I guess I'm not being clear. Yes, I understand about monsters being more susceptible to silver. Yes, I understand you can fight with a shovel, toothpick, or a wet noodle and still win. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is I agree with the observation that it doesn't make sense that you cannot deal the same damage to humans with a silver sword as you can to monsters.

What Geralt's wearing has no bearing on it whatsoever.

Yes, the monster's carapaces are part of the monster and may be more susceptible to silver. No argument here. What I am arguing is the point people are making that the silver sword is too delicate to use against humans effectively. I say that's bunk. I could perhaps accept it wouldn't be as effective against metal armor (although even then I have issues, considering some of the monsters he faces). But against non-armored or lightly armored humans? Nah, I don't buy it.

Don't get me wrong, it's not something I find a big deal. I enjoy the game immensely and this certainly doesn't detract from it for me. But there's an internal inconsistency here that can't be overlooked. (And I'm not talking about 'realism'. I'm talking about internal logic within the game itself).

Their susceptibility to silver makes the monster's hard spots as 'soft' for a silver sword as human armors are 'soft' to a steel sword.

Why do some steel swords do more damage than others? ;P

It's really just a game dude...stop putting so much thought into something so minor.

No difference than fighting humans with a steel sword or no difference than fighting monsters with a silver sword?

Okay, I'll try to make it clear:

there should be no (or little) difference by using a steel sword against humans or a silver sword. Humans are no more or less susceptible to steel or silver. As I noted, the explanation that the silver sword is more delicate doesn't wash with me, so both should be pretty much equally effective against humans.

I'll also reiterate: this is not a big deal for me. It does not detract from my enjoyment in any way. So I'll leave it at that. I'm done with this thread.

That's the point, humans are not susceptible at all to either silver or steel, it's just regular damage without 'susceptibilities' in the equation, that's why against humans it's the strongest/heavyest metal that deals more damage.

Without the monster's susceptibilty to silver it would be as 'pointless' to whack at them with a silver sword as it is with a steel sword.

Well, the answer Namur is pretty much same as the one i was going to give. Steel swords and silver swords are not the same and i am not just talking about their material but also about their design, weight and anything else that is important for a sword. As you'll remember the silver swords in the game was lighter and smaller than steel swords in the first game and you could've dealt more damage with them to monsters than you could've deal with a steel sword which is bigger and heavier and probably more sharper, the reason was the monsters are suceptible against steel. So it's not surprising that a silver sword deals less damage to humans as even they're not more susceptible to one more than other, silver swords are lighter, smaller and probably less sharper than steel ones. For example silver swords from the last stages of game like Addan Deith deals much more damage than steel swords at the first stages of game like rusty sword.

No problem, we're just discussing. ;)

Now i get your point , and against unarmored human's foe i could agree, if i cut your hand, i cut your hand, probably in this case the only difference should be that Geralt's steel sword are just bigger and harder.
In TW2 it does not make great sense, but in TW1 and books it makes, 'cause "witcher's steel sword" was actualy two-handed great sword , and silver's just very "light" one-handed swords. Also witchers were "trained " in using that sort of weapons (the fighting styles of TW1) better than others, but in w2 we could use "anything" , a broom, a short-sword or a staff "like a steel sword" (if you catch the sense).

What about the sword of destiny the lady of the lake gives you in TW1 and how it's barely any better than a regular silver sword in TW2?

Answer: It's a game, it doesn't have to make much sense

Well, it's their game. Their rules. In W2 you use steel for humans and silver for monsters simply because you are a more effective killing machine that way.

I guess it would make a challenging run to do the entire game with either all steel, or all silver blades. It would certainly make Runes more important - as noted in a post above.

Sometimes i just forgot to use my silver sword (noticed it after the fight ) but i never had major problems to kill most of the monsters with a good steel sword , especially if it has critical effects like incineration from fire runes

Still better use a silver of course , but without a silver sword , i'm pretty confident it is possible to complete most of the game except maybe 1-2 bosses , but i didn't try it though :)

Sometimes i use my silver sword against humans, especially when they are in large groups, so i can get enough adrenaline to get the finisher cinematic without killing anyone. The game is so easy even on hard :/

Exaclty.Making a sword just from sliver wont resist that much than lets say...peel the dragons claws:P But this is a fantasy game. With full of stereotypes and medieval superstitions.

Did you touched anything larger made of silver? In combat, its effectiveness is more than a baseball bat and lesser than an axe:) So if you really want to stick that much to reality, such sword couldn't really exist.

You might be taking it to literally. I have read only "The Last Wish" so far, and after I finish "Dance with Dragons" I will read the rest.

From what I gathered in The Last Wish, the silver sword is not 100% silver, it is a silver plated steel sword. The elements of silver cause cause great pain to monsters, for whatever reason, hence why the Witchers use them. Geralt treats his like a maiden. It is always wrapped up and safely tied somewhere. He does not walk around with it on his back.

To use it against humans, armored humans to be more specific whether it plate, mail, etc, would only serve to chip the silver off faster and cause him to spend orens to fix it.

That is why silver swords aren't used on non-monsters. Now in the game world it is not a free to play RPG, you are Geralt, you have been trained as a Witcher, you follow the Witchers path. You don't use silver on non-monsters not because it does less damage, but because in the 'real world' there are annoying consequences for making too much use of the silver sword in the form of its actual upkeep.

Now in the game world we don't' have to worry about things like upkeep, staying clean, eating, etc. So without the actual restrictions/consequences of using a silver plated sword being implemented, it simply just doesn't do much damage against humans to discourage you from using it.