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

[Agent_Blue]

In order we no have proof of anything if you expose that A is an option I answer you that B or C are possible too. The fact you're convivenced that your own interpretation is good doesn't mean is THE good one.

«inconsistent evidence» - inconsistent with what and in what way?


Yes, here we go again... No proof that she practices cannibalisme or loot, only voiced acusation. And no proof in any senses but all our interpretations because CDPR describe an act of Geralt (he goes, he dismount, he don't wield his sword, he push men, he defend himself from their reponse and he leave behind him an open end to your imagination), no the conflict between both sides. All the rest are words, testimonies which we don't know if they are lies or not. Giving them one or another meaning is all up the watcher: me or you. Just what CDPR want us to do: ask ourself WHY?

Witchat,

There is a fundamental epistemological problem is the way you persist to approach this:
The burden of proof lies with those making positive claims.

When I make a positive claim such as the soldiers are defectors, I'm under the obligation to forward evidence to support the claim and it's not the case others are under the rhetorical obligation to disprove it.

Do you understand and agree with this basic principle?

******************************************************

One point that I haven't seen discussed is this:

The accusation seems to be read, i. e., the commander's intonation suggests he's reciting, perhaps reading from an official document. In either case it seems overly contrived to stage a conviction to the degree of either forging an official document or reciting a non existing accusation just for the sake of some sadistic role playing.

 

[wichat]

Witchat,

There is a fundamental epistemological problem is the way you persist to approach this:
The burden of proof lies with those making positive claims.

When I make a positive claim such as the soldiers are defectors, I'm under the obligation to forward evidence to support the claim and it's not the case others are under the rhetorical obligation to disprove it.

Do you understand and agree with this basic principle?

You can be under any obligation as you like. I see a short footage which give me a lot of interpretation with someone acusing a person who in turn clain she's innocent. I don't know anything more. No, wait, only one... I know Geralt and, till nobody say me the opposite, I think he has his own reason to act as he do. Maybe THIS is the point which really separates ours points of view. In other forums, people who have not played or read before Witcher saga have even different interpretation than yours. or I really didn't understand a word of all you have said, if so, sorry

 

[Jack_in_the-Green]

Well... my connection was down for a few days... so I had to wait to see this masterpiece of a trailer.

My jaw just dropped. Pure and sheer AWESOMNESS. Congrats to all devs for the quality work you're doing, Really, from the bottom of my heart. This captures the esence and spirit of the series.

I just hope we can save witches this way in the game.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I really don't see the evil smile some here see. But if it was there, it's hardly indicative. Most would have the same reaction of "malice" watching those who destroyed their lives hit the ground.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

There is a fundamental epistemological problem is the way you persist to approach this:
The burden of proof lies with those making positive claims.

When I make a positive claim such as the soldiers are defectors, I'm under the obligation to forward evidence to support the claim and it's not the case others are under the rhetorical obligation to disprove it.

Do you understand and agree with this basic principle?

******************************************************

One point that I haven't seen discussed is this:

The accusation seems to be read, i. e., the commander's intonation suggests he's reciting, perhaps reading from an official document. In either case it seems overly contrived to stage a conviction to the degree of either forging an official document or reciting a non existing accusation just for the sake of some sadistic role playing.

About basic principle: Well, you understand and accept it, I understand and accept it. But not everyone does, and probably won't even understand what this principle means or implies.

About official sentence: yes, we kind of mentioned it in the beginning. The same reason - why to bother with this at all, if all they want is to brutalize her. Obviously, nobody was impressed, and simply discarded this point as irrelevant.

 

[jbell2825]

There is a fundamental epistemological problem is the way you persist to approach this:
The burden of proof lies with those making positive claims.

Does this imply that we need more proof of the girls guilt, and in lack of that proof that she is innocent and Geralt acted as we would hope any decent person would, to defend the innocent?

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Does this imply that we need more proof of the girls guilt, and in lack of that proof that she is innocent and Geralt acted as we would hope any decent person would, to defend the innocent?

No, it means that the Nilfgaardians are without fault, and that their words can be taken at face value

 

[Agent_Blue]

Does this imply that we need more proof of the girls guilt, and in lack of that proof that she is innocent and Geralt acted as we would hope any decent person would, to defend the innocent?

Why would you want to focus this on real life moral principles when you know that is such a contentious topic and that it probably won't advance the discussion, not an inch further, hey?

Apart from the absence of blood on her, in my opinion almost every single indirect hint points at her culpability. This issue however is separate from the issue of the terrible abuse she was subjected to by the three men.

I have no interest, none whatsoever, in passing real life moral judgements on fictional characters and their behaviour. I fail to see the point and in fact believe it ends up getting in the way of one of fiction's main purposes, which is to shed light on human nature.

So, by all means, you go ahead. I'll stay out of it.

 

[secondchildren]

Ok now, stick on the topic please and avoid any other useless argueing.

 

[wichat]

About basic principle: Well, you understand and accept it, I understand and accept it. But not everyone does, and probably won't even understand what this principle means or implies.

I beg your pardon if people have not your same level of culture. Some times a little explation lead to a major understanding if the lack of understanding any principle is so obvious instead rolling eyes. />

Why would you want to focus this on real life moral principles when you know that is such a contentious topic and that it probably won't advance the discussion, not an inch further, hey?

Yes, Yes, Yes! that is such a contentious topic with a little and trivial detail which CDPR PUT it in the scene as a part of the story: Geralt KNOWS something about those men, otherwise, the fragment where he receives the reward is not irrelevant and it would not have been included in the footage. It's there to create the disturbing sense that Geralt easily doesn't take their word as a meaningful word. Take off this fragment and I couldn't argue agaisnt the credibility of those men. You're saying that all the footage is relevant? Then let's take the whole information. But in a No Man's Land where anyone can be any other in disguise I cannot see the need to believe so easily on words just because they fit perfectly in our conception of rules or duty or moral born afters centuries of Real History and real events. Geralt's world is an unreal world of fantasy with its own History and conceptions. Our real principles have not much to do with this fantasy world.

 

[wichat]

Ok now, stick on the topic please and avoid any other useless argueing.

Sorry! I was writing while you posted that!

 

[Agent_Blue]

I beg your pardon if people have not your same level of culture. Some times a little explation lead to a major understanding if the lack of understanding any principle is so obvious instead rolling eyes. />/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>



Yes, Yes, Yes! that is such a contentious topic with a little and trivial detail which CDPR PUT it in the scene as a part of the story: Geralt KNOWS something about those men, otherwise, the fragment where he receives the reward is not irrelevant and it would not have been included in the footage. It's there to create the disturbing sense that Geralt easily doesn't take their word as a meaningful word. Take off this fragment and I couldn't argue agaisnt the credibility of those men. You're saying that all the footage is relevant? The let's take the whole information. But in a No Man's Land where anyone can be any other in disguise I cannot see the need to believe so easily on words just because they fit perfectly in our conception of rules or duty or moral born afters centuries of History and events. Geralt's world is an unreal world of fantasy with its own History and conceptions. Our real principles have not much to do with this fantasy world.

Wichat,

When I said «basic principle» I didn't mean to insinuate you hadn't enough of a «level of culture», not by a long shot. It's a basic principle in the sense that I believe it's a pre-requisite. Indeed, if the principle is not agreed upon, even if only implicitly, this kind of speculative discussion becomes very frustrating, in my opinion.

Let's say there are 4 people in a room. One of them is making the claim flying pink elephants exist. Now the person who is making the positive claim flying pink elephants do live out there has the burden of proof. He must demonstrate the claim is indeed valid, this by presenting evidence and applying reasoning. The group can either accept his claim or refuse it. Their failure or lack of an attempt at disproving says little to nothing about the validity of the original claim. They can simply argue the evidence presented before them is lacking in this or that manner, that the reasoning's flawed for this or that reason, and therefore they are refraining from taking on the claim.

The claimer can't go around saying that because the group has not demonstrated his claim to be false, that it means flying pink elephants are as real as smelly socks.

Likewise, if one's going to claim those soldiers are defectors, one has to come up with evidence found in the trailer, hints found in the trailer or apply deductive reasoning to back that claim up and not expect that because somehow others couldn't or wouldn't prove them soldiers not to be defectors that it means one's thesis has just been validated.

 

[wichat]

Defectors? I've thought in taht option a several posts earlier. And all I've tryd to said this last 5-10 posts of mine (I don't gonna count them) is just about taking the footage as it is presented and from here nothing evidences that men or woman words are the truth. As I've said, a uniform won't make give more credibility than another look in this No Man's Land. And vice versa

I'd not understood you were arguing about defectors or any interpretation else. Sorry. In fact, I will let pass some days giving a time for that all those options here debated can fade away from my mind before rewatching it />/>

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Wichat,

When I said «basic principle» I didn't mean to insinuate you hadn't enough of a «level of culture», not by a long shot. It's a basic principle in the sense that I believe that it's a pre-requisite. Indeed, if the principle is not agreed upon, even if only implicitly, this kind of speculative discussion becomes very frustrating, in my opinion.

Let's say there are 4 people in a room. One of them is making the claim flying pink elephants exist. Now the person who is making the positive claim flying pink elephants do exist has the burden of proof. He must demonstrate the claim is indeed valid, this by presenting evidence and applying reasoning. The group can either accept his claim or refuse it. But they have no responsibility to actively disprove it. In fact, their failure or lack of an attempt at disproving says little to nothing about its validity.

The person can't go around saying that because the group has not demonstrated the claim to be false, that it means flying pink elephants are damn real.

Likewise, if one's going to claim those soldiers are defectors, one has to come up with evidence found in the trailer, hints found in the trailer or apply deductive reasoning to back that claim up and not expect that because somehow others couldn't or wouldn't prove them soldiers not to be defectors that it means one's thesis has just been validated.

Yes, and about positive claims based on the trailer: it is reasonable to believe that the girl is guilty.
- soldiers read an official verdict, and if they were just brigands bent on tormenting her, they wouldn't have bothered with this.
- Nilfgaard is portrayed as an empire with very strict laws, so it would indicate that the soldiers acted under orders, and that the verdict was not a fake.
- no reason to support that they were lying. Just being a Nilfgaardian does not amount to automatically being a lying brigand who is out to murder and pillage.

So here some supporting evidence is based on a trailer itself, and on info about Nilfgaard we got from the previous games. But the girl is completely unfamiliar to us, so no info on her is present in any of the previous games. So I find no reasons to claim she was innocent.

 

[wichat]

- soldiers read an official verdict,

In a No Man's Land? Do you mean there has been a legal trial? With a Judge?

Any way, I see this footage too grey for finding a black or white interpretation.And, as wewill playing Geralt, and Geralt won't have all information of events, I still siding his decision, as grey as this age.If he inteven is because he has a reason to believe they are not so white as words (writen or spoken) claim.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Yes, and about positive claims based on the trailer: it is reasonable to believe that the girl is guilty.
- soldiers read an official verdict, and if they were just brigands bent on tormenting her, they wouldn't have bothered with this.
- Nilfgaard is portrayed as an empire with very strict laws, so it would indicate that the soldiers acted under orders, and that the verdict was not a fake.
- no reason to support that they were lying. Just being a Nilfgaardian does not amount to automatically being a lying brigand who is out to murder and pillage.

So here some supporting evidence is based on a trailer itself, and on info about Nilfgaard we got from the previous games. But the girl is completely unfamiliar to us, so no info on her is present in any of the previous games. So I find no reasons to claim she was innocent.

Like it has been mentioned before, it doesn't matter that that woman might be guilty or not, what matters is that Geralt believed he was saving an innocent, or even in the case that he knew that the woman might bear some culpability, it doesn't matter because of the way the soldiers were acting; in this latter case, we can assume that Geralt didn't find that woman's crime as offensive. Personally, I think he didn't hear them read that proclaimation, and that when he arrived on the scene, he just saw three soldiers beating up a peasant.

Moreover, I think Geralt would have still stopped the soldiers even if he had heard of her crimes, just like when he stepped in to investigate the Malena case.

Really though, we can't just assume that the soldiers could not have made a mistake in pin-pointing her as the criminal; we don't have enough info to say that they were absolutely correct in blaming the mentioned crimes on this woman. So, we can't even say that their words confirm her guilt.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

In a No Man's Land? Do you mean there has been a legal trial? With a Judge?

It does not need to be an official trial in our sense. But someone with legal authority made this decision. We can talk about his authority not applicable to Northern lands just yet, or something else in this vein, but it does not change this case. The case is whether we are given evidence that the girl is guilty, and not about whether Nilfgaardians had any authority to sentence her. Any under their laws they found her guilty.
Again, there is NO evidence at all she was just an innocent victim. When all info we can get is based only this trailer and previous games, conclusion should be that she was guilty.
Whether her actions are excusable, or not is another matter.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

- soldiers read an official verdict, and if they were just brigands bent on tormenting her, they wouldn't have bothered with this.

Official verdicts can be forged. Crimes can be invented.

One can create excuses to torment for a whole mess of reason. Indeed, it does not exclude sadism, for an official edict adds to the feeling of power, something sadists generally like. Not to mention a variety of political reasons as to why verdicts can be forged (defamation and avoiding martyrdom among a dozen more). The verdict thus does not in the slightest prove she is guilty.

- Nilfgaard is portrayed as an empire with very strict laws, so it would indicate that the soldiers acted under orders, and that the verdict was not a fake.

Nilfgaard is an empire that discriminates based on blood purity, where non-Nilfgaardians in their empire are treated as second class. And now it is conducting an invasion.

It being strict with laws, does not necessarily mean they are as adamant about it in war time and certainly not when it comes to a northerner civilian, not when they wouldn't be treated equally and fairly in peace time to begin with.

As such, any affirmation that she is guilty is as baseless as affirmations of her innocence. The best you can say is that she may be guilty, and that you lean towards that theory.

 

[GuyNwah]

The problem with the argument that the soldiers cannot be "defectors" is twofold:

One, nobody accused the soldiers of being "defectors". That would indeed be a positive claim demanding of evidence. But it is not a claim that anybody made.

Two, the rules of due process apply, because a person stands accused of crimes. This is important, because it is the key to determining whether Geralt or anybody else has good and sufficient reason to countenance the sentence being executed.

For due process to obtain, the truth of the charges must be proven. In order to do this, you must prove that the commander is not lying. That is not an impossible proof of a negative. It is not an impossible demand to prove charges when the evidence is not before us. It is a proof that must be made by presenting evidence that upholds the commander as a loyal servant of the Empire, acting in adherence to lawful orders.

Every one of us can cite examples of soldiers committing war crimes against civilians in a perversion of "justice", from ancient and medieval times all the way to the present day. There is good reason, reason we can sympathize with and believe as reasonable people, reason that we can believe Geralt himself reaches and holds, to doubt that the commander is telling the truth.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Official verdicts can be forged. Crimes can be invented.

One can create excuses to torment for a whole mess of reason. Indeed, it does not exclude sadism, for an official edict adds to the feeling of power, something sadists generally like. The verdict thus does not in the slightest prove she is guilty.

What hints found in the trailer favour the idea the verdict has been forged?

You - supposedly, for the sake of this argument - are making the positive claim the verdict has been forged.
Burden of proof is on you.