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

[CostinRaz]

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?

"There is no justice, not in this world." - Spartacus TV show.

The point of that quote is that there no true accountability in this world, or in a fictional world based on the real medieval world. Those in power will always find a way to escape punishment for the crimes they've committed as long as they have power.

I don't want to get political about this, but simply look at what so many rulers in the course of history have done and gotten away with.

Not that I really care about Emhyr's "crimes" personally. I agree with everything he's done besides wanting to fuck Ciri and murdering Pavetta.

 

[wichat]

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.

Ok, then (and this post of mine was adressed who see immorality in surviving extrems) that the presumed guilty has doing what needs to be done, probably for all her familly. But she's not an Emperor and she must be punished.... Morality? So who is anybody to judge her?


War crimes? OK, under the point of view of XX century:

A war crime is a serious violation of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps," "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war," the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity.

Are mixing Middle Age it Modern Age? certainly, so where's the border? Who is commiting war crimes? Or in another words, WHO IS NO COMMITING war crimes is this story?

Nosense to look for goods or bads. Only, as I said before, non-exist Geralt's code. Soldiers armed versus unarmed civilian. No dilemma.

 

[wichat]

Not that I really care about Emhyr's "crimes" personally. I agree with everything he's done besides wanting to fuck Ciri and murdering Pavetta.

I don't care neither, but where's the difference in order you can apply morarility for one and crime for another? Your words claim for justice. Which justice? this one from war criminal soldiers?

No, it has no sense to me. I can't.Because if she supposed commit war crimes, those soldiers/their Emperor surely did them. That's no doubt of this.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

...- this from someone who hasn't played previous games nor read the books -...

Ah, it's cool, nice to have all kinds :]

It is both short of stereotypical and...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 brutalizing a helpless native pretty girl.

It seems to me your complaint is that the trailer wasn't "edgy enough" for you. You're not going to see Adonis soldiers for no reason, and the fact that you think that woman was "pretty" is your perception; I've said this before, and I don't remember where, that I saw something "inhuman" in her face, which would make me distrust her in any other scenario. So please, don't try to push off your perception of the scenario as point blank truth.

Not to mention- the situation is what it is, it's a shitty situation, and Geralt shouldn't be expected to act any differently in this situation. I don't care about him not being "unique" or "edgy", I want him to be the character he is from the books within reasonable boundaries.

Moreover, it has been mentioned several times already that Geralt does not take kindly to what he perceives as brutality, and what was happening to the woman was certainly brutal. In this case, he's not acting "atypically", and we shouldn't call the scenario stereotypical if it depicts something we expect to see in a warzone.

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 and stop their abuse are so blatantly obvious. Murderer, on the other hand, is an entirely self-serving act. Therefore, your point amounts to straw man fallacy.

I'm sorry that you don't find anything of "true significance" in Geralt's dilemma, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, or that there isn't anything of significant in there for him. He has always portrayed strong feelings against being a murderer, and that's not something I'm making up.

He cannot interfere on empathy even if he wants to because his neutrality as a withcer matters to him, but he does interfere when he realizes that he could justify killing these men to himself.

Geralt does not owe any explanations to us for his actions, but to himself; he would need to justify killing someone to himself, and that itself is a dilemma.

Who is the trailer aimed at? Primarily, I’d say, newcomers. It’s an investment directed at gamers who are learning about the series for the first time. Therefore, necessarily, the trailer must provide them with all the information they need and not count on extensive background knowledge.

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

It's not a bad thing if it's aimed at newcomers, I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

 

[CostinRaz]

No, it has no sense to me. I can't.Because if she supposed commit war crimes, those soldiers/their Emperor surely did them. That's no doubt of this.

Waging a war is in itself not considered a war crime. That's by "international" law ( I don't much have respect for it but hey ). Assassination of state leaders is not a war crime, betraying the Scoia'Tael is not a war crime.


Cannibalism is however a grave crime.

 

[wichat]

that I saw something "inhuman" in her face, which would make me distrust her in any other scenario.
.

Yes, the unhumanity of the mixing starvation and terror and the incredulity of relieving miraculously lifesaving

Awsome CPDP's graphic work!And all this discussion about morality is make us omit it!!! C'mon, what are you awaiting to congrats CDPR for it?!?!!?!??!

 

[wichat]

I don't much have respect for it but hey

OK, then no sense to dicuss about it.

Assassination of state leaders is not a war crime, betraying the Scoia'Tael is not a war crime.

Please, read the books before defending Emhyr actions so lightly. Then we will talk calmly. />

Cannibalism is however a grave crime.

Yes, is better than she was suicide for love of humanity, that's is moral, at least.... Oh, man! I thing you've never known what is no having food in your house for weeks and I hope you'll never have to know it!!!

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

It's very easy to look down on fucking cannibalism when we're comfortably sitting in our homes.

 

[username_3682323]

Nicholas I always thought the ice age thing was a myth? They said it is definetly gonna happen? was this in the books?

 

[M4xw0lf.978]

Cannibalism is however a grave crime.

Against whom? Very rarely have dead bodies been known to protest against being eaten.
(Not that I advocate cannibalism - but in times of famine, people WILL sooner or later eat everything which keeps them from starving.)

 

[Damariel]

Cannibalism is however a grave crime.

Ehhh...

 

[Agent_Blue]

*edited out because the joke, apparently, was too obscure. />/>
(just kidding here, cmdr_silverbolt)

I'm not even entirely sure what edgy means in this context. If anything, the trailer might be too edgy at times, occasionally too reminiscent of an amalgamation of Assassin's Creed and Matrix, both of which are far less concerned with moral nuances. Perhaps that's why there's little of that in here as well.

What I would have preferred is a more indicative trailer, showcasing hard troubling choices, where opposing sides both seem either reasonably legitimate or equally malign. Instead, we got Nilfgaardians depicted as the clean-cut personification of evil. So extreme is the unbalance here that even the girl's alleged wrong-doings can be turned back against the Nilfgaardians: if she's indeed guilty of killing wounded soldiers and cannibalizing them, one could justly argue she's been pushed into it by the Nilfgaardians themselves.

But say that, hypothetically, the girl had killed the soldier's younger brother, a wounded soldier himself, and then she'd started eating him only to be caught by the horrified kinsman. Perhaps then the beating would take on new meaning and become less of a dichotomy.

If you believe aesthetics, proportions, facial features, the evaluation of all this is entirely a matter of opinion, if you believe no objective judgement could ever be passed about these matters, you're sorely mistaken and lagging behind. The reaction you describe to the girl's face epitomizes the Uncanny Valley. No risk of that happening with the Nilfgaardian soldiers, whose gritty gruesome-looking expressions have been purposely caricatured.

I'll pass on your revolving door trick where you claim just because I fail to see something doesn't mean it's not there. Spell it out: what does Geralt stand to loose of significance if he A ) acts or B ) keeps riding off to where he's headed?

The point about the trailer being aimed at newcomers is that it makes it being a self-contained story an absolute necessity. You can't count on newcomers to have read the books or played the games. You can't count on them having extensive background knowledge on Geralt. Everything must be spelled out there in the trailer, or risk not getting through.

Like I've said many times, we have all we need right there in the trailer to make sense of it.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

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.

I am not going to continue on with the mongols as it's besides the point. All I will say is that they failed as an empire, not because they collapsed. But because on a cultural level, they were nothing more than a foot note. As they are in my mind, a foot note in the larger scheme of things and the history of civilizations.

You don't culturally assimilate through fear and size is irrelevant. Had say the muslims tried to use that tactic, there would not have been an empire to begin with, the locals would have rebelled at the first sign of civil war which was only a few decades after conquest, but they did not. Because they were content enough with what the conquerors provided for them.

Even the Roman Empire didn't spread its ideas and values through fear and brute force alone. It was extremely harsh on its enemies, but generous to those who accepted them. Had the Romans been complete assholes, Hannibal would have been able to turn Rome's allies against it a long time ago.

Again, no one is denying the importance of fear and you know me well enough to know that I understand its importance in warfare. But it's not everything. You spread fear yes, but you also show leniency when it's beneficial. You can do both, they do not contradict each other.

And if you are so adamant about quoting Machiavelli, that it's more important to be feared than loved, then complete his sentence. "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women."

What Nilfgaard succeeded in doing is not becoming feared, but hated. And that is a failure on its part. Because hatred can be a stronger emotion than fear.

 

[CostinRaz]

I am not going to continue on with the mongols as it's besides the point. All I will say is that they failed as an empire, not because they collapsed. But because on a cultural level, they were nothing more than a foot note. As they are in my mind, a foot note in the larger scheme of things and the history of civilizations

The value of an Empire rests not on the continuation of it's culture but on it's overall legacy. Today we use paper currency in no small part because at the time when it first appeared the Mongols heavily promoted it, furthermore they reunified China and unified Russia. They introduced freedom of religion in the second largest empire the world has ever seen.

They are not a mere foot note. Their achievements are often ignored in Europe, North America as well countries close to these regions since they did not directly impact that much. But their impact on Asia even today cannot be ignored.

Again, no one is denying the importance of fear and you know me well enough to know that I understand its importance in warfare. But it's not everything

Nor did I argue that it is everything, in fact as I pointed out is that the Mongols used the carrot as well the stick, but there is no denying they were brutal conquerors who were very harsh in establishing order to the lands they conquered.

What Nilfgaard succeeded in doing is not becoming feared, but hated. And that is a failure on its part. Because hatred can be a stronger emotion than fear.

The reason they did become hated rather then feared is because they lost both the wars. Sure they gained Cintra, but they lost eventually, first at Soden then at Brenna so fear turned into hatred.

Same happened with the Romans, once they started losing wars ( and not just battles ) the sentiment of fear vanished and with it so did the respect the Romans commanded from many of their people.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

The value of an Empire rests not on the continuation of it's culture but on it's overall legacy. Today we use paper currency in no small part because at the time when it first appeared the Mongols heavily promoted it, furthermore they reunified China and unified Russia.

No, paper currency was being used in China long before the mongols and the mongols did not propagate it. I know for a fact that paper currency was never used in Mongol controlled lands such as Iran and the Middle East. Europeans got to know about them through their own explorers, not the mongols, who did not even have a centralized and organized economy for them to standardize any currency.

China has been divided and reunited a dozen times, they would have done it eventually without needing the mongols, whose impact on China is rather minimal.

AS for Russia. No. The process started before them, which they impeded, and the gradual unification of the country happened in spite of them, not thanks to them.

So yes, a foot note when compared to other, much greater, empires.
They had a number of admirable domestic policies though.

Nor did I argue that it is everything, in fact as I pointed out is that the Mongols used the carrot as well the stick, but there is no denying they were brutal conquerors.

And as far as I am concerned, they failed. They didn't build anything that could last. Because nothing can last on a pile of skulls and corpses. Nothing can last, when they were ready to destroy that which more advanced civilizations created, only to have nothing to replace it with.

The reason they did become hated rather then feared is because they lost the wars. Sure they gained Cintra, but they lost so fear turned into hatred.

And so you are telling me that the Cintrans don't hate the empire. I find it hard to believe.

Fear didn't turn into hatred. Hatred was always there, but at the first sign of weakness, it emerged. That's why relying a lot on fear is a mistake.
Had Rome tried to rely on it, Hannibal would have fucked them up so badly it would have been a joke.

Because for Rome's allies to stick with it after Trebia, lake trasimene and then Cannae, shows that Rome earned respect and loyalty and not just fear.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

@ Agent: where did I take a cheapshot? By including you and being open to discussing with you even though you're uninformed about the subject. If anything, you're the one making things personal with middle-school insults, but whatever. If you can't be an adult and talk like an adult, then don't talk at all.

 

[CostinRaz]

And as far as I am concerned, they failed. They didn't build anything that could last. Because nothing can last on a pile of skulls and corpses. Nothing can last, when they were ready to destroy that which more advanced civilizations created, only to have nothing to replace it with.

Still pissed off because of Baghdad are you now? Personally I don't take the muslim records too seriously considering the rather large bias against the Mongols by them.

And so you are telling me that the Cintrans don't hate the empire. I find it hard to believe.

Fear didn't turn into hatred. Hatred was always there, but at the first sign of weakness, it emerged. That's why relying a lot on fear is a mistake.

I don't think it was hatred as much as it was bloody noble pride that led to the massacre in Cintra. But there was fear of Nilfgaard, it's even mentioned in some of the first chapters in the Blood of Elves and that was after Sodden.

Had Rome tried to rely on it, Hannibal would have fucked them up so badly it would have been a joke.

Because for Rome's allies to stick with it after Trebia, lake trasimene and then Cannae, shows that Rome earned respect and loyalty and not just fear.

Rome did lose a number of it's allies however and had Macedon declare war on them as well as Syracuse rebel. However Rome did still have a lot of troops on it's border which it did not call to reinforce Italy, which did show that despite their losses at Cannae, which really was the only true significant battle that made people wonder, they still had a lot of men and their allies knew it. They also knew they would be demolished if they rebelled.

 

[Agent_Blue]

@ Agent: where did I take a cheapshot? By including you and being open to discussing with you even though you're uninformed about the subject. If anything, you're the one making things personal with middle-school insults, but whatever. If you can't be an adult and talk like an adult, then don't talk at all.

It was a joke.
A joke, man.

A joke. I even wrote it in red, inside a quote block.

A joke. I was pulling your leg

For heavens sake, I thought you'd get it!

That's why you can't seem to get my point, I have overestimated you!

(just kidding, ok, I am kididng here, I haven't overestimated you )

It was a joke, for crying out loud.

A joke.

You draw wonderfully and I'd buy all your books.

 

[wichat]

.... If you can't be an adult and talk like an adult, then don't talk at all.

Ouch!! />

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I don't think it was hatred as much as it was bloody noble pride that led to the massacre in Cintra. But there was fear of Nilfgaard, it's even mentioned in some of the first chapters in the Blood of Elves and that was after Sodden.

Nobles can exhibit foolish pride.

Common people? Do you have a historical example where the people of a city chose to fight to the death, when they were given the option to surrender, for their properties to be left intact, and for their homes to be left unmolested?

Because cities tend to surrender even when threatened with slavery, pillage, and abduction of property.

Rome did lose a number of it's allies however and had Macedon declare war on them as well as Syracuse rebel. However Rome did still have a lot of troops on it's border which it did not call to reinforce Italy, which did show that despite their losses at Cannae, which really was the only true significant battle that made people wonder, they still had a lot of men and their allies knew it. They also knew they would be demolished if they rebelled.

Macedon was not part of the empire at the time.

And no, in fact a substantial number of Rome's army was in expeditions in Iberia at the time, several years before Cannae.

According to military historian Richard A. Gabriel, who's written a book about Hannibal that I have, had all of Rome's allies or even a large number of them defected to Hannibal at the same time, Rome would have been powerless to do anything. This opinion is corroborated by every single historian I've read on the subject.

What happened however is that a ot of Rome's allies stood by it not out of fear, but out of loyalty. Some sure did it out of fear, after Rome pummeled them for rebelling. But not most, as Rome would have lost had they rebelled.