No, it wasn´t. In fact, I usually cringe whenever I see what was called heroes in the past. Reading the Illiad was quite the thing.vivaxardas said:
No, you're wrong or you've read wrongly my posts or I've writen them wrongly. I've told you there's more than an option, that we have not the whole information but you still nailded with the woman's guiltiness, yes or yes. That's doesn't looks like an open mind. IMO to me. I can accept she could be guilty or innocent, or soldiers are right or renagates, or anything else. But you don't. From me, nothing new to add here.Just one thing: who act 100% according his morality at every second of his life?vivaxardas said:
Yet the Greeks considered them heroes. It was my point - if you really want to immerse, you have to accept everything. You can't just pick and choose whatever you like. From modern perspective both sides in the trailer are committing crimes, and Greek heroes did a lot of crap, wherever the ancient Greeks themselves happen to believe about the matter. From their perspective rape and torture are theirs to impose. It is exactly what Temerians did in La Valette's lands, or Kaedwenis wanted to do to Aedirians. When Roche reported to Foltest that their troops murdering, raping and pillaging, nobody was going to do anything about it.NicolasF said:
I can't see how it is cheap to blur the lines, use suggestive themes/situations and give not enough information to make a "perfect" choice. It is what TW has been all about for the last 2 games imo. If that is cheap, then both games have been very cheap indeed. And Geralt itself is "cheap" imo. He is no shining hero, his decisions often lead to more misery and were done mostly out of selfish reasons. Now and then Geralt gets a little morality high and that is cheap indeed, considering with what ppl he associates with in the past games out of necessity or sheer LACK of morality on his part.
Roche is an asshole whose prime job is to kill/torture/rape possible "innocents" to advance his countries' or better:
his kings' wishes.
Iorveth is an asshole whose prime job is to .......
Jaevin/Siegfried were naive fanatics shutting their eyes to the bigger picture to pursue some kind of ideal there own "orders" trampled with their feet.
That is what I love about those games. And that Geralt is a badass. Who has a beard now. Which actually makes the "badass meter" explode.
Roche is an asshole whose prime job is to kill/torture/rape possible "innocents" to advance his countries' or better:
his kings' wishes.
Iorveth is an asshole whose prime job is to .......
Jaevin/Siegfried were naive fanatics shutting their eyes to the bigger picture to pursue some kind of ideal there own "orders" trampled with their feet.
That is what I love about those games. And that Geralt is a badass. Who has a beard now. Which actually makes the "badass meter" explode.
/>/>
The most important detail, all else pales in comparison.mothra said:
The way I see it is that Geralt didn't hear the sentence part, as he is seen arriving when the soldiers are already beating up the woman. He just presumes they were doing that because she was a looter, but not being certain of it (just as we can't be), he acts only on impulse. Which is understandable and even relatable.
The thing that just doesn't make sense for me is the "not choosing at all" quote. He DOES choose the arbitrarily defined "lesser" evil, which is letting a probable murderer and cannibal go back on the loose. As we will probably be able to do in the game, he could have chosen to either kill the soldiers or letting them kill the woman. What would have been the other option? Killing her quickly? For me, it's not, so I really don't get it..
The thing that just doesn't make sense for me is the "not choosing at all" quote. He DOES choose the arbitrarily defined "lesser" evil, which is letting a probable murderer and cannibal go back on the loose. As we will probably be able to do in the game, he could have chosen to either kill the soldiers or letting them kill the woman. What would have been the other option? Killing her quickly? For me, it's not, so I really don't get it..
I've never played any of the AC games. I've heard some mixed opinions about them and apparently the series has been going downhill. I remember seeing some AC trailers though and remember the combat looking very impressive. But here I see the comparison to AC is seen as a negative thing.
Oh come on. That's so easy to say with a full stomach. I wish for you that you'll never have to find out what you'd do.vivaxardas said:
vivaxardas said:
My Geralt did.
And really, we saw the soldiers were beasts, we didn´t see whether the girl was. Could be she was too, could be she wasn´t - survival can lead you down very dark paths. The soldiers didn´t have that excuse, they were brutalizing her and planning to give her a very painful death, so he took issue, and he didn´t go for the kill at first, if the soldiers hadn´t taken out their weapons they probably could have talked themselves out of it.
Thing is we don't actually know if she did any of what they accused her of. Considering that this is a battlefield I'd imagine that there were all sorts of necrophages out there eating corpses and killing wounded. I'd like to think that she was out there looking for something valuable, because she and her family are starving, to sell for food when these Nilfgard oafs catch her and decide to string her up.
But, when it comes down to it, we just don't know.
But, when it comes down to it, we just don't know.
Well, if you think that ignoring the woman was the greater evil (because you think the soldiers are well within their rights), and choosing to be neutral was the lesser evil, then helping her seems like not choosing.theFixer said:
Ok now ANY DISCUSSION about politics, please STOP NOW. This is not the appropriate thread.
I love this forum and this community, but I think this time we've crossed the line... Why are you arguing about ethics or moral, basing your arguments on a 2 minutes CGI trailer... Shouldn't we discuss the trailer itself, about its technical features, Geralt's look, environment look etc.?
Nothing personal, but I'm sick and tired of all this political/philosophical turn that took the discussion. Sorry.
Nothing personal, but I'm sick and tired of all this political/philosophical turn that took the discussion. Sorry.
Yeah, let's instead talk about how Geralt had gigantic ape-like arms and too-skinny waist. Like, wtf?
(I'm joking, I didn't see those things in the trailer)
(I'm joking, I didn't see those things in the trailer)