5 Companies That Have Too Much Hype Around Them

Look, we all love our favorite games with a passion, and to an extent that’s fine, but when that passion becomes obsession and that obsession becomes forgetting our own moral compass for the sake of entertainment, it does feel like it’s gone too far. It’s one thing to love what a company releases, it’s completely another to ignore every problem they’ve ever had. Not all of the companies on this list have done horribly un-ethical things, but they’ve at least been anti-consumer, and the fact that people don’t question that enough has led to them sometimes, making horrible mistakes. I am RepentantSky, I love making lists that trash on things that are popular, and these are 5 companies, that have too much hype around them.

5. Nintendo

Already I can hear people getting angry, and in a way I get it. Nintendo is for many people the place where they either begin to play games, or the place they go to keep on playing them when everything else let’s them down, and of course, they put an end to the flipping video game crash of 1983, and no one else will ever be able to claim that from them. That’s all wonderful, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be critical of them. I’ve talked about a number of things they’ve done wrong before, so let me quickly run down the list of some of their anti-consumer practices. They, charge too much for remasters and ports, they don’t drop prices in games, they used to charge for fixing Joy-Cons and now completely deny it’s a problem for legal reasons, despite everyone pretty much having experienced drift, they haven’t been good at getting stock for their items in at least 20 years, and oh yeah, they sell all the content for a remake for $115 on the 3DS, the system and the fans that helped them get by while the Wii U was massively underperforming, all while handing owners of the, at the time, unproven Switch, free content. Nintendo has a tendency to still think like a toy company, and they even used that idea to present the Nintendo Entertainment System as a toy instead of a console when they first game to the West with it, but they aren’t a toy company, their a gaming company that also sells toys, just like everyone else. I get they’ve done amazing things, I own over 150 physical handheld games from them, and a ton of digital games besides, but when they start charging twice what they are worth for SD cards, while releasing games that absolutely won’t fit on the limited space of the Switch, and they simply don’t care when costumers complain, it’s time to at least question their motives.  

4. Bethesda

Boy I used to really rip on this company back when I posted lists on Facebook, but I haven’t done it in a while, so let’s do it again. Bethesda has absolutely spent at least the last 10 years lying to people, Todd Howard, has become famous for it, but I think I might have been the only person who wasn’t shocked when Fallout 76 was the disaster that it was. There were so many things wrong with that game, that I don’t even have time to go over every little thing, but lying, you know the thing that will get another company on this list very soon, was a big thing they did with the game. They promised at one point that they weren’t ever going to charge for items in the game that gave in-game benefits, and they did, allowing ammo and other items to be bought with real money for a time, they promised new, specialized servers if you paid for a yearly service that was way too expensive, and that wasn’t true because people found proof of things missing from what would have been a freshly made, private server, and there’s no excuse for that, games in early access do that correctly, and they aren’t, at least supposedly, even finished yet. I wish I could say that’s all they’ve done, but they also bullied an indie developer over their game Prey, a game they may have bullied the original developer for so they could get cheaper, but we’ll never know because they refused to comment on that when asked, they also refused to update their outdated game engine for years, which caused something they spent over a decade fixing, games releasing with glitches, some of them game breaking. Yet somehow, they have such a fan base that those who love their games will claim the glitches are just part of the charm. That kind of fierce loyalty led to Fallout 76, and even though we make jokes about it even now, the horse DLC from way back in the day, was an indication of everything they’ve done, including trying to charge for mods made for free, meant to be consumed for free, twice. Bethesda is a bad company and they do not care. 

3. Activision/Blizzard

You know one of the worst things Nintendo does that I didn’t really mention directly in the first entry, is limit the amount of time a product is available, instead of just letting it be there for consumption as long as it’s selling (that was what the toy company reference was about if it wasn’t clear). However, Activision/Blizzard are the Kings of doing this, as they not only limited things while they were in control of Destiny 2 to the point where you pretty much had to use real money to get everything, and never mind everything else they did to it, because we’d be here all day going through it all, but they also don’t support games as a service titles long enough for dedicated fans. Crash Team Racing Nitro fueled, is a prime example of this. People weren’t done with that game, and when fans thought for even a split second that an update was going to come to fix an issue, their hype (mine to) was so explosive, it was almost like we were getting a new game, but then nothing happened, because they didn’t care. A lot of companies that do yearly release titles as a service have this problem and nothing exemplified that more for Activision, than Skylanders, a series originally made off the back of Spyro, who didn’t even wait for a year to release new games, as technically between October 21st and November 20th of the year the first game came out, they released three of them, and I’m not even kidding. Two of them, were mobile games! You might have thought I was going to go after Call of Duty, for this, but that horse has been beaten to ground, somehow, more than Skylanders was. They also, for whatever reason, released each expansion on different generations console generations, at different months throughout Fall, like somehow the season of Fall, they needed a release every month, if not two, and so off they went. I didn’t even get into Blizzard, but all I need to say is “Blitzchung” and all the memories will likely come flooding back. There’s also the fact that in two separate years, after gaining massive profits, they dropped hundreds of employees, and hired more than they’d let go, but I guess that doesn’t really matter to some of you, because when they did it this year, with so little warning, most employees found out via the news articles about it, but we all made such a little stink this time around, it didn’t create any media buzz, so I guess that doesn’t matter, you’d all rather play flipping World of Warcraft, like better MMO’s don’t exist. 

2. CD Projekt Red

I know this one comes off a little more fresh in the mind, and they technically only lied about one game, but man, what a series of lies it was. Also, let’s be honest, one major game, does not a great developer always make. CDPR’s previous two Witcher games did exactly what the author of the books thought they would, and that was almost nothing in terms of making a serious impact, and the reason is, they are kind of bad. They aren’t the worst games out there, but there is a good reason why The Witcher 1 and 2 haven’t been ported and/or remastered, despite how important they are to the story of Witcher 3, and that’s because they both suck. Cyperpunk 2077, was in a lot of ways, them just going back to being the developer they were before, the BIG ONE happened. They lied about nearly everything in regards to the game, including how the main platforms where consumers were going to buy it, were actually running well. I made those references to Witcher 1 and  2 for a reason, although if I’m being honest, they actually look better than Cyberpunk did on day 0, and that’s completely unacceptable. The budget for CDPR was basically nothing for Witcher 1 and 2 combined to what Cyberpunk got, but they were so focused on the PC versions because PC ran the game better, somehow (like maybe because they didn’t try with consoles) and they missed glitches that were so bad, the game felt like it was still in beta, if not alpha upon release. The fact that they’ve only released eleven games in twenty-three years, and only two of them didn’t have The Witcher on them, should have told us all we need to know, and yet the game, even after returns, which was another massive screw-job that led to Cyberpunk being removed from the PlayStation store, still sold Sixteen million units, all because of hype, and because apparently, some people don’t care if they’re lied to. Do you want to know what the other game they released is besides a Witcher title? It was flipping Saints Row 2, a fun game, but also one that’s too goofy for it’s own good, and yet suddenly makes Cyberpunk’s release, make sense, because it was all a massive joke, and a parody of good, well running, open world games. CDPR needs to seriously do something, anything different, and never release a game in this poor of a state ever again.

1. Ubisoft

I put Ubisoft at number one for a damn good reason, and that reason is, that everyone seems to hate the company, but loves their games, and I don’t know why. They haven’t been the overall worst company on this list, although they are pretty bad, but the major problem they have, and have had for at least a decade is that none of their games have any identity, they are literally all the same game, with different coats of paint. Sure, an occasional gem sneaks through like Assassin’s Creed IV, but all of the rest of their games have the same visual style (although ACII does seem to be the base for which they create their art let’s be honest), the shooting mechanics they have in all the games that have guns, all feel exactly the same, which is something even Call of Duty manages to avoid most years (guess I took a shot at them anyways) and yet somehow, someway, I keep seeing people getting excited for their releases, and it doesn’t make any sense. Sure, they throw a celebrity actor in from time to time, and the artistic style they use does look pretty cool, but everything is always the same with them, every single time, no matter what it is, and they still keep making money. It doesn’t really make sense either, because a lot of developers do make games that are very similar feeling, see the Life is Strange team or much as well all loved them, Telltale Games, but at least those titles told extremely interesting stories, and developed their mechanics at least a little, which is something most companies do just on principal, but not Ubisoft. They throw out a few Tom Clancy games every time they talk about what their releasing, the Trials and AC games are still mostly a yearly experience, and I’ll say it again, their entire list of releases since at least 2013, the year the previous generation kicked off, have pretty much all been the same. It would be nice if they made more games like Child of Light, but despite the fact that their games will likely never be as popular as Call of Duty, they keep churning out same-y shooters hoping that one day, maybe just one day, they’ll create their own CoD, and it’s just not gonna happen. The saddest part of all is that when they announce something different, something fans have wanted for years, we get The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Remake, which was literally delayed because fans said they wouldn’t buy it unless some actual effort was put into making it, why is this company so popular that it can keep doing this, someone please explain it to me. 

And that’s my list, can you think of any other companies that are too hyped? Let me know in the notes below, hit me up with a follow if you like my content, and give me a reblog, I’d really appreciate it. Have a wonderful life!  

Hey! I love your opinions on the books :) I’m having trouble grasping some of the characterization of the book characters, so maybe you’d understand better xD. What would you say the main characters’ flaws are?

omg i love this... ok for context these “flaws” do not necessarily equate to “qualities that are bad to have, make them bad people, and need to be fixed” but rather “qualities that are their character flaws in the narrative and contribute to the story”:

main characters, like the main 4 characters:

geralt: geralt is defined by insecurity, self-doubt, and self-loathing which stems from him being abandoned by his biological mother when he was a child and becoming a witcher, which is a reviled profession and caste and makes others shun him and dislike his company. he is also affected by being a witcher because he is morally opposed to killing, but his job is to kill, so he carries a lot of inner guilt and more self-loathing from this. this cocktail of nsecurity manifests mostly in him leaving people who care about him a lot and need his presence, and also in him shunning the company of others who want and need to be with him (leaving and shunning are different in my opinion... in leaving, he’s already been with them for some time, in shunning, they are trying to join him). examples of this are things like leaving yennefer in a shard of ice, leaving ciri in the sword of destiny, and not wanting to accept dandelion, milva, regis, and cahir’s company in baptism of fire. he basically thinks that he can only bring misfortune and death to others, so by being around them, he puts them in danger... he’s self-isolating...

yennefer: yennefer is also defined by insecurity, but to her, she herself isn’t the source of peril - others are. because she suffered such horrible child abuse and really had no one to sincerely trust and form extremely close relationships with as she aged (sorcerers and sorceresses are infamous for their cattiness ... as we see with someone like sabrina, i feel like her life on thanedd island was more like a bad high school experience rather than a good one. thus, yennefer is hesitant to truly let people into her life, because she doesn’t want to be hurt. she has “a heart of ice” - of course, not really - it can be “melted,” so to speak, but she’s “frozen” it to protect herself. she as a sorceress also experiences some antagonization (and she can’t even often find comradery in her colleagues unlike geralt who can go back to his brothers at kaer morhen), so she’s kind of stuck. i would say both geralt and yennefer also suffer from a little immaturity, especially regarding their relationship, because they’ve just simply never really had a relationship like theirs before and so it’s difficult to understand how to make it work past the honeymoon stage.

dandelion: dandelion’s flaws are that he has no flaws ... or so that he’d like to think. it’s important to separate character flaws from generally looked down upon qualities when it comes to dandelion. he’s filled with qualities that are less than desirable in a person, but are comical to the reader: he’s a glutton, he’s lecherous, he’s arrogant, he’s liable to spend all of his money on beers and new clothes than paying rent (if he had... a place he rented). as geralt says in a little sacrifice, he’s a whoreson, a cynic, a lecher, and a liar. a more neutral way to summarize dandelion is that he seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, he’s a hedonist. which isn’t of course necessarily a bad thing. earthly pleasures, those of food, alcohol, sex, dancing, entertainment, music, art, literature... it’s extremely human. and to avoid violence, killing, and death is only smart when you’re not skilled in those aspects. so, his love of pleasure is not really a flaw... more of just a neutral trait. his arrogance and raptness to make fun is one main character flaw, in the sense that he’s liable to go too far when he makes jokes. he gets into trouble mainly by teasing people so much until they get aggressive and want to strangle the life out of him. he gets torque to attack him and geralt in the edge of the world for precisely this reason, and he gets the foresters in four pines before a little sacrifice to attack him and geralt for this reason, too. this is classed as arrogance because he’s so self-absorbed that he doesn’t recognize the other person fantasizing about cutting his head off. he’s impulsive as well, which gets him into trouble with things like opening the amphora of the djinn. his other character flaw is flightiness, noncommitaliality, the inability to stay grounded or loyal. he develops over the course of the series in regards to this, as every main character does in regard to their character flaws. but the other way he gets into trouble is by cheating on his partners, cucking the partners of his partners, not upholding promises (not paying bills) ... he really just does what he wants and what he wants seems to change every day (asides from singing and writing poetry). this flaw gets him into trouble with mainly the women he cheats on or the men angered by him cucking them... as with vespula in eternal flame, and the duke and duchess of toussaint...

ciri: ciri has a few character flaws which develop with her over time. the first character flaw for ciri is arrogance. she immediately demonstrates this to geralt in the sword of destiny when she states that she is a princess and that she’ll have him beheaded... she believes that she deserves the very best and that no one could take her down, and this comes into play later when she joins the rats and bonhart starts on their trail. in her time with the rats, she actually does allude to her rank as a princess when she demands a jeweled brooch off of a girl, saying that they, as the wife and daughter of a baron, have no right to deny her what she wants. the second character flaw is vengeance, which i suppose is related to her arrogance. she becomes obsessed with getting vengeance for being abandoned by not only her parents, but her morals and virtues which she had ascribed so much to. when those leave her, she seeks illogical vengeance by cutting down innocents. then, she wants vengeance for mistle and the rats, as well as the way she was treated. this vengeance isn’t wrong, but it begins to consume her. by the end of the series, she learns how to control her thirst for vengeance and she gets her retribution.

hansa members because i like analyzing them too:

milva: milva suffers from insecurities related to her circumstance - from being a peasant woman. this mainly shows itself during her talk with geralt in baptism of fire, when she is torn up about being pregnant and tells geralt that even though he had thought different, it turns out that she’s no good for anything, “a typical bloody woman.” she has a lot of issues compiled from how she was raised and treated in her society which present themselves in insecurity, which she desperately tries to make up for through showing off her great skill. she feels like she has to compensate for being a woman and for not being educated, that she has to earn her place amongst the company or others, when it’s simply not the case sometimes in which she is loved just for being herself. milva is also quick to anger and impulsive, but these are not really flaws for her, they’re more neutral in relation to her character, they don’t really hurt her or others at all throughout the books...

regis: arrogance. i know i already said arrogance for dandelion and for ciri, but regis also has arrogance, and all of their types arrogance express themselves differently. dandelion suffers from arrogance in the way that he lacks self-awareness, that others might not love him as much as he thinks they do. ciri suffers from arrogance in that she feels the universe owes her. regis suffers from arrogance in that he thinks he’s always right. regis does demonstrate modesty and humility in the books, because of course he does, he’s been working on this same character flaw for 4 centuries, so i hope he’s improved on it somewhat. but he is still affected by the same character flaw which got him killed a century ago, which is that he believes he’s right and no one can take him down. in baptism of fire, tower of the swallow, and lady of the lake, he gives geralt some pretty stupid advice on various occassions, but he’s completely assured as to his own accuracy, so that he never actually intends to lead him astray, but just doesn’t think maybe he could be wrong. he advises geralt to pass through ygsith, which, if they did so, would have been incredibly dangerous. he advises geralt to go speak to the druids, who don’t help them at all and actually hurt them instead. and he dismisses ciri’s horse tracks on the sansretour pass, thinking that they’re unremarkable. in all of these times, he was wrong, but he never entertained that idea. his arrogance also demonstrates itself during conversation as he tends to speak like “a sage instructing small children” and interrupt people before they finish asking their questions, with the answers to their questions as well as the answers to their next questions. he’s always-omniscient. which he really isn’t, because he can’t possibly be. but he adopts the manner of acting like it, and that’s a flaw because it’s dangerous. his arrogance also leads him to impulsitivity and violence, especially when combined with when he is drunk. during the assault on castle stygga, he says that he thinks he could lay waste to the entire castle. he dies due to his arrogance - he could have chosen any other way of strategy to kill vilgefortz, but he chose to immediately rush him after swiping his face with his claws in flight. he should have bewared, but he thought he could kill him immediately because he was so assured of his powers.

cahir: cahir is an idealist and loyal to the point of detriment. he believed in imperialist doctrine for a great portion of his life, or rather was persuaded into at least following what imperialist doctrine wished for him to become, to please his family and the expectations set for him. he believes that he was doing the right thing, that he would bring honor to his family, even when he was sent to do something like kidnap a little girl. even though he thought the order was strange, he wanted the honor for his family, because he is loyal to them, more than anything. his idealism and loyalty also affect him once he joins the company. the fact that geralt told him to fuck off but he followed the company from a distance anyways, for miles, demonstrates his loyalty and his propensity to follow. he was guided by his ideals of setting things right with ciri. and he was guided by these ideals, unable to recognize the dangers surrounding him, right into stygga and towards bonhart’s blade.

angouleme: angouleme is a teenager. enough said... she is impulsive, violent... she gets the least screentime of all of the hansa so her true colors didn’t really get to show themselves as she didn’t get a lot of deep character development, but from my own ideas about her, i feel that she suffers from low self esteem due to the circumstances of her birth and is prone to distractions in the form of detriments. she agrees with the practices of crime and banditry because she was never told that she could ever aspire to anything better. she’s careless, she is quick with her knife, tongue, and powder, because she struggles to focus on the situation that is her entire life. she doesn’t want to face the hand that life has dealt her, so she makes the best of it by surviving and having fun when she can. i feel like her low self esteem affects her in that she doesn’t believe others can truly want to love and protect her, so that she is always looking out for herself and doesn’t accept goodwill for its face value. 

A bit of Witcher thoughts

I finished watching the S2 of the Witcher a few days ago, had a few very questionable arguments with friends and now I'm kinda an outcast among them for my unpopular opinions.

Whooo boy.

So, the unpopular opinions:

- I don't believe that TV series MUST be a very close adaptation of the books (or games for that matter);

- I don't have issues with giving different traits to already known characters IF that somehow serves the development of the main protagonist and moves the plot forward (I feel your pain Eskel fans, I truly do, I love this man to my heart, but I hold the stance that different media can have different versions of secondary characters);

- I do believe in exploration of already known characters from completely different views (even if it creates a completely different dynamic around the character), than the one that were described in primary/official media (that's mostly regarding Yennefer plot this season);

- I do not hold one or the other media in higher regards, when it comes to adaptations, as I believe that the more versions there are, the better - I love the exploration of the same concepts it brings with it.

All of this being said. I'm still pretty disappointed by the S2. Not to the amount I was with S1 mind you, but still. As for me, there were a lot of improvements this season, regarding the visuals, some plot development regarding Ciri and Geralt, (also really loved what they did with Jaskier, ngl), the timeline was much more cohesive this time. But fcking hell, why did the dialogue quality drop so much? A lot of times I really felt like cringing over what was said, just because it was so, sooo unnatural. The way they portrayed most of the "new" characters was fine for the most part, and as I said, I'm fine with writers taking artistic liberties with already existing characters, but fcking hell - when it actually serves the purpose. They could have literally changed Eskel to any other no-name Witcher, and the impact would have been the same - because between the introduction of Eskel, this version of Eskel mind you, and the final battle of the episode, there were so so soo little time to actually get attached to the character or at least understand what important connection he had with his brothers. The death felt empty. Literally like nothing. They needed to spend more time in fleshing out this version of Eskel (the actor was actually good, he could have done a good job if given one), so that we actually understood what the fck was going on between him and other Witchers, that he actually was part of the big family, a dear friend to them. Instead, we got that disaster. Even watching interview with Lauren makes me even more fcking confused, as initially they PLANNED TO USE A NEW WITCHER FOR THAT but instead decided to go with Eskel. Like. Why. It makes no sense, with how little character development was given.

Another thing, that left me quite disappointed, is the amount of significant interactions between Geralt and other significant characters - there were too little of them. Even though they could have fleshed out Geralt so much this season. We got the breadcrumbs with Jaskier, a little more with Yen, yet still not enough, and a bit better with Ciri (yet in the end it still feels like there is something missing). Either give more screen time to them and make a clearer picture of how fragile and difficult relationships between these characters are (and actually follow up on exploration of their trauma, I'm looking at you Jaskier), or focus completely on relationships between Ciri and Geralt, make it the GRAND focus of the season and throughout it make references to other characters. They gave us too little on each of them, and in the end it doesn't feel like a complete picture (I don't mean it in a good way, where someone can make an argument "oh well, they just left it for the S3". That's not how storytelling works, you've just confused your viewers and made them dissatisfied with what they've watched).

So yeah, basically that's my biggest concerns about this season. I still think it's an improvement from S1, and I still think it's not a terrible show. (though, keep in mind that I walked in S1 with VERY low expectations, and by the beginning of this season they didn't go any higher. Maybe this is why I still enjoyed watching it.) I do not believe, that Hollywood Netflix would make a decent slavic-themed show, at least not anytime soon, so that part of me is already dead when I watch the TV series, which also separates me from the part of slavic fans who just want at least this series to have a good dark slavic feel.

Mb I'm just too tired to be mad at modern shows anymore. Like, people get mad about each and every piece of media these days, and I just. I'm tired. I can't give a shit anymore, because I rarely see writers/producers listening to the fans or making a good media right away (Arcane and Spider Man were the last exceptions over the last couple of years, which is telling of how depressive is the state of media nowadays).

Initial Thoughts on The Witcher (Season 1) -- Yes, spoilers below

So I finally finished my binge of the first season of The Witcher. Thankfully, most of the spoiler images I saw on Tumblr didn’t really give away much of the story -- perhaps because a lot of you are only watching to see Henry’s body. Oh well, to each their own. 

I’m not going to review the entire series, but I’ll simply share my initial impressions. Warning: I have neither played the video game nor read the books, so I’m coming into this as a full-fledged newbie. 

Also, these are random and in no particular order:

I have no idea what voice Henry is using to play Geralt, but it took some time getting used to it. A part of me couldn’t help but laugh when I first heard him speak, but after an episode or two, I got past it. I’m not sure why he went the Christian-Bale-as-Batman route to sound so menacing. He doesn’t really need to do anything to make himself sound intimidating with an American accent. His voice is pretty intimidating as is.

After watching all 8 episodes, I can fairly say that my favorite fight scene is the one from the first episode between Geralt and Renfri’s men in Blaviken. I don’t know why, but there’s something about the way they shot that fight that made it come across as more artistically fluid. It wasn’t just brutality and efficiency at work. It had a kind of artful approach that made me wish more of the fight scenes were shot that way.

So, um, yeah. I’m slow. It took me until the banquet episode (Ep. 4) to fully recognize that they weren’t telling the story in order. I’m sure plenty of others caught on much faster than I did, or learned of it through the press tour for the series or spoilers, but I was unaware. No complaints though. I’m just surprised at how long it took me to realize that each main character’s story isn’t happening at the same time. Well done.

I wish we had a chance to see Geralt interact with Renfri more. I found her character far more interesting than some of the other characters that were given more screen time, but maybe that’s a self-fulfilling issue. Perhaps if she had been afforded more screen time, I might not have thought she was so interesting after all. 

I’m a big fan of esoteric spirituality and the supernatural, so The Witcher technically is right up my alley in terms of subject matter, but I found it left me wanting more interactions with the supernatural characters overall. Sure, you have a lot of info on the mages and the Brotherhood, but oddly, precious little info on the Witchers and their society. I suppose part of that is because Witchers are so tight-lipped about themselves anyway, and people are scared to death of them (sometimes). Maybe this is the series' way of saying that if you want to know more details, go read the books. Fair point.

My favorite episodes were Ep. 3 - “Betrayer Moon” (the one about the Striga) and Ep. 6 - “Rare Species” (the one about the Dragon). I told you I like the supernatural, so of course, I identify each episode by the creature highlighted in it. 😊

I really appreciated the complexity of the storyline in Episode 3. It had more twists and turns to it than most of the other episodes, and nothing you were told about in the beginning was the truth by the middle, and had completed changed again by the end. Plus, the townspeople, their ruler, and their mage all had a level of detail to them you wouldn’t normally expect for characters who won’t show up again for a while in the story. I appreciated that. I like it when storytellers don’t underestimate their audience, and are willing to create tales that aren’t written for audiences who want everything to be written for an 8-year-old.

I liked Yennefer better when she wasn’t whining about her life all the time. To be fair, she complained a lot in the beginning, but she had plenty to justify it. But after she got the life she wanted, and it turned out to not be as perfect as she’d hoped, she just kept kvetching about her lot in life and the way of the world. She had 10 times more freedom than the average woman alive on the continent, but she never seemed satisfied. She only made me miss Renfri more.

And I’m just going to say it: Henry Cavill and Anya Chalotra don’t have a lot of romantic chemistry. I think they played well off of each other in terms of equals in the story, and I bought that Geralt and Yennefer cared about each other. But when it came to sexual and romantic chemistry, I just wasn’t feeling it. Maybe it’s because Geralt is so stolid. Unless he’s punching Jaskier, slicing people’s throats, or is deliriously angry at the memory of his mother, I assume he’s in a constant state of indifference. That may make it harder to convey affection within the tone of the story. Either way, whenever they were sharing a moment, my thoughts wandered and wondered about Ciri’s storyline or something else. 

Geralt is clearly not a cuddler either. 😏 I've never seen 2 people so far apart after sex in a TV series unless one is a prostitute.

I loved the reveal at the end regarding Geralt’s location when the Nilfgaard attacked the city. 

Yennefer also pissed me off when she yelled at Geralt, claiming he was refusing to take responsibility for his child because it was clear she either wasn’t listening or refusing to understand what he said about his way of life being no place for a baby. As a witcher, the child would’ve been in constant danger. He was actually being incredibly responsible by allowing the child to grow up with her family who could provide for her and keep her safe. Ugh. I just wanted to smack Yen when she said that. 

On the flip side, I did like Yennefer’s moment where she “released her chaos” upon the Nilfgaard soldiers. That was pretty sweet. Although I couldn’t help but wonder how many of the Brotherhood would still be alive if she had been told to stop bottling her chaos when the fight first began.

I also like the juxtaposition of the leading woman of the series is the one fighting a massive battle in the final episode of season 1, and the leading man of the series is navigating a much smaller one, fighting delirium while being laid up with an injury, and experiencing a family moment. Well played in the reversal of gender roles.

Happy to hear the series was picked up for another season because I was kind of ticked off with them leaving us hanging like that in the end. Just saying.

One last thing: I liked it any time Geralt said, “F*ck.” No explanation. I just liked it. 😁

OK. That’s it. Sorry if I ruined anything for anyone by spoiling it for you, but I did warn you in the headline to the post. I’ll likely go back and watch my favorite episodes multiple times, so forgive me if you see me sharing gifs from Ep. 3 and Ep. 6 repeatedly here. And well, Ep. 1 because ... you know ... Renfri. 😏

Twist of Fate: Anathema is a visual novel by Meishali and Merriweather, and currently under development. Each week, we talk a bit about our experiences as newbie gamedevs.

Today’s the launch of this blog series: Meishali is going to talk about the Codex feature within the game, Merriweather about what she’s been up to. If you haven’t read what the game’s about, check it out now.

Hey Everyone!

As promised, each week, we’ll talk a little about what we’ve been up to regarding the development of TOF:A. 

Before we get started, it’s important to get this out of the way: we still have some long, long months of development and editing before the game’s out. At the very least, all the core designs are there, and all routes are summarized, all endings (and their variations) planned and done. Plenty of things may change as we go, but hey, a solid 30% is done, including the introduction chapters (written!).

Meishali’s Side of Things:

Hey guys. Pretty excited to launch this series. I don’t know if it’ll be of much use to all of you, but I figured it’d be nice to keep track of what we’re doing, for potential fans, and even ourselves. These entries are pretty much like some sort journal for us. So we’ll look back into it in a year and be all “dang it, woah, what progress we’ve done!” (hopefully).

Without further ado: TOF:A is a game where you play as a Runereader, a scholar of sorts. Basically, someone who knows much more about the game’s lore than you do. 

This comes with several issues: usually, in videogames, the main character embodied by the player ends up being a “newcomer”, explaining why... Well, everyone’s explaining them stuff all the time. 

The character has the same “learning” rate as the player: you both discover things at the same time. Sometimes, they’ve even conveniently lost their memory, so you can have the prestige of playing a big badass everyone recognizes, but while still learning about the game. (Zelda: BOTW, The Witcher, Remember Me, Fire Emblem: Awakening... I could go on for hours.)

Anyways, you got what I mean. I personally see it as the easy road, that’s why I decided to discard it altogether: our main character is an intelligent, knowledgeable character. As a result, when someone says something inherent to the world of TOF:A, she simply nods, and says something along the lines of “I see”. Which often gets the player to go “Wait a minute,so it’s some kind of XYZ? How does it work exactly?” — You can have a grasp on these things, based on context, but if you want to read more about them, you’re screwed...

But fear not, people of TOF:A, for I, Meishali, found a solution: The Codex!

Well, it’s going to look a little better than that.

A little better, bitchin’, but still a little bare. 

I plan on coding a menu that’ll act as a dictionary of sorts: everytime a word that’s lore specific appears, it’ll get a special entry to give additional information to the player. You’ll be notified, and you’ll even be allowed to click on it through hyperlink, directly through the text box of the character as they’re speaking (I’m going to fight Ren’py for that.). 

Some entries are here for flavor, but others are important, and may help you as you progress in game.

The Codex is also persistent, meaning that it’ll stay with you even as you re-play a different route, with all the previous entries you’ve discovered. Some routes have exclusive entries, so if you’re a completionist, brace yourself.

Thanks for reading, and see you next week.

- Meishali

What Merriweather’s Been Up To: 

Hello! Wednesday update time! I’m currently wrapping up Oswyn’s second chapter. I have to say, chapter two has been my smoothest so far. 

When Meishali and I first started, I knew it would be a lot of work. I wasn’t kidding myself, but it was still really daunting. I had to get a system down. Working the variables (Meishali’s note: what we use to keep track of who said what, and when, to have characters react to it in the future!) into script itself can be really tricky, especially keeping track of everything. 

I basically have to have no less than 5,678,322 tabs open at all times. NO MORE, NO LESS. I work in law, and a lot of honestly reminded me of that lol. Extremely strict formatting and developing a set of steps are things I do at work, as well. Oh and do my posts sound a little formal? I’m a proper old lady. :D

Summaries are your friend, even if they suck to write. I broke down each chapter into scenes, wrote a summary for those, then went in and wrote the dialogue. It seemed tedious at first, but now I do it for everything. I’ve also never written anything outside of standard book format really, so adapting to such an image and dialogue heavy medium was odd at first. 

Dialogue was never a strong suit for me, though years of roleplaying helped quite a bit. None the less, I feel much more confident going forwards. 

 See you next week! 

 - Merriweather

how do i ignore all the misogyny in the witcher books? they're much better than the netflix show storywise but there is so much gross stuff compared to what i usually read/watch

hi!! thank you for the ask, this is a very important topic to address, though i believe you are asking the wrong question. the matter is not how to ignore the misogyny in the witcher and other pieces of media, but rather how to confront it and face it head-on.

i don’t believe in making excuses for the media i consume when it has “problematic elements” to it. this isn’t meant to be taken as an excuse to “consume anything you like,” because i would not engage with something insidious in its nature (such as media that revolves around and is based upon harmful stereotypes or insensitive jokes and cannot exist without this, some examples of this are infamous things that i’ve seen discussed on this site like captive prince, cmbyn, and hazbin hotel). instead this is about when a piece of media is good overall in nature (the witcher has many anti-war, anti-violence, anti-imperialist themes and messages relating to family, childhood, friendship, and love) but has elements that are the results of the author’s personal biases.

i think before i address how to deal with the misogyny, i’ll actually define what misogyny exists within the witcher books, to be more specific about what we are talking about, and also to do the work of addressing the misogyny in the books:

how the women in the witcher are treated as characters and how they are depicted by the author.

there are a few good points in this subject. characters such as yennefer and ciri are very strong characters who receive a lot of development over the course of the series, and are main characters that are integral to the plot. they demonstrate both strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vices. they have depth and are not one-dimensional characters, especially as they become more and more complex over the course of the series.

blatant sexualization of women when it’s inappropriate or irrelevant, descriptions of female characters’ looks or bodies that male characters would not have received.

bizzare standards for what is beautiful for a woman, including body descriptions (“triss’s waist measured 22”) and extreme focus on youth and the age cusp of around 15 to 18 as being the most attractive for a woman (stated in-universe, even though this could be excused as being what is normal in the 1200s, keep in mind that this is the author’s decision to impliment this standard into their society). 

descriptions and scenarios of extreme violence towards woman that are gratuitous in nature and do not add to the story or have any relevance. (geralt being paralyzed with his knee during the stampede at the refugee camp in bof is NOT on the same level as yennefer being extremely tortured at stygga or ciri meeting “forest gramps” in lotl). some of this violence towards women is related to the male antagonists being misogynistic (such as leo bonhart) but a lot of it is just pure filler and is not necessary for the story.

majority of female characters do not get the depth they deserve, and some are pretty one-dimensional. the sorceresses are a good example of this, as the majority of them are shallow and manipulative. female characters are also just generally not given as much “page time” as male characters, for example compare how much depth and backstory regis and cahir receive to how much milva and angouleme receive. regis’ backstory is entirely irrelevant to the main plot but it’s extremely long, and angouleme’s backstory is more relevant to the main plot (she was born of cintrian nobility) yet it is extremely short. (one could make the argument that this is an effect of their characters because regis talks a lot and angouleme is still processing her trauma, but more could have been given to angouleme even if she is not extremely talkative).

the only canon lesbians in the witcher are not good people and are manipulative in nature, and the only canon f/f relationship (ciri/mistle) is representative of a turmultous, vicious time of violence, and is based upon sexual assault.

the gender non-conforming female characters who ARE good people,never have their gnc-ness treated with any depth, and it is insinuated that they are heterosexual.

male protagonists such as geralt and dandelion are both misogynistic at various times in the books, especially in the short stories. this is unlike when male antagonists are misogynistic, because it is represented as something wrong and is intended to characterize them as vile people. instead, geralt and dandelion say or do misogynistic things and it is treated like a joke or something normal, and not a flaw or something repulsive.

how to confront all of this?

the first step is to address it, just as the above list does, and discuss things that stood out to you and are definitively wrong, that the author should not have put in the story because it is useless and only serves to further misogyny in the real world. it would be a grave mistake to think of these things as “fine” and continue to view the witcher books as some kinds of perfect scripture. so many people feel that just because they enjoy something, they are not allowed to critique it and discuss parts of it that are uncomfortable or plain wrong. 

to continue with this point, i think it is important to put the witcher into context as a fantasy series written in the 1990s by a white man who did not (to my knowledge) intend this series for such a broad audience and franchise that it has become. this is not an excuse for sapkowski at all, but rather i think it’s important to understand the origins of the witcher and how it came to be in the first place. this wasn’t a series made to be inclusive and diverse, it wasn’t intended to be “for us” in the first place. 

i do not believe that there is MEANT to be any “positive representation” in the witcher because i don’t believe it is something that sapkowski was actively considering when he wrote the books. just because there isn’t good representation in the books does not mean they and everything related to them are not worth your time, but if you are someone desperately searching for good positive representation or someone who NEEDS to see representation of someone like them in every piece of media they consume, i don’t think the witcher books are necessarily a good place to start. this isn’t meant to deter you from reading or interacting with the books/book canon, but rather a fair warning about what the intentions of the books are. 

i don’t think the books are a groundshaking work of art that are meant to inspire concepts such as diversity, rather it is a very specific work that in its true nature is an argument of a critique of popular fantasy tropes with additional commentary on themes of violence and family. so this is basically meant to say ‘understand what you are getting into.’

how to move on?

the main question which i answer is “is the root of this thing (a piece of media/a character/etc) something that revolves around the bad part, or was the bad part just thrown in there and is incongruent with the rest of the thing?”

the biggest example i think of tackling the misogyny in the witcher and still managing to enjoy it is with dandelion (lol). i think it’s every day that i have to reconcile with the fact that i genuinely enjoy dandelion as a character and hold a conversation with myself about which parts from canon i enjoy and which parts i don’t. his character at its core is not a bad person, he is meant to be an inversion of the trope of the slovenly and lecherous comic relief, and sapkowski succeeds in turning the trope on its head. dandelion is very loyal and committed, he demonstrates his worth in the narrative and doesn’t act with pure selfishness and greed. he is an inversion of all of the negative traits of his trope, but sapkowski also wrote in, like, a literal rape joke for him to say in the bounds of reason. how do you get over that? personally, i just go back to “is this congruent with the rest of the character or not,” and my answer at least for dandelion is no. the rape joke in the bounds of reason seemed entirely out of place to me, it doesn’t fit in with the rest of his character.

similarly, why does geralt sleep with girls who are barely 18 within the events of the witcher? how do you get over that? well, i don’t believe that’s congruent to the rest of his character, the POINT of his character, which is to protect young girls. 

so i go back on my word of what i begun this answer with, and i tell you that i indeed DO ignore some parts about the witcher. but it is not a blind ignorance, an ignorance in which i do not consider the effects and i pretend like they do not exist at all. it’s a choice which i make and a process of logical steps that i follow, an understanding and an agreement i come to with myself and the media i interact with. i acknowledge the context surrounding the creation of the media, i acknowledge the effects that these elements had on their readers and how they relate to the real world, and how i know that these things are objectively wrong. i understand why they exist in the canon, and why i feel justified for choosing to take them out of what i regard as part of my experience.

it’s tempting to proclaim “canon is dead and we have killed the author,” but understand how the author’s personal experiences and biases have influenced the media that they created and which you now consume. you can’t take the personal biases completely out of the writing of the witcher and you have to acknowledge that they still exist in the text. even if you make up your own headcanons, it is still imperative to consider the issues that originate in canon.

what does this look like?

complaining to your friends who also like the witcher / on social media that you hate these parts of the books and explain why you hate them and why they are unnecessary

thinking about why these parts were written in and the context surrounding them

making your own rewrites / headcanons around these parts (ex: my idea for the rewrite of a little sacrifice)

making your own headcanons to establish what was not (ex: my headcanons for angouleme’s trauma and how it affects her in the present, headcanons about how the hansa becomes a family)

tldr: acknowledge why these elements exist in canon. choose to follow a process that will allow you to salvage the parts which speak to you while still understanding that these elements exist in canon and will never disappear. continue to like the canon without the parts that you understand are rotten.

edit: also the netflix show has some pretty misogynistic parts to it as well, yennefer and ciri have way less agency as characters than they do in the books. geralt literally coerces yennefer into sex in twn and treats her with absolutely no respect, and ran from fathering ciri solely because he was a dick. obviously this isn’t the point of the ask, but i think it’s important to acknowledge that twn has misogynistic elements as well and not pretend like just because twn was led in 2020 by a wealthy white woman that it’s progressive in any way.