I know, it is from Renfri case. But Renfri situation is way far from clear-cut, and the situation itself is well presented. It is her who talks about lesser evil - to give her a mage to be killed (lesser evil), otherwise she will butcher half the town, exactly as she did it before. To give this lesser evil to her is to agree to the demands of a murderous gang, and it is not a lesser evil in any way. And in this situation Geralt saves both the town, and the mage. So here we have a clear-cut Bioware kind of choice, actually, when everything ends well. But it is not indicative of the game, or the books. It is more of a fluke than a rule.cmdrsilverbolt said:
Having not read the books and having not played the games, I will take your word for it.KnightofPhoenix said:
However, like vivaxardas has pointed out, that creates a problem. See, either the series is mostly about morally ambiguous choices or it's mostly about clean-cut crossroads. Which of the two is it? To me this is axiomatic: the first CGI trailer should epitomize the game.
So pardon the over-simplification, but borrowing from vivaxardas' terms, either the trialer is misleading or the game not centred around morally ambiguous choices after all, like we've been told. In reality, it's not this black-and-white, but you get the idea.
@ viva: It's not a Bioware thing- it's a human being thing, or at least it's the kind of thing we should expect people to do.
The details of the two cases only matter in so much as how Geralt perceives them- if he felt that he needed to do something in that case, then that's all that matters.
The details of the two cases only matter in so much as how Geralt perceives them- if he felt that he needed to do something in that case, then that's all that matters.
This is an unnecessary distinction, and seriously unfounded based on the events of one trailer.
wow 41 pages this quick from a trailer. Imagine when we get actual news
This CGI epitomizes its protagonist.AgentBlue said:
A moral absolutist. Always was and always will be.
Who lives in a world where it's not possible to hold such views. And yet he perseveres. As a moral nihilist, I actually respect the stubbornness of his foolishness.
Sorry, you're a moral nihilist?KnightofPhoenix said:
Those don't exist. It's just an urban myth.
And come on. If the game is centred around the protagonist and the trailer epitomizes the protagonist than it necessarily epitomizes the game. Or doesn't.
The mark of maturity is knowing when to act, and that's exactly what Geralt does- he acts in a situation which calls for it. Neither the games, nor the books, are about "doing shit to be a contrarian shit because fuck you society", so I find any claims about the trailer being misleading or inaccurate in terms of character or world portrayal as seriously incorrect.
Do we read different books and play different games? Geralt does not care for wars, does not join any side, and keeps neutrality whenever possible. The witchers in general see wars opportunustically, as the time they have more work, and earn much more money. He starts to interfere only when it concerns him personally (people he cares about are threatened). Very strange moral absolutism if it does not give a damn most of the time. Also Geralt is perfectly capable of choosing between two evils. Why a hell this sudden fit of moral consciousness and a proclamation of a moral creed?KnightofPhoenix said:
Yes, and no not in the way the mainstream understands it or uses the term. But my ethical beliefs are irrelevant.AgentBlue said:
No. There is a difference between the protagonist, and the world he or she is in. In fact that's the beauty of the Witcher.
Geralt does not belong in the world he is in. Geralt is like taking a moral paragon and throwing him in a world that brutally and violently shakes his moral compass. That's why he's an idealistic cynic. it may seem like a contradiction, but is the only way someone can be an idealist while still having a brain in a world like the witcher's (or the real world but I digress).
You mean like when he gave his life protecting complete strangers in Rivia?vivaxardas said:
You mean when he protected civilians in La Valette city from Temerian soldiers?
You mean when he protected nonhumans from the pogrom in Flotsam?
You mean when he killed Kaedwenis as they were trying to rape a sorceress he never met?
You mean him either going after Loredo or risking his life saving nonhumans from burning?
Geralt doesn't get out of his way to make the world a better place. But if something he sees as evil is happening in front of his eyes, he goes in with no concern over his safety.
Not convinced.KnightofPhoenix said:
If you say the beauty and genius of TW universe is the mismatch between protagonist and world then the first CGI trailer should epitomize such mismatch, that tension. And that tension is the game.
I disagree.AgentBlue said:
I think it's smart that the first trailer completely focuses on the protagonist. And then have other trailers that showcase the world.
It would make people wonder how Geralt can live in such a world. It would make people feel Geralt's plight even more.
In the game he does most of it only if YOU, the player, choose it. And in any case it is not a major theme of the books or games. To make it indicative of his character, or the game, in a possible situation where in TW3 he often will be simply unable to make a good decisions because none will be good, is to mislead potential new players.KnightofPhoenix said:
Geralt's actions are a major theme of the books (which involve him), and that's what this trailer was about- the actions Geralt would take in certain situations. If you disagree with his actions, fine, but you can't say that they are uncharacteristic when they are based on things that he would do in the books.
Pretty sure there wasn't a choice for the Rivia pogrom.
Pretty sure there wasn't a choice for the Rivia pogrom.
No, not in all of them.vivaxardas said:
He gave his life in Rivia to protect the innocent, that's in the book.
He goes after Loredo, a tyrant, or saves nonhumans from burning. You choose between the two, but either way he is choosing to involve himself in something that does not concern him personally, for the sake of doing good.
He saves the sorceress from being raped without your input.
And he does save La Valette civilians if you enter the house where two soldiers are about to kill two guys. You don't have the choice to leave them to their fate.
He goes after Jacques, even though he could have very well left and not involve himself in this.
And this is not mentioning the fact that he agreed with Zoltan's statement: the greatest evil is moral relativity.
It's not misleading. It's surprising.
That's like saying GRRM misled his fans
when he had Ned or Robb killed. No, he didn't.
Besides, other trailers will come. I doubt a lot of people base their decision of purchase based on one trailer and without having a slight idea of the world. This is a game for a niche market, with people who generally care about setting and lore.
Might want to put spoiler tags for that GRRM detail.
No problem on my part, just in case for anyone else :]
No problem on my part, just in case for anyone else :]
All right, I can grant that Geralt is a moral absolutist. By the way, even this entire talk about lesser or greater evil may even require a person to be a moral absolutist, I do not know. But moral absolutism is a view about the nature of moral truths, and application of moral concepts (that they real existence, independent from our beliefs, and there are such real thing as evil), and not about moral conduct. Before 19-20 century practically everyone was moral absolutist, people understood that doing certain things were wrong, bu simply did not give a damn. Just believing that moral truths are objective does not mean to be a good person, and to be against evil. Geralt could turn away, or to demand to be paid for some of his deeds. He was not jumping on any case of injustice he happened to see.KnightofPhoenix said:
But this trailer indicates that Geralt not only believes, but also acts according to the True and the Good. I sure hope it is misleading, and there won't be any paragon way through the game, when in every damn case there is a right and good solution. I am always for having more options, but not in this case. Whether this game is for the niche market, or CDPR chose to go mainstream is exactly what is under discussion. I sure as hell hope they chose to stay in its nice niche, and won't try to please everyone.
It's already not happening.vivaxardas said:
I predict success of near-Skyrim proportions.
They can smell it and I can smell them smelling it.
As I have already shown you, Geralt acts to be good. When he sees evil, he fights it, at the risk of losing his own life. That has always been the case, in both TW1 and TW2.
I see no reason to worry that CDPR will forget what made its 2 games great. There will be moral ambiguity. They are just not obligated to every single time point to it. The games also have clear cut scenarios.
I see no reason to worry that CDPR will forget what made its 2 games great. There will be moral ambiguity. They are just not obligated to every single time point to it. The games also have clear cut scenarios.