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

[triptrap]

looks like his father ^^
but really, the detail on the characters is so awesome

 

[ApuLunas.211]

cool CGI at the left, but right one is better.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

RE-watching Letho's trailer, and I think I prefer it over this one. Still it's pretty good!

 

[username_3294916]

"Kick her teeth in"

ahh

English is not my first language and I couldn't work out what is he saying there.
Thanks

 

[silver001]

Some of you guys are overreacting based simply on a trailer.

The situation in the video to me is something that is based on a quest you will get and it is one of those things where you will have to judge and deal with the consequences.

For the purpose of marketing it is a great video, but in terms of the character geralt the way he acts will depend entirely on the individual and based on the information at hand, so it is too early to be arguing about morality.

Just remember the game usually gives you enough reason to either sides, this video does not. Personally, my geralt will save the girl simply so he can nail her later.

 

[username_3294916]

has anyone noticed that Geralt actually does not have a knife hidden in his sleeve but takes it from belt of one of the soldiers?

 

[Krisk7]

Congratulation guys! Strong point of the trailer is that it conveys very well the spirit of the game - killing monsters and hard choices.

 

[TheMorbidAtheist]

So many posts. Imagine the possibilities once gameplay footage is revealed.

 

[Zhyphix]

Well, I imagined this-

If Geralt doesn't want to get involved because of apathy, he ignores her; greater evil because he's capable of doing something, but doesn't do it.

If Geralt doesn't want to get involved because of neutrality, he ignores her; lesser evil because he chooses not to judge anyone.

If Geralt wants to get involved, he doesn't ignore her.

The problem is that the first two options yield the same result so they seem the same.

This is just my reasoning, so no one need get up in arms about this.

I see, but even if I don't think apathy is even an option for Geralt, I believe you can't consider doing the same thing a choice between a greater or a lesser evil. Isn't the evil produced just the same?

And don't worry about me getting up in arms, I understand your reasoning but I'm just not convinced.

Some of you guys are overreacting based simply on a trailer.

The situation in the video to me is something that is based on a quest you will get and it is one of those things where you will have to judge and deal with the consequences.

For the purpose of marketing it is a great video, but in terms of the character geralt the way he acts will depend entirely on the individual and based on the information at hand, so it is too early to be arguing about morality.

Just remember the game usually gives you enough reason to either sides, this video does not. Personally, my geralt will save the girl simply so he can nail her later.

And where would this overreaction be, exactly? Putting themes like war crimes and torturing prisoners in a trailer is the recipe for sparking a discussion, and that's exactly what happened. Also, one can like it or dislike it, so I really can't find it.

Furthermore, I think the opposite as you. While we may find ourselves in a similar situation in the game, right now we do have enough information to judge whether we would have acted as Geralt or not, since he probably had just the same amount. And this trailer gives more than enough reasons to either sides, you can find several in any page of this thread.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

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.

What I see as a questionable tactics is a use of a strong psychological bias against rape. It is a woman, and rape is mentioned. People instantly see it as justified to start killing bad soldiers. If it were a grizzled man, like one of hunter SOBs from The Last of Us, nobody would even imagine to interfere. As I see it, you can say the hunters also do not have a choice, but go around ambushing people, and both Joel and Ellie see no problems with mass murders. But it shouldn't matter who is a perpetrator, a man or a woman, you know. If it is a woman who kills helpless people, she should be dealt accordingly. Just because a woman can be raped, does not absolve her of her crimes

 

[wichat]

What I see as a questionable tactics is a use of a strong psychological bias against rape. It is a woman, and rape is mentioned. People instantly see it as justified to start killing bad soldiers. If it were a grizzled man, like one of hunter SOBs from The Last of Us, nobody would even imagine to interfere. As I see it, you can say the hunters also do not have a choice, but go around ambushing people, and both Joel and Ellie see no problems with mass murders. But it shouldn't matter who is a perpetrator, a man or a woman, you know. If it is a woman who kills helpless people, she should be dealt accordingly. Just because a woman can be raped, does not absolve her of her crimes

Sorry, I think you're wrong. My Geralt, the one I know from books would help this person no matter its gender.

 

[GuyNwah]

What I see as a questionable tactics is a use of a strong psychological bias against rape. It is a woman, and rape is mentioned. People instantly see it as justified to start killing bad soldiers. If it were a grizzled man, like one of hunter SOBs from The Last of Us, nobody would even imagine to interfere. As I see it, you can say the hunters also do not have a choice, but go around ambushing people, and both Joel and Ellie see no problems with mass murders. But it shouldn't matter who is a perpetrator, a man or a woman, you know. If it is a woman who kills helpless people, she should be dealt accordingly. Just because a woman can be raped, does not absolve her of her crimes

Neither does a sentence of death passed by an invading army make a foundation for a belief that she committed any crime at all. Geralt does not know anything about her guilt, has no reason to believe her guilty based on the Nilfgaardians' say-so, and has no motivation to acquiesce in acts of the invading army just because he is on territory they control or because he accepted coin from them for an unrelated action.

 

[M4xw0lf.978]

Neither does a sentence of death passed by an invading army make a foundation for a belief that she committed any crime at all. Geralt does not know anything about her guilt, has no reason to believe her guilty based on the Nilfgaardians' say-so, and has no motivation to acquiesce in acts of the invading army just because he is on territory they control.

Thank you. Exactly what I tried to point out on some of the previous pages, though in a much less elaborate manner

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Neither does a sentence of death passed by an invading army make a foundation for a belief that she committed any crime at all. Geralt does not know anything about her guilt, has no reason to believe her guilty based on the Nilfgaardians' say-so, and has no motivation to acquiesce in acts of the invading army just because he is on territory they control.

The thing is that a story in a trailer should be taken on a face value. Otherwise it may be a story you wish to hear, not the one actually told to you. I am speaking of a situation when whatever is said is ACTUALLY true, and she is a predator. It does not feel right to you, or you feel a discomfort in believing that that a potential rape victim is a predator preying on the wounded? Well, it happens, you know. And I am taking this as an actual situation in a trailer.

 

[secondchildren]

What I see as a questionable tactics is a use of a strong psychological bias against rape. It is a woman, and rape is mentioned. People instantly see it as justified to start killing bad soldiers. If it were a grizzled man, like one of hunter SOBs from The Last of Us, nobody would even imagine to interfere. As I see it, you can say the hunters also do not have a choice, but go around ambushing people, and both Joel and Ellie see no problems with mass murders. But it shouldn't matter who is a perpetrator, a man or a woman, you know. If it is a woman who kills helpless people, she should be dealt accordingly. Just because a woman can be raped, does not absolve her of her crimes

So it means that they are making some sort of justice?

Really vivaxardas, I understand that you like Nilfgaard and so on, but this statement belong to a pervert mind, not certainly to a reasonable person. It doesn't count what SHE DID. If she's a real criminal or something, she needs a trial, not being tortured and then hanged after a long sufference. Jesus.... I'm trying not to think that someone could really think that this is justified in a way or another.

 

[GuyNwah]

Sorry, I think you're wrong. My Geralt, the one I know from books would help this person no matter its gender.

Yes, this is the same Geralt who may (of course it's your choice) have defended Prince Stennis, not on the ground that Stennis was not guilty but that kangaroo courts and mob rule are monsters far greater.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

So it means that they are making some sort of justice?

Really vivaxardas, I understand that you like Nilfgaard and so on, but this statement belong to a pervert mind, not certainly to a reasonable person. It doesn't count what SHE DID. If she's a real criminal or something, she needs a trial, not being tortured and then hanged after a long sufference. Jesus.... I'm trying not to think that someone could really think that this is justified in a way or another.

In a war zone there is no so many options as in time of peace. In a war zone most often you either kill them, or let them go. Letting go would lead to more victims, so people do not let murderers go. That's what martial law is about. Martial law is not a gentle thing, but it is there to prevent more deaths. To judge this situation from a position of a peaceful time, with courts, judges, and jails, is unwarranted.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

Nice trailer.

I would totally kill and eat wounded soldiers to survive if they are invading my country or place where i live and killing everyone.

And even if i didnt have to do it to survive, id still kill them as a punishment, you got wounded? well, too bad it happened while trying to murder and loot everything.

 

[paulthu]

The thing is that a story in a trailer should be taken on a face value. Otherwise it may be a story you wish to hear, not the one actually told to you. I am speaking of a situation when whatever is said is ACTUALLY true, and she is a predator. It does not feel right to you, or you feel a discomfort in believing that that a potential rape victim is a predator preying on the wounded? Well, it happens, you know. And I am taking this as an actual situation in a trailer.

No. It shouldn't be taken as face value. We simply don't know. We just don't. I don't know why it is so hard to accept that.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

What I see as a questionable tactics is a use of a strong psychological bias against rape. It is a woman, and rape is mentioned. People instantly see it as justified to start killing bad soldiers. If it were a grizzled man, like one of hunter SOBs from The Last of Us, nobody would even imagine to interfere.

You are talking about a man who gave his life protecting innocent people, men and women.

Her being a woman is irrelevant. Geralt would have stepped in no matter what and we had ample opportunity in both games of doing so.