New CG Cinematic for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Shows Geralt “Killing Monsters”

+
To vivaxardas: I just can't understand how you can you sentence someone to death for killing soldiers who burn your home, kills your family and destroyes everything you ever known... Tell me please, what would you do in her place? Just lay on earth and die? Help these fine mans and healed their wounds?
 
Troska said:
To vivaxardas: I just can't understand how you can you sentence someone to death for killing soldiers who burn your home, kills your family and destroyes everything you ever known... Tell me please, what would you do in her place? Just lay on earth and die? Help these fine mans and healed their wounds?

You know, Norther healers during the second war with Nilfgaard used to treat any wounded, Northerners and Nilfgaardians alike. It is what healers do. For the rest just not to kill helpless and defenseless people would be perfectly enough. Killing them is like attacking military hospitals in modern time. If you think it is OK, I doubt I can convince you otherwise.
 
M4xw0lf said:
And in this trailer, we don't get an unbiased report on the story behind this scene, only the words of the Nilfgaardians who are about to lynch the woman.

In this trailer we also have no evidence that the whole scene is (or isn't) just the peasant girls wet dream with no story at all to precede or continue it. This line of thinking could go on for great lengths, I assure you. But it's pointless. Make the judgements based on what you know, what you see there, not what you think or would rather have. What would be the point of the trailer to "lie" to us, or set up a scene to interpret without even a slightest hint to grasp for the interpretation?
 
vivaxardas said:
You know, Norther healers during the second war with Nilfgaard used to treat any wounded, Northerners and Nilfgaardians alike. It is what healers do. For the rest just not to kill helpless and defenseless people would be perfectly enough. Killing them is like attacking military hospitals in modern time. If you think it is OK, I doubt I can convince you otherwise.

You didn't answer my question, what would you do in her place? She obviously didn't have much choices, only this or death...
 
vivaxardas said:
You know, Norther healers during the second war with Nilfgaard used to treat any wounded, Northerners and Nilfgaardians alike. It is what healers do. For the rest just not to kill helpless and defenseless people would be perfectly enough.

I'm sorry, how do you know who she killed? And how do you know she killed anyone at all? How do you know it is not just an excuse?
I think you have a problem with the trailer because you already made up a story where the girl is 100% guilty and she killed some goody goody wounded soldiers

But really, getting this worked up for a 2:00 trailer is quite senseless
 
Troska said:
You didn't answer my question, what would you do in her place? She obviously didn't have much choices, only this or death...

Oh, I talked about it earlier. Personally, I think that sometimes it is more dignifying to die, then to be reduced to cannibalism, and killing of helpless people. We all die one day, sooner or later, and to cling to life by any cost, is not for me. It is simply not a life worth living.

Troska said:
I'm sorry, how do you know who she killed? And how do you know she killed anyone at all? How do you know it is not just an excuse?
I think you have a problem with the trailer because you already made up a story where the girl is 100% guilty and she killed some goody goody wounded soldiers

But really, getting this worked up for a 2:00 trailer is quite senseless

I am not making up any stories. I am taking a trailer at face value. It is you who supposes she is not guilty (contrary to what is aid). My story is what I hear in a trailer. Your story is what you want it to be.
 
I don't see what the fuss is all about. In my opinion Geralt acted like he would in the books, games or where ever. Geralt acts on the things he sees, the things he knows. A good example of this is in the first witcher game.

With Abigail in the cave, you can choose to save her or leave her to the villagers. If you save her you find out later that she is a witch and the villagers are actually evil. But geralt (the player) acts on the things he knows at the time. Geralt isn't someone who looks back on his choices, he made the choice with the information then available to him.

So yeah this woman in the trailer might or might not have done the things the Nilfgaardians said she did. But Geralt doesn't know this. He sees 3 soldier trying to kill a woman, and like he said in the trailer. It makes no difference how big the evil is, so he interferes. And if you read the books you know the Nilfgaardians have done some terrible tings as well in the previous wars, if it's through the elfs or they themselves did it. So for Geralt it's a very easy choice to help the woman.
 
vivaxardas said:
So, if you are dying, and need a liver transplant, would it justify you to kidnap someone and cut out his liver? You sure need it to survive. Do you really think that everything goes as long as preservation of your life is concerned, or may be at some point it is simply more decent to die then keep living by taking lives? There are lines I would never cross to save mine, that's for sure. And cutting throats of wounded is one of them.



So what, cutting throats of wounded soldiers was OK in Middle Ages, and suddenly turned real bad in XX century? The only thing changed is that the badness was recognized, and now persecuted on international level. Geralt lived a long life, and saw a lot of shit. He should have know better than to jump in like this. To let a murderer loose instead of making her to pay for her crimes is not just stupid.


I never lived a war, but my parents did it, and keep sanity in a war where you are not a soldier, where you don't have any food for you or your children or beloved, where anyone with an uniform or handing a tool can be your murder... well, no words to explain it, only tears. So your liver transplatation example is a little out of context.

Do you know what kind of decency were raised men and women with in Middle Ages? C'mon, you know decency is defined by needs of a population. Do you know that eat chocolate was an act which can lead you to the bonfire? Do you know that in a lot of writen of that times you can easily read sentences like: "and he died slaughtered at the hands of his offended as the dog he was"?
Do you know that any broken bone in Middle Ages was meaning of dead? Not like in XX century?

Really, I understand that making an effort to think like those people did every day just for playing a game is not easy and no everyone can achieve it. But please, don't try to impose your values ​​and beliefs to a world so distant and different from yours (or ultimately our)
 
wisielec said:
I bet everyone pro-Nilfgardian, is untill they end up on the short end of the stick
Some logic. Black ones are invading, they act as they do on controlled territory - so it just happens they are Nilfgardian. I bet Geralt doesnt give two thoughts about it anyhoo.
Besides, he got paid beforehand so its a win-win scenario in my book

If it´s any comfort, when the northlings kicked out the nilfgaardian colonists (who hadn´t taken part in the fighting), they acted kind of the same. Geralt not intervining back there shows just how much the events of the saga had affected him. But when the Rivian progrom starts, he can´t hold himself any longer. Standing by just isn´t who he is.

And as Ciri thinks, there´s no world where there isn´t work for a witcher.
 
I like that this trailer evokes that many emotions and interpretations from the posters.
I would say "mission acomplished" (nudge nudge wink wink)
None of the "information" given in the trailer makes a perfect case for either the soldiers or the woman.
In TW2 Foltest orders raping and pillaging with Roche being one of the officers carrying out those orders without any problems. Geralt does not judge him in any way for that or has second feelings.
He chooses between a "special forces" (as in special raping pillaging children killing forces commander)guy and a terrorist because it advances his goals. Geralt is not a nice guy.
This trailer seems to suggest he acts on impulse according to the situation, we do not know how much information he has. But choosing between 2 evils is what most of the Witcher games have been about. So he chose.
The new thing is just that he stops to do it and not just passes by, which would have been the "3rd" choice.
Maybe TW3 will have a more emotion driven Geralt that starts to stop being a passive, self-absorbed guy and more of an emotional "trainwreck". I like that CDPR takes him places, even if we/I do not like it.
Yennefer (possibly Ciri) and his regained memories will hopefully have a big impact on him as a character.
 

IsengrimR

Guest
Arclavum said:
The woman looks very similar to a grown up version of Anais, or is it just me?

Good eye, you are right.
She is similar.
 
Wichat said:
Really, I understand that making an effort to think like those people did every day just for playing a game is not easy and no everyone can achieve it. But please, don't try to impose your values ​​and beliefs to a world so distant and different from yours (or ultimately our)

Actually, it works both ways. It was kind of a world where what the soldiers wanted to do was completely fine. So we shouldn't really judge them differently, you know. Otherwise it is a case you impose you modern morality on soldiers' behavior, and I - on the woman's.
So, if they all act according to the morality of their Universe, Geralt should keep walking. If they both are guilty, they all should pay. To pick and choose one is pretty much arbitrary. And it is exactly what I am claiming.
 
mothra said:
I like that this trailer evokes that many emotions and interpretations from the posters.
I would say "mission acomplished" (nudge nudge wink wink)
None of the "information" given in the trailer makes a perfect case for either the soldiers or the woman.

Totally agree :)

I'm assuming that this episode was written specially for the trailer, and isn't in the game (I could be wrong, just guessing). If so, I think it would be awesome if they made a Part II, following on from this, to show the consequences (whatever they are). Surprise us by making it something that NOBODY has assumed during this discussion.
 
You know looking at the discussion the trailer spawned I guess it was a success from a marketing standpoint.

But what a cheap tactic CDPR, very cheap indeed.
 
vivaxardas said:
Oh, I talked about it earlier. Personally, I think that sometimes it is more dignifying to die, then to be reduced to cannibalism, and killing of helpless people. We all die one day, sooner or later, and to cling to life by any cost, is not for me. It is simply not a life worth living.

Well, someone call it dignity, someone else could call you a coward... From my point of view, it's kind of brave from her, that she wont't give up, no matter what... Your problem is, you take this whole situation from soldiers point of view, with no regards on who she is and situation where she is...
 
Kofeiiniturpa said:
In this trailer we also have no evidence that the whole scene is (or isn't) just the peasant girls wet dream with no story at all to precede or continue it. This line of thinking could go on for great lengths, I assure you. But it's pointless. Make the judgements based on what you know, what you see there, not what you think or would rather have. What would be the point of the trailer to "lie" to us, or set up a scene to interpret without even a slightest hint to grasp for the interpretation?
Because that's part of what makes it such a difficult decision for Geralt, who isn't aware that he is actually inside of a video game trailer. He doesn't know the truth, but still has to make a decision, based on what he knows, like you said. But not blinding himself to the fact that he doesn't know all the facts.
 
Top Bottom