Is Geralt of Rivia a Mary Sue?

Jan 1, 2018 19:31:38 GMT linksocarina said:

Maybe it was the fact that I did the Roache Path in Witcher 2, but up until the final bit of the game pretty much everything done was more or less a success. 

Act III I actually like because it always goes to hell in some way. That is the part of the game that doesn't feel like an artificial choice to me, even though it of course is by design, but it has little to do with Geralt and more to do with other characters acting on things without his presence through most of it.

Still, my biggest issue to his character is that he still eventually wins for the most part. They struck the right balance of moral ambiguity in Witcher 2, which the first game was sorely lacking for me, but that doesn't change much of the character of Geralt to me from game to game. The only argument I can see against it is the fact that people hate Geralt and most of what he does because of reasons, but it doesn't deter the fact that he is kind of an all-powerful badass in the vein of many RPG protagonists.

Although considering how fluid the definition of a Mary Sue is and how it can be argued as valid or not for many characters, its kind of a moot point. 

As far as I remember act 2 in TW2 gets rather fucked up towards the end on Roach's side. This is hardly "wins for the most part", at least in my opinion.

But as I said, it goes further than that, the way I understand the term Mary Sue, Geralt isn't nearly powerful, likable, sympathetic, successful, etc. enough (compared to other people in the setting, aside from the average peasant)

to really be called that. Also, people don't hate him "because of reasons", they hate him because he's a freak, and because some Witchers are known to be rather fucked up in the head (compared to normal people, due to various reasons).

He's certainly not an "all powerful badass" compared to others in the setting. I mean, he's certainly powerful, but he has his limits, and you can make some choices in TW2 that will lead to Geralt getting killed in a cut-scene.

And that's not mentioning the other things that go wrong depending on your choices.

I'd say that personally, I see TW striking a good balance between real consequences and realism to making the game still fun enough to be enjoyable rather than just depressing.

I particularly liked the fact that you can choose and that those choices matter, which is one thing that DA:2 absolutely failed on IMO, there it felt like your choices didn't matter at all in most cases.

A character with interesting background and unique abilities / training isn't automatically a "Mary Sue", that would make practically most interesting protagonists and many other characters "Mary Sue" and make that term worthless.

Compare Geralt to Rey, which I'd say is fairly obviously a Mary Sue, she didn't really earn her abilities, she's just good at everything just because, at the Force, at shooting, close combat, lightsaber, flying, fixing, etc.

(and all without proper training) She practically makes everyone around her redundant. Geralt on the other hand has a very particular set of skills which he's good at, and that's about it.

A competent or powerful character and a Mary Sue are two entirely different things IMO. (and again, has much to do with how you write the character and how much consideration is given to in-universe realism)

Jan 1, 2018 7:40:56 GMT Gandalf the Fabulous said:

I don't know, personally I would rather more of a blank slate, something that allows the player to inject their own personality and views into (or the personality or views of the type of character they create and choose to play as) and while you generally want the player character to be more capable than the general peasants, farmers or townsfolk that populate the game I find it is best to have the character have some sense of vulnerability for a greater sense of tension and peril, it is very hard to make a monster intimidating when it's claws and fangs bounce straight off your armour and you can wipe them out effortlessly with one swipe of your broadsword. Also I would much rather characters in the world react to my character based on their actions within the game instead of just inherently being able to sense the greatness within like they do in most Bioware games.

Just curious if you've played the Witcher games? I just finished playing all 3 in a row and I can say for a fact that people definitely react to things Geralt does, oftentimes negatively, sometimes based on incorrect but assumed information. He is often forced to take sides, often against his better judgment, and the side he doesn't "pick" doesn't let him forget it.

Not to be an asshole about it, but I think it needs to be said anyway, specifically because this is a BW forum and many people here see TW franchise as an attack on BW (or something):

As always when it comes to TW and TW3 in particular, there are many people here who didn't play the game and yet are very anxious to give their opinions on it.

It's entirely legitimate to not like the game / the idea of the game or to not want to play it, but basing character assessment on some half-assed impressions based on things others said or snippets
one saw on social media / playing half an hour of the game - is hardly fair, and usually tends to be completely inaccurate.

Personally I find the "Mary Sue" question to be much less interesting and relevant than whether a character makes sense, both as a character, and from the PoV of in-universe realism,

because from my experience it is entirely possible to make a character who is technically a "Mary Sue" that still makes for a very interesting protagonist / NPC / etc. (though admittedly somewhat rare)

And my main distaste for Mary Sue characters usually comes anyway from that direction - meaning them not really making sense in the context of the world, etc.