Man, I prefer to see this trailer as where Geralt is not shown as a lunatic who kills or saves people based on what their hair color is.
The beauty of the scenario is that we dont know the whole truth of it, that geralt acted out of his personal belief.vivaxardas said:
Yet you cannot accept this, no, you absolutely have to think those soldiers are doing whats right
Dont know the answer? According to you, just kill EVERYONE , what a genius idea! Or ignore it! Screw getting involved!
The point of the trailer is not to show what you think is right, but what Geralt thinks is right, The Witcher, the white wolf, the man with the abilities to make a difference where someone else would just ignore the problem and walk away.
Also, I dont think Geralt is indiferent towards Nilfgardian troops, I mean, in the books, at the beggining Ciri suffers a lot for what Nilfgard did to her and her family (and country (Cintra))...
I dont think he would be pleased in working with them...
Also I think that the trailer is telling that in fact you are not able to not choose any evil. I mean, If he stays and do what he do he take side with the woman, and if he doesnt do a single thing, he would take side with Nilfgard (Its like when you see a murder and you dont do anything, you can be accused aswell)
I dont think he would be pleased in working with them...
Also I think that the trailer is telling that in fact you are not able to not choose any evil. I mean, If he stays and do what he do he take side with the woman, and if he doesnt do a single thing, he would take side with Nilfgard (Its like when you see a murder and you dont do anything, you can be accused aswell)
This trailer supposed to show a difficult moral decision. There is no difficult moral decision, or any grey morality, in saving an innocent woman from being killed. So, in a scenario where the woman really did what she is accused of, it is simply irrational for Gerald to let her live, if he decided to kill the soldiers. Why to let one monster go to what she was doing, while killing the other? For frigging what purpose? Just for kicks?tehdude said:
I don't care about witcher code - if I want that, I could stay in reading in that part of Border of Limits, where he hunted bazilisk, but since Geralt climber out of that hole, he is part of this world. In saga is presented his fight for neutrality and how stupid that sometime is.
I am not a robot, also he is not one, so I (and he, or course) has some opinion. When he saw, how some fanatic wanted to torture some girl, should he walk away? (// EDIT: when I wrote that, I meant that girl and preacher in book saga, when I saw trailer, he acted, just as I wanted, if they trully are Nilfgaardians, I would be in 7th heaven, sorry Vivaxardas
)
Witchers are not robots, they live somewhere and imagination of "killing monsters" is probably just human idea about them. They weren't brainwashed, Geralt wasn't, Coen wasn't,.. .
I don't even want to play for robot, which is just working on some code just like machine.
Only bad thing was his fighting in Foltest's army, that was too much for me.
His destiny is also connected to Ciri, so all of his dreams about neutrality and living apart are really unrealistic .
But good question..
I am not a robot, also he is not one, so I (and he, or course) has some opinion. When he saw, how some fanatic wanted to torture some girl, should he walk away? (// EDIT: when I wrote that, I meant that girl and preacher in book saga, when I saw trailer, he acted, just as I wanted, if they trully are Nilfgaardians, I would be in 7th heaven, sorry Vivaxardas
)Witchers are not robots, they live somewhere and imagination of "killing monsters" is probably just human idea about them. They weren't brainwashed, Geralt wasn't, Coen wasn't,.. .
I don't even want to play for robot, which is just working on some code just like machine.
Only bad thing was his fighting in Foltest's army, that was too much for me.
His destiny is also connected to Ciri, so all of his dreams about neutrality and living apart are really unrealistic
.But good question..
They were nilfgaardians. That's why Vivaxardas is so annoyed. Jk.sfinxCZ said:I don't care about witcher code - if I want that, I could stay in reading in that part of Border of Limits, where he hunted bazilisk, but since Geralt climber out of that hole, he is part of this world. In saga is presented his fight for neutrality and how stupid that sometime is.
I am not a robot, also he is not one, so I (and he, or course) has some opinion. When he saw, how some fanatic wanted to torture some girl, should he walk away? (// EDIT: when I wrote that, I meant that girl and preacher in book saga, when I saw trailer, he acted, just as I wanted, if they trully are Nilfgaardians, I would be in 7th heaven, sorry Vivaxardas
Witchers are not robots, they live somewhere and imagination of "killing monsters" is probably just human idea about them. They weren't brainwashed, Geralt wasn't, Coen wasn't,.. .
I don't even want to play for robot, which is just working on some code just like machine.
Only bad thing was his fighting in Foltest's army, that was too much for me.
His destiny is also connected to Ciri, so all of his dreams about neutrality and living apart are really unrealistic
But good question..
But if you watch the trailer again, you can see the nilfgaardian sun emblem on their clothes.
Dude . . . It's just a trailer .vivaxardas said:
Trailer . . . just over 2 minutes , CGI sequence to keep people excited right .?
Game itself . . . Over 100 hours , we have no idea what the hell will happen .
Have you already forgotten how he lets villagers to kill a girl marked by Lashen in E3 gameplay (Audio only version) .? Why he do that .? He doesn't care , he just solves monster problem .
Well, as I said somewhere, I do not really care if we have a choice about it. I didn't like this trailer, though. Brings back bad memories.Umair2012 said:
Uhm, he's not... what he did in the trailer makes absolute perfect sense to me and is the ONLY right thing to do imho. He kills the men because they're very obviously torturing that woman. They're "monsters" and deserve what's coming to them.vivaxardas said:
The woman's crimes aren't nearly as obvious. They are stated by someone, sure, but there's zero proof that's presented in the trailer. Even if her crimes are true, surely she's not a cannibal by choice but out of desperation. To me, and clearly to Geralt, that's not something that deserves death, that's something that deserves pity. Killing her would be an absolute monstrosity.
Also note the fact that Geralt makes a point to NOT take his sword against the men. He pushes two of them out of the way and then shoves another one with Aard and just stands there. He is clearly giving them a chance to walk away, I believe that if they didn't attack him with weapons, they could've lived. He was just trying to save a person from torture.
Didn't you read his response? Geralt only heard the sentence pronounced by the soldiers. He did not witness what the woman did, or did not. What matters is that he SAW what the soldiers wanted to do with the woman. He may not have known whether the woman's crimes were true or not, but he sure as hell knew what the soldiers' soon-to-be crimes were. It's simple as that. Geralt isn't a judge. He isn't going to hold court and sit and listen to both sides and pronounce a fair sentence. He acted as he would have, as Sapkowski would have written his character. He isn't omnipotent, and he sure as hell ain't making the world a fairer place to live.vivaxardas said:
Actually, in this scene he is. Someone who does not judge, simply moves along, and remains neutral. Geralt determines who deserves to die and who deserves to live. And sure as hell, if he makes a habit out of helping all seemingly abused, he is trying to make the world a better place.draconis18491 said:
I said he isn't MAKING the world a better place. You say he is TRYING. A little difference there. The woman might have killed wounded, but what kind of wounded? Temerian? Can be Nilfgaardian. Can be Nilfgaardian soldiers trying to burn down her village but got wounded in the process. So she killed him any way. Or she might have killed some innocent and them cannibalize him just for shit and giggles cuz she's a sick bastard.vivaxardas said:
The point is: we don't know. We only know what would have happened if Geralt hadn't intervened. Honestly I see little point in discussing what's right and what's wrong. There isn't such things. Geralt did what he did. I have read all the books, as did the devs, and apparently that's how they assume Geralt would act, and I agree with them. If you disagree, then good for you, because TW3 will be all about choices and consequences.
You're confusing neutrality with humanity, btw, the eternal inside Geralt's fight which make him as he is: great. And Geralt has a skill that not all men (and women) have as we can see in some posts: empathy and good heart. He's not a soldier. He's a painfull mutant.vivaxardas said: