dragonbird said:
Yes, that'd be a bold move, to show Geralt had erred on the side of impulsiveness.
Yes, that'd be a bold move, to show Geralt had erred on the side of impulsiveness.
AgentBlue said:
I see it in this way (banal and simplified maybe):
it's just a promotional trailer. The rest are all "ours" pure speculations. A promotional trailer is meant to be pretty immediate for potential customers and first-time players. We gotta consider that many future players will play only TW3 (and perhaps later Tw1-2). So the trailer is just showing a badass hero badassing a bunch of foes, coz for those who doesn't know the game series and Sapkowski's work, there is one side black and one white.
The rest of what it is implied in the trailer (grey zones, lesser evil...) are all food for us-long time fans, who have played both the games and read the books. The real beauty of The Witcher series, I think, will come with the very game, not with promotional videos. And this is my first reason to really not understand all the fuss and buzz about "who might be that poor girl and why they're abusing her".
There si another trailer, where we witness a peasant been hit and the pillaging of a village, by the same Nilfgaardian invaders, but I haven't read all the rumours I'm reading now (as it naturally should be):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud5NIT6ULVE
(see Nilfgaard sun at 1:17, 1:20 and 2:17)
I mean, it may sounds banal, but a lot of people (even among us) do rather see only black and white, so it's the poor girl(villagers) vs evil soldiers, and Geralt is the hero who save the girl.
I don't think it's so necessary to read all that far in that trailer. And don't think that it's necessary to speak about all the atrocities of war (not in this thread I mean).
But, for those smartasses of us who know the series and have played TW2, we know all those grey zones and war atrocities, when we witness Temerian and kaedweni raping, impaling, brutalizing mages. Even is those victims are in fact manipulators and in some case killers themselves (think about the Black Sun curse, Dethmold, Master Irion, Vilgefortz, the Lodge and so on).
So... yes, war is full of horror. Yes, some soldiers are not white knights, it happened to be nilfgaardian soldiers in that video.
I expect to see more cruelty, lesser evil, killing monsters, difficult moral decisions to be taken in the game, more than in just one mere trailer.
My opinion of course, free to disagree.
When you're on ops things take a different turn, look at the siege of Badajoz, where the British were trying to throw out the imperialist forces of Bonaparte for the free Spanish. Massive casualties among the allies drove the troops into a rage, so that when the walls finally fell, the soldiers went on a revenge spree, killing, raping and looting.
Even Wellesley's hanging of his own men could not stop the slaughter, and many British officers were killed by their own men, as they tried to protect innocent civilians. Indeed Wellesley called his own men scum that day, and introduced draconian punishments afterwards. It didn't help that standard British rations of the day included a pint and a half of rum per day.
War makes beasts of us all.
Even Wellesley's hanging of his own men could not stop the slaughter, and many British officers were killed by their own men, as they tried to protect innocent civilians. Indeed Wellesley called his own men scum that day, and introduced draconian punishments afterwards. It didn't help that standard British rations of the day included a pint and a half of rum per day.
War makes beasts of us all.
As you used sarcasm I sense a defensive approach in your comment. I guess you wanted them to demonstrate more praise and knowledge about the Witcher. So ... why I liked their coverage of the Witcher trailer? Those guys are mainstream Canadian technology / hardware news commentators. So their world is Ubisoft, Rockstar, Bioware etc. They host a weekly show devoted mostly to hardware news. The fact that they are talking about the Wither trailer over a year before the game release proves that CD Projekt is getting more and more ground on the American continent. Yes, they did not finish TW1 or TW2, however they put some time into them and they respect CD Projekt as a company. I think TW3 will have enough appeal to become a mainstream RPG in the US without compromising the features that we praise here in Poland.MasPingon said:
So as always you may consider the glass half empty (not everyone loves / is knowledgeable about the Witcher as much as you are) or half full - The Witcher is getting more and more ambassadors even on home grounds of other developers.
By the way Linus Tech Tips channel is really good.
Agree, the E3 trailer was very impressive however it's still evident the game will be massively improved. TW2 gameplay trailers were released several weeks before the game launch. However as RED Engine is more mature now I believe that this time we may see those trailer a little earlier before the launch.MasPingon said:
secondchildren said:
Sure, it's just a promotional trailer. The question is how good it is at promoting the kind of game CDProjekt has earned a reputation from.
Not all speculation was created equal. Some is groundless, some comes from applying basic deductive reasoning.
I agree the trailer is directly aimed at newcomers. Let me remind you I am a newcomer myself and that I have not nor will I ever read the books or play previous games, so I can definitely relate. But essentially what you're saying is the trailer is misleading on purpose.
I happen to hold the opposite view. A CGI trailer should be indicative, especially for promotional reasons. How is TW3 to stand out from the crowd? Do you honestly believe these days awe-inspiring CGI graphics alone get anyone sold on a game?
I feel there's already this undercurrent of inherent distrust about CGI trailers. They're often perceived as gratuitously overblown and completely detached from the actual gameplay and graphical fidelity in the finished title. What you're suggesting is to add yet another level of misrepresentation by luring in newcomers with a sketchy, polarized and watered down take on moral ambiguity.
I'd say some would feel deceived. They'd bought a game expecting black-and-white choices and gotten 500 shades of grey.
I think this shades of grey thing can get to people's head too much sometimes- somethings are black and white. Moreover, people are allowed (for better or worse) to have convictions which can be black and white, while they reside in a morally-grey world. The dilemma is reconciling these convictions with the perceived realities of the world, and that's exactly what Geralt did.
He acted out based on what he believed, but he probably knew on some level that the world is grey despite him feeling black and white at that moment. I think this feeling is evident in him not using his sword or not using Igni against the soldiers.
I mean, it's possible to reduce this scenario to a overly-simplified version (Geralt hero, soldiers bad) of events like we can with anything else, but that doesn't negate what actually happened- if a character actually does something "heroic", it doesn't make sense to ignore that reality simply because it's boring (for you).
In this case, the "heroism" I perceive is performing an act against reason, and doing it based on some conviction. It's not by any means a classic, heroic scenario where the act will certainly result in something good for the person who performed it; I think that's where you get your shades of grey.
He acted out based on what he believed, but he probably knew on some level that the world is grey despite him feeling black and white at that moment. I think this feeling is evident in him not using his sword or not using Igni against the soldiers.
I mean, it's possible to reduce this scenario to a overly-simplified version (Geralt hero, soldiers bad) of events like we can with anything else, but that doesn't negate what actually happened- if a character actually does something "heroic", it doesn't make sense to ignore that reality simply because it's boring (for you).
In this case, the "heroism" I perceive is performing an act against reason, and doing it based on some conviction. It's not by any means a classic, heroic scenario where the act will certainly result in something good for the person who performed it; I think that's where you get your shades of grey.
That it sparked such a heated debate seems to me indicative that the trailer did its job. Even on ordinary gaming-sites you can read some posts which are concerned that Geralt might have helped a monster to come free. This is for me (aside from Geralt's badassness) the core of the trailer: the ambiguity of the woman's guilt/innocence and thus the possible irony in Geralt's decision, as it may cause more harm than do good.
@silverbolt, you seem to be overlooking one glaring problem:
The trailer is not an account or even a reflection on real life events that are forever set in stone. No. This is entirely an artificial construct, just fiction reverse-engineered to deliver the desired message.
Their hands weren't tied. They could have had the story and characters go in any direction a two minute forty-five seconds long trailer might accommodate.
The trailer is not an account or even a reflection on real life events that are forever set in stone. No. This is entirely an artificial construct, just fiction reverse-engineered to deliver the desired message.
Their hands weren't tied. They could have had the story and characters go in any direction a two minute forty-five seconds long trailer might accommodate.
AgentBlue said:
Nope I am not suggesting anything, just facing the fact that in those promotional trailers, Nilfgaardians are seen as foes, invaders and oppressors, but we don't know what it'll be in the game.
The previous video about Nilfgaard invasion (that I posted above) also underlined the cruelty of war and Nilfgaard is also portraied as "evil". They are oppressors.
But after that video I haven't seen the mob of fans arising saying how badly CDP have represented Nilfgaard. That village might possibly hiding spies, war criminals, conspirators and traitors... thus soldiers was rightly doing their job, village has to be burnt to ashes. Or not?
SkycladGuardian said:
I will happily grant that.
The smirk - if indeed there's one - on the girl's face might hint at a larger picture. I, for one, certainly hope so.
AgentBlue said:
I think the trailer is part of the story because every trailer we've seen from the Devs prior to this seems to have been, like the Letho one and the Invasion one, i.e. there's no reason other than sheer will to dissect the events of the trailer from the on-going story of Geralt.
AgentBlue said:
To be fair, there were very few people who reacted that way to this this trailer (the majority were opposing them), so I would hardly call it a mob.
Moreover, I think because of the fact that this trailer had Geralt in it, and that we're used to being Geralt, some could not accept that it's possible for Geralt to act in a way that they would not.
I also think that the act of slaying soldiers was a bit of a trigger for some, so I am willing to understand this reaction.
secondchildren said:
Again, whose fault is that?
This is not history. This is fiction. Within the sapkowskian universe, the writers surely have a degree or two of liberty. Had they wished the Nilfgaardian army to be perceived as something other than a bunch of cruel buffoons they were free to tweak the story.
More importantly, not even just that. They could have allowed the cruel buffoonish nature of the Nilfgaardiam army to rise to the surface just the same but at the same time disclose or at least hint at the girl's dark side.
@cmdr_silverbolt
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those two trailers depict major story-shifting events? I don't think there's anything of that magnitude here, but of course time will tell.
There are quite a few trailers that don't depict events directly in the games, but give background - 52 and a half, How to kill a Witcher, the one that showed Geralt and Shilard standing in front of a map having a conversation, and don't forget the famous Bard: Saviour of Queens. They do mood-setting videos. Given how far we are from the launch, I think it's definitely possible that this won't be in the game.
@ dragonbird: I know, but the events of a trailer can still be part of the story despite their aftermath not being featured in a game. I don't see any reason to not believe that trailer events whose aftermath isn't mentioned in the games are not part of the story, other than that these are just ad trailers and this is just a game.
I've said from the beginning that we don't need to dissect this trailer so much.
I've said from the beginning that we don't need to dissect this trailer so much.
Now that Agent Blue mentioned it, I noticed that the woman seems to be smirking at the end of the trailer as well. I wouldn't even call it a smile. It's what got me second guessing the whole affair. Just like the Cyberpunk trailer, the whole damn internet is debating whether or not this a banal cliche or if there's something more to it under the surface. And somewhere in Warsaw, a writer is cackling with delight.
Yeah, I think there was something to her look; like I said, I would have distrusted her in any other scenario.
AgentBlue said:
Their behavior, and a lot worse than that, are sadly all too common occurrences in war. Portraying 3 Nilfgaaardian soldiers behaving that way does not caricaturize the empire as cartoonishly evil.
Now yes, I would appreciate future trailers to show a more nuanced portrayal. But they are not obligated to do that for every single trailer. Here, the focus is on Geralt and his morality, not on the Empire.