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

[Shavod]

To anyone who call Geralt imbecile for making this choice: I guess you don't remember books and previos games very well. In other case you wouldn't claim that Geralt would never make this decision.

For example, in "Lesser Evil" he decides to slaughter Renfri and her man to save people of Blaviken. Of course it is implied that at the same time he led to even bigger massacre of this very town. Renfri even mention that she would not kill anyone anyway, but he didn't know that. From certain point of view it was stupid decision, but still, even knowing consequences, he had to act. He realised that he would feel even more guilty, if it turns out that Renfri would do that. Is it a right decision? I don't think so. It would be better if he just let things flow and did nothing? Maybe, but later he find out that neutrality may be much worse then making a choice.

Here's another possible choice from the Witcher 2. When we find a female troll who's fighting with mercenaries we've got a choice to help her or help mercenaries to kill her. Trolls also eating people (in this case we know that for sure) and female troll killed some of the mercenaries already (it is implied that they attacked her first). In this case, if you decided to help her, he kill human mercenaries (who act quite respectful toward him) to protect people-eating monster and just let him go, because he doesn't seem harmful to other people on regular basis (trolls possibly were just eating already dead people). You noticed some similarities? If he was able to make a choice like that before, why assume that he wouldn't make it here?

Also he usually act impulsive. In short story "A Question of Price" he attack the queen soldiers on her very eyes to protect Duny without even thinking about consequences (and let's just say that consequences were quite impressive). If he weren't lucky, he wouldn't leave Cintra alive. This is also example that Geralt is willing to risk his life not just for pretty ladies.

 

[CostinRaz]

Their behavior, and a lot worse than that, are sadly all too common occurrences in war. Portraying 3 Nilfgaaardian soldiers behaving that way does not caricaturize the empire as cartoonishly evil.

The biggest problem I have is that it seems likely this could be the intro of the game, not just a mere trailer. In which case I would say that it does at least portray Nilfgaard in a very negative manner right from the very beginning ( I am not blind to the fact that while I strongly disagree with what Geralt did there the majority will view the NIlfgaardians as dicks ).

Combine this with CDPRs own statements about Nilfgaard being similar to the Third Reich and then well...let's just say I am worried.

 

[wichat]

The biggest problem I have is that it seems likely this could be the intro of the game, not just a mere trailer. In which case I would say that it does at least portray Nilfgaard in a very negative manner right from the very beginning ( I am not blind to the fact that while I strongly disagree with what Geralt did there the majority will view the NIlfgaardians as dicks ).

Combine this with CDPRs own statements about Nilfgaard being similar to the Third Reich and then well...let's just say I am worried.

It's not CDPR's statement but Spakowski's creation. Spakowski never describes Nilfgaarians as saviors of Northen Kingdoms. Nilfgaard is an Empire which conquers and invades free Kingdoms and 98% of the characters we see in the books live and die in the northern kingdoms. No wonder that the army is treated more as an enemy than a friend. And Geralt has not and doesn't want have time to think if one or other could be a savior.

 

[CostinRaz]

One thing is to be a conqueror, another is to be the German Third Reich.

 

[wichat]

One thing is to be a conqueror, another is to be the German Third Reich.

Who said that? link?

 

[tommy5761]

Can`t and won`t speak for anything that pertains to real life countries but simply going by the witcher saga Nilfgaard is despised and hated by almost everyone . But judging by the books it seems that Nilfgaard was always trying to conquer different countries by whatever means necessary . Going by that it wouldn`t be lore friendly for CDPR to paint them any other way . This is just my opinion and feel free to agree/disagree .

 

[CostinRaz]

Who said that? link?

In one of the developer diaries for The Witcher 2 they said how they wanted portray Nilfgaard as a sort of Third Reich.

 

[wichat]

In one of the developer diaries for The Witcher 2 they said how they wanted portray Nilfgaard as a sort of Third Reich.

In wich context? Expeditive? organization? I cannot argue with such a limited information, C. That's why I asked you for a link of the original sentence.

 

[draconis184]

One thing is to be a conqueror, another is to be the German Third Reich.

I find it pretty laughable that you are worried about Nilfgaard being portrayed in a negative way, while at the same time your opinion on the German Reich correlates to the opinions the majority have on Nilfgaard. In other words, you complain about Nilfgaard being portrayed as black in the black-and-white spectrum, while you yourself express the very same black-and-white rationing against the Reich. I'm not defending the atrocities which the Nazi Party wrought, but it's pretty naive to think that WW2 is simply a war between good guys and bad guys from an Evul Empire.

Double standards much?

 

[CostinRaz]

Double standards? No not really. I do not want Nilfgaard to be portrayed as the Third Reich which was responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in human history, matched only ( and I'd say surpassed ) by the Soviet Union. The reason I don't want this is because the option to side with them and that option to be viable which it wouldn't be if you were to side with a genocidal Empire.

If you want to ask me on my oppinion on World War 2 then it simply that allies were just as criminal if not more so then the Axis.

 

[darcler]

The biggest problem I have is that it seems likely this could be the intro of the game, not just a mere trailer. In which case I would say that it does at least portray Nilfgaard in a very negative manner right from the very beginning ( I am not blind to the fact that while I strongly disagree with what Geralt did there the majority will view the NIlfgaardians as dicks ).

Combine this with CDPRs own statements about Nilfgaard being similar to the Third Reich and then well...let's just say I am worried.

I concur. Especially since such polarization can easily become a narrative constraint, as well as give players less freedom of choice when playing. Then the choice would be more between black and white, so not really the kind of choice I'd expect from the franchise. (Obviously not every choice in the game has to be gray and ambiguous, I'd prefer some occasional variation in this regard.)

It's not CDPR's statement but Spakowski's creation. Spakowski never describes Nilfgaarians as saviors of Northen Kingdoms. Nilfgaard is an Empire which conquers and invades free Kingdoms and 98% of the characters we see in the books live and die in the northern kingdoms. No wonder that the army is treated more as an enemy than a friend. And Geralt has not and doesn't want have time to think if one or other could be a savior.

Well, yes. But the same goes to North, really. It's mostly realpolitik in the novels, and it should stay the same in the game. Even if you take the prophecy out of the equation, Nilfgaard is doing pretty much what you could expect from an expansionist empire. And the Northern kingdoms also do not shy away from clashing with each other, it's just that in this specific situation they unite against a common threat.

I find it pretty laughable that you are worried about Nilfgaard being portrayed in a negative way, while at the same time your opinion on the German Reich correlates to the opinions the majority have on Nilfgaard. In other words, you complain about Nilfgaard being portrayed as black in the black-and-white spectrum, while you yourself express the very same black-and-white rationing against the Reich. I'm not defending the atrocities which the Nazi Party wrought, but it's pretty naive to think that WW2 is simply a war between good guys and bad guys from an Evul Empire.

Double standards much?

Truth be told, Hitler did not really invent anything that now is associated with the Nazis and their atrocities. It's just that he did it within Europe, and not in some colonial lands on the other side of the world, of which the people back in the West did not really know about, nor they cared enough to be shocked. The scale was also different, but the Third Reich was just continuing what empires were doing since immemorial times.

 

[dragonbird]

... which is why we don't allow discussions to stray into real-world politics. Back to the game please.

 

[draconis184]

There you have it. There are simply no clear cut good or bad in wars. who knows, maybe CDProjekt will allow you to side with Nilfgaard. I really hope that we will be presented with difficult dilimmas, ones that force us to stare at the monitor for half an hour, pondering before clicking on a line of dialogue. I really hope we will face similar choices like the one we've seen in the trailer. CDProjekt already promised us that their quests will be very complex and will always result in consequences. What seems like a 'right' choice at first, will later be revealed as a devastating one.

Anyway, I doubt you have to worry about Nilfgaard being portrayed as 'evil' through a cheap method known as 'Kick the Dawg', ie. evil chancellor hears bad news, evil chancellor kills the messenger, so he must be evul lolz. Nah. We know CDP are better than that.

 

[Garrison72]

In one of the dev diaries leading up to TW2, a writer referred to Nilfgaard as imperial Rome or the Third Reich, actually. But talking with Cynthia at the end of the game shows CDPR will be sensitive to their point of view and will likely avoid painting them as generic bad guys. I actually agreed with her take on things somewhat.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Their behavior, and a lot worse than that, are sadly all too common occurrences in war. Portraying 3 Nilfgaaardian soldiers behaving that way does not caricaturize the empire as cartoonishly evil.

Now yes, I would appreciate future trailers to show a more nuanced portrayal. But they are not obligated to do that for every single trailer. Here, the focus is on Geralt and his morality, not on the Empire.

Yet Geralt's morality doesn't manifest itself in vacuum. The depiction of the three Nilfgaardian soldiers as cruel buffoons ends up tarnishing Geralt's own actions. First off, your claim that doing so does not "caricaturize the empire as cartoonishly evil" should be disputed (not trying to be gratuitously erudite here but to me this bears the mark of a synecdoche, especially taking into account how big the party is)

The soldiers' character also ends up cheapening the potential dilemma of having to decide which side stands for Evil: it is blatantly obvious, in so much any teenager could make the call, no need for Geralt's unorthodox moral compass here.

Lastly, the cruel buffoonish nature of the soldiers also diminishes Geralt's decision to step in. By choosing to act he risks nothing in the short run, certainly not his safety. What danger is there in confronting three armed men who can't seem to get hold of a single young girl?

In closing, my hopes lie with that smirk at the end. If the girl does turn out to be a vicious monster rather than a desperate peasant, if it turns out that Geralt mistakenly set her on the loose again, than CDProjekt will have hit a home run and woven a masterful commentary on moral veneer.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

First off, your claim that doing so does not "caricaturize the empire as cartoonishly evil" should be disputed (not trying to be gratuitously erudite here but to me this bears the marks of a synecdoche, especially taking into account how big the party is)

I will not be arguing over the rest of your comment, as we already did so, and while I do not agree with your general argument, I find it a fair point.

But I do not believe the actions of 3 nilfgaardians is sufficient to have a complete picture of the empire. After all, we saw northern soldiers in TW2 behaving the same way and worse (trying to rape sorceresses). And yet, these countries were not portrayed as cartoonishly evil, not in the slightest.

 

[gregski]

The reason I don't want this is because the option to side with them and that option to be viable which it wouldn't be if you were to side with a genocidal Empire.

So maybe there won't be an option to side with Nilfgaard. Or any kingdom at all. Maybe that's what the devs mean by "a more personal story" - Geralt will be able to take sides of individuals while he's looking for Yen, but as far as politics go he will stay neutral.

TBH it would fit the more personal character of the story, even though personally I would love to deal with politics at least at the same level as we did in TW2.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

In one of the dev diaries leading up to TW2, a writer referred to Nilfgaard as imperial Rome or the Third Reich, actually.

I won't be going into this in detail as it is a touchy subject.

The reason why that comment did and still does worry me is not because the Third Reich was all black, humanity is a lot more complicated than that. But that it would require a lot of exploration and study to be able to reach that nuanced conclusion.

It would be very difficult for a game to explore the whys and hows that should go back at least decades if not centuries), if you portray a faction that does very atrocious things. And if we don't have a good sense of the whys and hows, it may end up robbing them for humanity.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

How are Geralt's actions "tarnished" in this case, I just don't see it. What's tarnished is Geralt's neutrality, or at least his perception of his neutrality, which he realized he didn't value over someone getting raped; this is a decision he made under pressure, and it tells us, more so than anything else, of his character, so in that sense I think the trailer was well-made.

I also find the insistence to repaint this imagery of evil in "shades of grey" as inherently misguided- what kind of thing are you talking about in a practical sense, that he should have just walked away? In this case, there was no other option, so let's just stop saying otherwise.

Also, I think CDPR is playing a smart game with painting the Black Ones like this from the get-go; it's easier to understand that the soldiers of a conquering invader would be dicks, but when players will play the game, they will be surprised by the various shades of grey they'll observe in other Nilfgaardians.

But honestly, what's important to understand is that black and white exist in a grey world.

The way I see Geralt's action is that he did something that was right, perhaps despite knowing that the person for whom he was doing this might be culpable of whatever the soldier's were claiming.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Also, I think CDPR is playing a smart game with painting the Black Ones like this from the get-go; it's easier to understand that the soldiers of a conquering invader would be dicks, but when players will play the game, they will be surprised by the various shades of grey they'll observe in other Nilfgaardians.

Yes that's how I see it.

I think it's more impactful when you start off with
"Goodness, they are so evil."
And then slowly start saying "huh, they are not so bad after all."

Reminds me of how the Lannisters, specifically Jaime, were explored. Jaime's first act was to attempt to murder a kid as he's committing incest, so naturally everyone is like wtf is wrong with him. But as we slowly discover his character, we find out that he's actually probably the most moral of the Lannisters, and one of the most moral in the series.

And it's that gradual realization that makes it more memorable.