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

+
KnightofPhoenix said:
I never claimed it was not a weakness, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. Their means of conquest have nothing to do with the instability that occurred, which was fought only among Arabs, the conquerors themselves.

Had the conquered decided to rise up, the empires would have collapsed permanently right then and then.

Then the same can be said about the Mongols who were as brutal as it gets as conquerors yet did not have their empire fall due to rebellions and uprising but rather civil wars among the various Mongol leaders.

The Brutal Conqueror can be as effective if not more so then the benevolent one. Ghenkis Khan proved that as did his immediate successors. Instilling fear into a population so they would surrender rather then fight did work, and the propaganda efforts by the Mongols paid off. Now of course the Mongols did help those that bent their knees to rise up and incorporated them into their Empire.
 
I don't understand why we need to get so technical about what happened in the trailer, and bring real world history into this; it seems like over-analyzing to me. Is it that hard to accept that Geralt would have had a problem with what those soldiers were doing with the woman? I don't find it necessary to rationalize his response because it just seems like such a natural thing, to help someone about to be brutalized.

Just take heart in knowing that you will have control over his actions in the game, but seriously I find it strange that people would find this particular action of Geralt as objectionable.

Also, I said this before about how his actions fit with what he was saying, so I'll post it again:

I think the dilemma isn't between choosing a side, woman or soldiers, it's between acting or not acting. I don't think Geralt cares about the details of the situation, he acted based on what he saw and did what he thought he should, after coming to the conclusion that he should act.

And I don't understand why we're smacking our definition of evil on what Geralt thinks is evil; perhaps he doesn't think that the woman did anything evil [...]. But that doesn't mean that there's no dilemma on his part on whether he should act or not- he's not the judge of anything, he can't force his definition of evil or justice on those soldiers, he wouldn't be in any right to do that, and that was his dilemma.

At the end of it, he said fuck it- he chose what he thought was no evil, to help that woman.
 
cmdrsilverbolt said:
I think the dilemma isn't between choosing a side, woman or soldiers, it's between acting or not acting. I don't think Geralt cares about the details of the situation

/End Thread.
 
CostinMoroianu said:
Then the same can be said about the Mongols who were as brutal as it gets as conquerors yet did not have their empire fall due to rebellions and uprising but rather civil wars among the various Mongol leaders.

In reality, they never had an empire. As in an actual state. It was more of a military subjugation that an actual empire such as Rome. Add to that, that the mongols succeeded in large part because of the particularities of central Asia. They could afford to massacre cities, because their backbone were nomadic tribes, trukic specifically. Indeed, the majority of soldiers in mongol armies were always Turkic. In otherwords, they had a natural ally that they coopted. The mongol confederation was never urban and as such could get away with razing cities to the ground. Its cultural impact was so limited that they were assimilated by the peoples they conquered, hence why there were no long term revolts. They didn't need to, the conquered end up conquering them.

Nilfgaard is different on both accounts. It does not have a natural ally in the North other than the Scoia'tael and that's no longer the case, so it can't afford to brutalize everyone. That and it's an urban focused empire. Also it's not going to or planning to be assimilated by the North. On the contrary, it wants to assimilate them. And only a fool would think that a culture and ideas are spread by fear and brute force alone.

No one is denying the importance of fear in any military action. But to rely solely or mostly on it is foolish and not the mark of great leadership.
 
slimgrin said:
/End Thread.


I agree, 'cause despite all those argues pro-anti woman-soldiers the real and unique fact is we are judging Geralt's desicion. And to me, this Geralt just act as my Geralt I know from books. The one who CDPR loves. The mutant who hate abusers (not a soldier with honor)

wherefore The New CG Cinematic for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Shows Geralt ''Killing Monsters makes me have goosebumps of pure emotion
 

Agent_Blue

Guest
There's a wonderful Robert Mckee quote

Imagine Attila, King of the Huns poised on the borders of fifth- century Europe, surveying his hordes and asking himself: "Should I invade, murder, rape, plunder, burn, and lay waste ... or should I go home?" For Attila this is no choice at all. He must invade, slay, plunder, and lay waste. He didn't lead tens of thousands of warriors across two continents to turn around when he finally came within sight of the prize. In the eyes of his victims, however, his is an evil decision. But that's their point of view. For Attila his choice is not only the right thing to do, but probably the moral thing to do. No doubt, like many of history's great tyrants, he felt he was on a holy mission.

Geralt's momentary indecision has to do with his role in the world. But that doesn't make it a real dilemma. One has to ask, what does he stand to lose by intervening?

Nothing.

He knows he can bring the party down easily. Thus he goes in without his swords and Vesemir doesn't even feel the need to dismount. The whole ordeal ends in a matter of twenty seconds.

No dilemma.
 
AgentBlue said:
There's a wonderful Robert Mckee quote



Geralt's momentary indecision has to do with his role in the world. But that doesn't make it a real dilemma. One has to ask, what does he stand to lose by intervening?

Nothing.

He knows he can bring the party down easily. Thus he goes in without his swords and Vesemir doesn't even feel the need to dismount. The whole ordeal ends in a matter of twenty seconds.

No dilemma.

No, there's no dilemma but an asseveration of how Geralt is. No dilemma in his heart when he knows what his doing and why.
 

Agent_Blue

Guest
One thing I've noticed about the trailer:

Geralt's waist seems back to normal.
 
AgentBlue said:
There's a wonderful Robert Mckee quote

Geralt's momentary indecision on whether or not to intervene has to do with his role in the world. But that doesn't make it a real dilemma. One has to ask, what does Geralt stand to lose by intervening?

Nothing.

He knows he can beat the party down easily. Thus, he goes in without his swords and Vesemir doesn't even feel the need to dismount. The whole ordeal ends in a matter of sixty seconds.

No dilemma.
Are you seriously saying that he doesn't have anything to lose by killing a bunch of soldiers of an invading army. We can imagine any number of consequences for him doing what he did; I'm surprised someone who quotes McKee isn't creative enough to imagine such scenarios.

And what does the fact that he can beat up the soldiers easily have to do with there being a dilemma or not? It doesn't matter that he's stronger, or less likely to die; these are unrelated details. It's not necessary that everyone would think about loss of life or personal harm when facing a dilemma such as the one Geralt did; he know he's a strong, capable person, if he was holding back, then there was another reason for doing so.

I think that reason has to do with the fact that his mentor was advising him to not get involved, and that witchers in general are advised to not interfere. Moreover, the attitude of kowtowing to the conquering invader is a natural response in the interest of self-preservation.

So no, there was a dilemma- what would be the consequence of breaking the witcher's neutrality, and what would be consequence of openly murdering soldiers of an invading army. Geralt simply did not give a shit about those things because he thought there was something more important- to not let someone he perceived to be a victim be brutalized and murdered.

Remember how he scoffs at the Captain that his hunt was tougher? We can discern from these bits of info that he already had disdain for their actions, but he was holding back because of his reasons. But then, he snapped when they talked about "doing it [their] way". If we think that implied rape, then it's possible that he thought that as well.

So again, no- he had something to lose, his neutrality and reputation, but he did what he thought he should. That's that, really.
 
There's a dilemma for you and me... not for Geralt, not in that case. He had been already persued in the middle of the previous war, and he really didn't worry about his acts could be create more enemies or not. He didn't doubt to defend the bridge against Nilfgaarian army with Cahir by his side. He was thinking on Milva, Ciri, Yen, Jaskier... but not on Emhyr or Folstest or Henselt....

No, his reputation is not in danger.
 
I'm just answering questions at this point, I can't even comprehend what half the words in the context of these arguments mean anymore. It's like some people are coming up with any bunch of reasons to prove that the trailer sucked. First, it was that he shouldn't have picked a side because neutrality. Then he shouldn't have killed those poor soldiers because the woman was probably bad too. Then he shouldn't have gotten into a fight and left the guy alive. Now, he never had any dilemma in the trailer, so the entire story in TW3 is not going to have any morally-ambiguous themes (seriously?). I just don't get why people keep imagining new arguments when one gets beaten down, it's confusing, really.

I think you're mistaken about my use of the word "reputation", I meant that he would be declaring himself an open enemy if someone lets out that he killed these soldiers, and that's not good for staying alive or doing business.

I also disagree that he wasn't hesitant about helping the lady- he only helped her when they threatened rape, but not before that.
 
Maybe we have a different interpretation of the meaning of the release of this trailer, not the unknown story we see. You see an summarized exposition about the constants dilemma Geralt will find in the game. I see the portrait of The Wticher Geralt of Rivia. You see the dilemma because you're thinking about the whole game, I see the portrait because I'm thinking about the character of Geralt. Doesn't meaning to be imcompatible. You see the forest, I see the tree ;)/>
 
Wichat said:
Maybe we have a different interpretation of the meaning of the release of this trailer, not the unknown story we see. You see an summarized exposition about the constants dilemma Geralt will find in the game. I see the portrait of The Wticher Geralt of Rivia. You see the dilemma because you're thinking about the whole game, I see the portrait because I'm thinking about the character of Geralt. Doesn't meaning to be imcompatible. You see the forest, I see the tree ;)/>/>
You're giving me too much credit, but thanks ^^
 
cmdrsilverbolt said:
I also disagree that he wasn't hesitant about helping the lady- he only helped her when they threatened rape, but not before that.

Before that we see a deal acomplished which obviuosly implied there's a lot of things before the whole scene. Does he hesitate? Why? With the image of that deal we can especulate as you like. We have no information. Of nothing. So to me it seems anosense to try searching guilties or innocents, to me there's only Geralt acting as he always had done. Just CDPR is introducing Geralt Of Rivia: "Don't you like it? then easy, don't play it."
 
Wichat said:
Before that we see a deal acomplished which obviuosly implied there's a lot of things before the whole scene. Does he hesitate? Why? With the image of that deal we can especulate as you like. We have no information. Of nothing. So to me it seems anosense to try searching guilties or innocents, to me there's only Geralt acting as he always had done...
[/I]
Yeah, there's simply no way to judge who was less culpable in that scenario, there's not enough info, like you said. Not to mention, it's impossible for us to derive such conclusions simply from the facts of the trailer because we're human, and certain things are likely to bias us. But none of this matters for Geralt and the actions he took- he was just reacting to the situation, and that's what we see.
 

Agent_Blue

Guest
* A Mckee quoter yet unimaginative poster? Feel free to edit out the sleazy psychoanalysis in your post /> *

A dilemma happens when one stands to loose either way. That's what makes choosing so hard. Attila the Hun is facing no dilemma, nor is Geralt.

When Geralt dismounts to sort the matter with his own hands does Vesemir attempt to stop him?

By intervening, Geralt does not risk losing his status as a protégé with his mentor, does not endanger himself nor his mentor, does not put his stand with the invading army at risk and does not hazard blemishing his own reputation nor the witchers' as a whole.

He kills two soldiers. Leaves the third hanging with his hands tied behind his back. An unimpaired cannibal stands at his side. There shan't be any witnesses, cmdr_silverbolt.
 

Agent_Blue

Guest
ionmilescu said:
OMG THE VOICES ARE AMAZING!
Guys you should think of getting polish version or russian(imho best geralt is russian one), it will certainly add to the atmosphere!

Yes.
I'll venture as far as saying I actually like the Polish Geralt VA better.


Perhaps the forum could crowdfund him some top notch English classes? What say ye?
 
cmdrsilverbolt said:
I don't understand why we need to get so technical about what happened in the trailer, and bring real world history into this; it seems like over-analyzing to me. Is it that hard to accept that Geralt would have had a problem with what those soldiers were doing with the woman? I don't find it necessary to rationalize his response because it just seems like such a natural thing, to help someone about to be brutalized.

Just take heart in knowing that you will have control over his actions in the game, but seriously I find it strange that people would find this particular action of Geralt as objectionable.

Also, I said this before about how his actions fit with what he was saying, so I'll post it again:

I think the dilemma isn't between choosing a side, woman or soldiers, it's between acting or not acting. I don't think Geralt cares about the details of the situation, he acted based on what he saw and did what he thought he should, after coming to the conclusion that he should act.

And I don't understand why we're smacking our definition of evil on what Geralt thinks is evil; perhaps he doesn't think that the woman did anything evil [...]. But that doesn't mean that there's no dilemma on his part on whether he should act or not- he's not the judge of anything, he can't force his definition of evil or justice on those soldiers, he wouldn't be in any right to do that, and that was his dilemma.

At the end of it, he said fuck it- he chose what he thought was no evil, to help that woman.

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.
 
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.

When Geralt dismounts to sort the matter with his own hands does Vesemir attempt to stop him?

By intervening, Geralt does not stand to loose his status as a protégé with his mentor, does not endanger himself or his mentor, does not risk to loose his stand with the invading army and does not risk blemishing his own reputation nor the witchers' as a whole.

He kills two soldiers. Leaves the third hanging with his hands tied behind his back. An unimpaired cannibal stands nearby.
There shall be no witnesses.
Haha, okay, since you're omniscient, I guess that resolves everything.
 
Top Bottom