pretty simple to wrap your heads around, rising from a specific brutal death and being basically gaunt blue-skinned ambulatory corpses. As their name implies, Drowners are always found near rivers, lakes and swamps. basically means zombies that eat the dead, I guess. The Drowners are not that overly complex as enemies in terms of lore or design, and in the Witcher series, they are classified as a 'Necrophage', which. Both the myhtological utopiec (from what I can find online, anyway) and the Drowner are basically restless spirits of the dead who drowned, rising up from their graves to haunt the living and basically drag them down to drown with them. Thank goodness for online wikis and stuff, which archive all of the bestiary entries for the monsters.ĭrowners are one of the staples of the video game series, appearing in all three games and loosely based on the Utopiec in the novels, itself based on a monster of the same name from Slavic mythology. Realistic, perhaps, but considering the fact that the game automatically updates everything like quests and character bios as you progress in the game, I'm so happy that Witcher 3 did away with it and basically have you unlock the monster bestiary entry after killing a representative of the species. The Witcher 2 has a pretty extensive amount of words written for its bestiaries, but the only way to unlock those is by finding specific in-game books and reading them, which is a bit of a rather convoluted way to do it. We'll start off with the 'common' enemies first, ones that are pretty weak and respawn after a while. It's a neat jumping-in point for me to talk about the monsters of the Witcher series, though, because Assassins of Kings, while not without its monsters, definitely had them take a back-seat and end up being more obstacles and side-quests instead of being part of the main story. Sure, the sequel game perfected the gameplay and stuff, but I did really had a good time playing through Witcher 2. but I dunno, I really enjoyed my time with Witcher 2. There are varied opinions about this game and I think it's often viewed as the weakest game among the Witcher trilogy. It's actually pretty well done and I was extremely invested in the storyline of the game. I mean, the underlying concept of Geralt of Rivia is still a monster-hunter shunned by the world thanks to his mutated magic abilities, but the monster-hunting takes a significant back-seat in Witcher 2 because as the subtitle implies, the significant focus of the main plot is a mysterious man going around killing kings and destabilizing the country. The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is a game that, on its heart, doesn't actually show Geralt beating up monsters a whole ton. I'm currently going through the third game at my own pace, but rest assured that I'll be talking about that game's bestiary eventually. I loved it, read the first anthology novel and played through the second game, finally completing it prior to the release of the Netflix TV series. grittier and darker than most of its contemporaries at the time, but without going over-the-top like some other series I could name. A lot of my friends played the game and I was very swiftly taken into the world of the Witcher, which is.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |