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

[Agent_Blue]

Wonderful reply, I too feel the same about it that in the end, it was about action and inaction. And Geralt went with the former.

Obviously, the problem I have is not with Geralt choosing to act. If filing Geralt's shoes, I'd guess most of us would.

The problem I have is placing Geralt in a situation where Evil has flashing purple neon arrows pointing at it. Not what I'd expect from CDProjekt.

 

[Agent_Blue]

McKee is about, amongst other things, understanding or extrapolating character intentions under extreme scenarios. I just thought that since you've read his work, you might be okay with doing such exercises yourself, since that's what he encourages. Regardless, I didn't perform a "psychoanalysis", and I'm sorry since it came off like that.


Haha, okay, since you're omniscient, I guess that resolves everything.

Deserted area. No one around.
Two out of three soldiers killed.
Third one left hanging with his hands tied behind his back.
Cannibal girl who has just been brutalized by that very same soldier is left there unimpaired, free to do whatever she has her heart set on.

Tell me cmdr_silverbolt, what do you suppose is abut to happen? Are the two going on a date?

In summary,

Vesemir not really objecting to Geralt's actions -> No risk of Geralt loosing his status with his mentor.

No witnesses -> No risk of someone spreading the word or recounting the Incident - > No risk of Geralt loosing his stand with the Nilfgaardian army of having his reputation of neutrality blemished


There you go.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Obviously, the problem I have is not with Geralt choosing to act. If filing Geralt's shoes, I'd guess most of us would.

I believe this too, I think a lot of people would choose to save that woman, even those who are objecting here (call me optimistic ^^ )

The problem I have is placing Geralt in a situation where Evil has flashing purple neon arrows pointing at it. Not what I'd expect from CDProjekt.

Well, some things are unquestionably wrong, and Geralt seems to think that way too. I don't think there's anything wrong with the trailer since Geralt was portrayed like he is in the books.

@ the other post: So that's what you were reserving your creativity for Seriously, dude, you're reaching with that argument. There are simply no facts in the trailer to support your point, so it's absurd for you to ask me to disprove them. Just, no.

We don't know everything about the environs or whatever- there's no way for us to know one way or the other, so why even use that point to support what you were saying before.

 

[Agent_Blue]

I believe this too, I think a lot of people would choose to save that woman, even those who are objecting here (call me optimistic ^^ )


Well, some things are unquestionably wrong, and Geralt seems to think that way too. I don't think there's anything wrong with the trailer since Geralt was portrayed like he is in the books.

@ the other post: So that's what you were reserving your creativity for />/>/>/>/>/>/>/> Seriously, dude, you're reaching with that argument. There are simply no facts in the trailer to support your point, so it's absurd for you to ask me to disprove them. Just, no.

We don't know everything about the environs or whatever- there's no way for us to know one way or the other, so why even use that point to support what you were saying before.

For goodness sake, look and listen around.
It's deserted.

What you're suggesting is Geralt would leave the girl behind amongst Nilfgaards' legions? What are you saying? That'd be leaps and bounds more cruel than letting her die in the first place.

And why would Geralt casually ride off when there are Nilfgaardian soldiers around the corner and he's just diced two of them up? The soldier left hanging is not gagged. He'd cry for help.

You're making no sense here, cmdr_silverbolt.

 

[wichat]

...Obviously, the problem I have is not with Geralt choosing to act. ...

The problem I have is placing Geralt in a situation where Evil has flashing purple neon arrows pointing at it...

Why it is a problem? You see Geralt acting by his own non-existent code, meaning as the Geralt we know (those who knows him). Where is writen that the trailer must be about a cruel dilemma? Why not about a normal acting in Geralt's character?

 

[Agent_Blue]

Why it is a problem? You see Geralt acting by his own non-existent code, meaning as the Geralt we know (those who knows him). Where is writen that the trailer must be about a cruel dilemma? Why not about a normal acting in Geralt's character?

Hi wichat!

Where's it written the trailer must be about a real dilemma?

In a book titled «Better Indicative Game Trailers». Sells for 10 bucks on Amazon.

 

[RSIK_4]

Head of CD Projekt RED, Adam Badowski, said that they “wanted this short movie to communicate that Geralt, despite being seen as a sellsword by many, has his own code of conduct and operates outside of the dirty morality of the world he lives in. Killing Monsters was a great opportunity to show the ambience of No Man’s Land. The overwhelming feeling of despair can be quite shocking, especially when you consider who the real monster is.”

 

[wichat]

Hi wichat!

Where's it written the trailer must be about a real dilemma?

In a book titled «Better Indicative Game Trailers». Sells for 10 bucks on Amazon.

/> Sorry I don't understand your sarcasm here, is it about cruel-real? If so you had made a wrong answer to me /> (maybe because I've made a wrong phrasing to you /> )

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Look at and listen to what? Two minutes of a limited view? Can you prove that there aren't any witnesses there? Not soldiers, but any sort of witnesses. You can't, not anymore than I can that there were any, so this whole point is useless.

The other problem is that we take it for granted that people can be killed in video games. The character Geralt is not a murderer- he makes it a point to say more than once that he's not a murderer, and he acts accordingly. I also remember him jumping from a boat to save people from burning in a shack because he was "not about to let murder" happen. So, no- he had plenty of reasons to not want to kill those people, till they gave him a reason to do so.

 

[wichat]

So, no- he had plenty of reasons to not want to kill those people, till they gave him a reason to do so.

By logical, he had the same plenty of reasons to want to kill them and here's the dilemma. Once he had a reason that tilts the tables within him the dilemma disappears.. if he really had any dilemma.It rather seems most simple as a: I'm sick of this war.

 

[Randomdrowner2015]

For my part, I am happy to see that Trailer-Geralt acts exactly like my own Geralt has done since W1.

He is first and foremost loyal to his friends and loved ones even though he, being world-weary, has an ill-buried soft spot for underdogs and hopeless idealists trying to make the world a better place. He knows that the world is full of evil, cruelty and suffering and has learned to live with the fact that he can not do much about it. He tries not to get involved and focus on his job and his friends. But once in a while he just gets fed up with all the sick crap going on in front of him and decides that enough is enough.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Fact #1, not opinion: shots from different angles show no one in a distance. There's positively nobody else to be seen in that trailer.

Fact #2, not opinion: there's also no one to be heard. No background noise ever indicates the nearby or distant presence of soldiers, peasants or anyone else for that matter.

Fact #3, not opinion: No Man's Land is supposed to be sparsely populated.

Fact #4, not opinion: the soldier left hanging is not gagged. If indeed there were other soldiers around the corner, he would cry for help, which he didn't.

Opinion based off on facts 1 though 4: it's a deserted area. There will be no witnesses of the whole ordeal. Geralt is risking essentially nothing with his well-meant but overstepping action. There's no real dilemma and thus while the trailer is a technical feat and good PR tool, it sells TW3 short on what's arguably one of the series' strongest traits, genuine moral conundrums.

 

[CostinRaz]

Knight: Nilfgaard does not need an ally, since it has enough manpower to conquer the entire north on it's own. Especially a weakened north by Letho's actions, but cultural assimilation is different then military conquest. It was not merely about being able to get away with razing cities but having it as a critical part of your military strategy: The Mongols were vastly outnumbered but by relying on fear they were able to have their opponents surrender without a fight since they knew that if they fought they would mercilessly slaughtered...every man, woman and a child, hell even the dogs on the street.

It was never about fear alone of course, you mentioned that carrot and the stick in several other arguments. The stick was that brutal massacre that would ensue if a city fell to the mongols provided they resisted, the carrot was the establishment of law and order, meritocracy and religious freedom. That was the carrot. Also the Mongols did in fact recruit large numbers of local troops, given their inferior numbers they had to especially in China, it's just that being primarily a cavalry army they made use of those people who were capable horsemen more for their conquest, especially their western conquests.

As for the Mongol Empire not being a true state I will disagree on that, yes it wasn't a true centralized state since given the huge vastness of their Empire it was nigh impossible to create one centralized state. Instead Ghenkis Khan did provide a great degree of autonomy to regions of his empire, but it was a unified empire which did follow a single leader.

Finally with regards to cultural assimilation. I would not call it a failure on the part of the Mongols as conquerors. Ghenkis Khan understood that in order to effectively rule over such a large empire with so many different people, cultures and religions that the only effective way to promote acceptance and tolerance and he did so and by doing so he ensured the success of his Empire which fell because of the Mongol Civil wars. The fact the Mongols were assimilated after the Mongols fell was a side effect of these policies however. However I do not think the policies of Temujin were wrong, in fact they are one of the primary reasons I hold him in such high regard.

Now as for Nilfgaard, well I think it's safe to say Nilfgaard is more along the lines of the Roman Empire in terms of size, so Emhyr can get away with what Ghenkis Khan couldn't and thus assimilate the Nordlings, that doesn't mean however that conquering the North through fear isn't going to be an effective military tactic.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

@Agent: You're using these facts to imagine a lot than they support, or not imagine, rather. Is it inconceivable that other facts might exist in the story which we haven't seen or heard? I just think it's asinine to take the trailer so literally, and then use that as the only defense for a completely off-the-mark point.

My point was that if the writers want to add such drama in the story, that Geralt might face consequences for his action, then it's possible to imagine any number of scenarios of how that could happen.

Not to mention, you completely ignored my mention of Geralt's desire to not be a murderer. I think he had more than one reason to hesitate, and like Wichat mentioned he had more than one reason not to, and the implication of abject brutality finally resolved this ambivalence.

 

[Agent_Blue]

The trailer is a self-contained narrative. For all intents and purposes, for all we know, it's a short story in its own right.

We have everything we need to gauge it right there. Don't you go calling my point wild when facts have been presented to support it whereas none seem to be coming from your side. All you seem to be doing is saying that it could be the other way around. Sure, it could. The sun could be a strawberry-flavoured pyramidal asteroid radio waving Elvis' greatest hits out to the Universe. It could. But from the facts we have gathered thus far, it is not. Everything in that trailer supports the notion that's a deserted area and therefore there will be no eye witnesses to Geralt's actions and therefore no foreseeable repercussions upon himself, his cause or fellow witchers, and therefore he stands to lose little to nothing and therefore it's not really a dilemma, is it?

It might be a nuisance to him. He might feel pissed off, nagged his conscience forces him to deal with the situation when he'd much rather just collect the reward and ride off wherever he's headed to. But that in it's own right does not constitute a genuine dilemma. Nothing is really at risk for him. Therefore, no dilemma.

It seems to me if a CGI trailer is meant to be indicative, which in my opinion it definitely should, then it might as well showcase the game's strongest traits instead of serving us something dangerously short of stereotypical.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

It's not a rule that stories need to present all their facts on a platter and spoon feed them to you. I didn't say something outside of the realm of imaginable scenarios, like the sun smelling like strawberries. It's possible, in any hypothetical scenario for storytelling, that consequences can arise because of prior actions. Also, it's important that any hypothetical should be something reasonable within the scope of the story, and that's true in this case; all I said was that he could have considered the consequences of his actions, and since he is a witcher who wants to maintain his neutrality, it makes sense for him to not want to interfere.

Geralt, I think, never thinks of himself as a sword of justice- he wouldn't care to interfere in anything simply because it's "immoral" or "unjust", unless it's something he considers inexcusable or unjust. He also wouldn't just kill (you've now ignored my mention of his desire to not be a murderer for a second time.)

I don't need to give any more proof than what's shown in the trailer- Geralt is seen to be on his way, but then he turns back; the hesitation and resolution of the dilemma are evident in his actions.

You also seem to be working with some unique and myopic definition of what does or does not constitute a dilemma. It is certainly a difficult choice to not interfere with the work of an invading conqueror and maintain your neutrality if you believe that what they're doing is wrong.

I honestly believe that you haven't played the previous games, nor read the books, otherwise you wouldn't be mistaken in thinking that the trailer is "stereotypical". Stereotypical of what? It shows exactly who Geralt is as a character.

 

[wichat]

Knight: Nilfgaard does not need an ally, since it has enough manpower to conquer the entire north on it's own. Especially a weakened north by Letho's actions,

Rigth, hiring Letho, lying to Scoia'taels (and provoked they acted as the did), keeping noble's familiars as pawn (hostage could sound to agressive for this nice Emperor). Well, let's call all that the legal tools of such manpower. But, a question, just because he is an Emperor he can do those crimes and stay unpunished? And we are discuting about morality? Wow!!! Is there any manpower fully of this claimed morality?

 

[douglasmedeiros]

Fantástico mesmo o trailer.. Parabéns pra a RED!

"Gerald é um monstro também, porem dócil"

-----------------------

Terrific even the trailer .. Congratulations to the RED!
"Gerald is a monster too, however docile"


---------------------

 

[Agent_Blue]

(...)

It is both short of stereotypical and - this from someone who hasn't played previous games nor read the books - atypical for the series in the way it points fingers at evil. The Nilfgaardians are portrayed as clean-cut personifications of malignity: three gruesome-looking foul-mouthed soldiers of the occupying army versus a helpless native pretty girl.

My working definition of a dilemma is borrowed from Mckee: a crossroad where you stand to lose either way. Hesitations where nothing of true significance is at risk hardly qualify. Your suggestion that Geralt is jeopardizing his resolve not to be a murderer is groundless, as reasons to confront the men out of empathy for the girl and stop the abuse are so blatantly obvious. Murder, on the other hand, is an entirely self-serving act. Straw man it is.

Who is the trailer aimed at? Primarily, I’d say, newcomers. It’s an investment directed at gripping gamers who might be learning about the series for the first time. Accordingly, the trailer must provide them with all the information they need and not count on either extensive background knowledge nor context provided in future releases.

Once again, we have all we need right there in the trailer.

 

[Nerevar.220]

Rigth, hiring Letho, lying to Scoia'taels (and provoked they acted as the did), keeping noble's familiars as pawn (hostage could sound to agressive for this nice Emperor). Well, let's call all that the legal tools of such manpower. But, a question, just because he is an Emperor he can do those crimes and stay unpunished? And we are discuting about morality? Wow!!! Is there any manpower fully of this claimed morality?

From Emhyr´s POV, he´s doing what needs to be done, probably for all the world´s good, as he knows of the coming Ice Age, but the first plan asked for more than he was capable of doing to someone. In general, I´d he´s quite aware of what he is, but he doesn´t wake up thinking about how many kittens he´s going to kill that day.

And about getting unpunished, I guess so. It´s not like there´s anybody powerful enough to deliver him to justice, besides the point that he´s no that different from the other northern rulers, he just has more manpower to reach his goals. If everybody who have it coming gets killed the world´s population will be reduced to a handful. I also doubt Geralt will be given the chance to kill him, and there´s a strong plot reason he wouldn´t want to.