So I understand the 2 sword system, steel for humans and silver for monsters. But why do humans need to be attacked with a steel sword? Speaking as a human, I'm pretty sure a silver sword could fuck me up just as well as a steel one.

Sword steel is better on humans. They can hit your weapon with them (aka parry) and damage it. Silver sword will be probably broken when you use it like that too much time. And Geralt also say "Both are on monsters." He means humans acting like monsters.

But swords don't take realistic damage in The Witcher games (they take no damage at all) so that argument can't be used here.

In games the sliver swords be better on monsters. More damage. Monsters hate silver shit and it make them more wounded in Witcher universe.

It's just a silly gameplay element, you're right that realistically he'd be better off with one good sword.
If it's just the touch of silver that does it (which I'm guessing it does since the sword doesn't leave bits behind) he could just have some silver inlay :P

Yes but I think he wishes to know why even bother to carry a steel sword? Humans are not resistant to Silver, Swords can not be damaged or destroyed in the games so having two swords seems to be a redundancy, especially when you need to spend extra skill points to use the same move with both swords with the only difference being what they are made of.

But the games are based on the books, and it is normal to expect that in the books swords do take realistic damage. So that argument can be used here.

Whether or not to agree with it is another matter.

Steel is harder and has a higher tensile strength. You should wonder why Monsters are weak to a material as malleable as Silver.

You should read them, good man. Books will give you some lore knowledge.

It's the force! When something makes little sense, the force did it. Or magic, whichever works. Not everything of the original material needs to be translated to gameplay elements. I wouldn't want to have Gerard going to... some bushes, I guess? every couple of hours.

I was just trying to explain the issue from a gameplay point, I didn't mean every single thing needs to be translated, having Sword A and Sword B. Having different but same skill sets for Sword A and Sword B.

It just feels like too much overlap and redundancy for the game. Yes there were a few other weapons in the first game but the skill trees favoured Sword A and Sword B making other weapons pointless.

The thing is, witchers using 2 swords is a stablished lore elements from the books, like all the female sorcerers being supermodels. You can't change that without pissing on the lore, so they adapted it the way they saw best. Which doesn't mean they couldn't do it better, but they must have Geralt using both weapons.

Actually geralt in books do use normal steel sword for monsters, you can use it as well in games but it is simply not effective.

Silver sword is for monsters because most of them have interplenar origin (meaning they are not from the Geralt world but others) and silver is highly reactive to them.


Also STEEL sword. It isdn't really steel sword it is created from meteor metal (but he can as well use any other kind of weapon )

It took me a minute when I first saw this too. It was definitely a wtf moment when I realized I had to invest skill points in the same damn thing twice.