Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Game News New Witcher 3 "Killing Monsters" trailer (CD Projekt cannot into countdowns)

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
That's because it doesn't, really. What you're trying to say is that if it's any good, it probably will have. I mean, why have acid trippin' ninja hobbits unless there's a reason for it? Again, your argument is kind of self-defeating. I mean, I can't think of an example of a good work of art that doesn't justify all its choices. Thus we agree, it's just a question of the hen or the egg.
Your example is a quick throw-away, and honestly doesn't sound like some great work of art.

I like your last sentiment though, that a good work of art will justify it's all of it's choices, so the choice to make an adaptation will be included.

However, part of enjoying art--for me at least--is questioning the choices they make.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
That's because it doesn't, really. What you're trying to say is that if it's any good, it probably will have. I mean, why have acid trippin' ninja hobbits unless there's a reason for it? Again, your argument is kind of self-defeating. I mean, I can't think of an example of a good work of art that doesn't justify all its choices. Thus we agree, it's just a question of the hen or the egg.
Your example is a quick throw-away, and honestly doesn't sound like some great work of art.

We're not talking about "great works of art" necessarily though. The points we're discussing here are universal enough to fit for all "art," on all scales of quality. Like The Rock is a great action film but hardly a "great work of art."
 

Servo

Arcane
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,479
Location
1988
I don't want to repeat the whole argument, but if someone thought (referring to a derivative work) that the original was better than the derivative, then isn't it at least a little bit reasonable for them to suggest that the derivative should have striven to be more like the original?

To me, that's what it sounds like @Mrowak is saying. While @Grunker's point is that it is possible for the game to be good even if it's different from the books, Mrowak's point is that it could be better.

I dunno, what the hell are we arguing about? Both points of view are correct :?

I think, Grunker, you are extrapolating and simplifying Mrowak's argument for the point of making it look stupid so it's easy to knock down. Isn't that the definition of straw man?

If Mrowak literally said "The game automatically sucks because it's not 100% faithful," then I would see the point.

I don't care about your expectations. Nobody cares.

That's obviously not true. Mrowak, as a fan of the franchise, has a reason to care, even if you don't and nobody else does. It would bother the shit out of me if Star Wars Ep. 7 turned The Force into an omnipotent teddy bear. Yeah, that movie might be good otherwise, but it wouldn't be Star Wars.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
Seriously, what is it with the throng of people who turn up and say Mrowak doesn't mean what he is saying? The man is intelligent and well-formulated, he says what he means and means what he says, and he is more than capable of defending himself.

The below be interpreted in any other way than "derivatives are inherently worse if they do not remain faithful to the original", but there are many more places in our discussion where Mrowak makes it clear that this is his attitude (that's if it isn't enough that Mrowak hasn't corrected me instead of carrying on with the debate).

being faitful to the material

Fuck this. Seriously. No one cares if something "faithful to the material", as long as it is good. See aforementioned acid-trippin' ninja hobbits from space.

Faithful to the material not on superficial level, as in "Geralt must be a swordsmaster, cannot have a shield, cannot specialise in magic, must, must stick to the paragon person in the books - he cannot evolve beyond that" (which is actually the case in TW games - I find that very short-sighted). It's more about the theme, the tone, the subject matter, the atmosphere, the context and the "magic". Take the world of the witcher and change it to "acid-trippin' ninja hobbits from space" and I am off the ride, brother. Sure, it may be cool, it may even be creative, but the medium doesn't get to be called "The Witcher" in my eyes when it defies its cornerstones that I came to enjoy in the first place (btw, in case of such radical changes why not create a new world then?).
 

Servo

Arcane
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,479
Location
1988
I didn't get the impression he was saying "derivatives are inherently worse if they do not remain faithful to the original," just that "derivatives that are worse would be better if they remained faithful."

Maybe @Mrowak could clarify.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
I think you missed the memo that the new thing to do on this discussion forum is to tell people who discuss that they're idiots for doing so.
 

Servo

Arcane
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,479
Location
1988
I think you missed the memo that the new thing to do on this discussion forum is to tell people who discuss that they're idiots for doing so.

We need a new meme/avatar for that. Like "Ur conversation that I am conversing are dumb." Along with a picture of an adorable kitten.
 

hiver

Guest
This is not about saving a girl. This is about killing monsters.
Making it clear that humans are also, or can be, monsters.
Therefore removing the superficial fake border between the two, the "good" humans and "bad" monsters - thus making the story, setting and theme truly morally gray.

Idiots.
 

Ackermanus

Educated
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
55
Location
Playground
:avatard:

Not having read any of the books, I can still sympathize with those who feel the games are not being true to the original and oppose them. While Grunker has a very strong point that really shouldn't be disregarded (a good game or whatever is good or bad regardless of how it compares to the source material), there is nothing inherently irrational about disliking how something "rapes" the lore (wait, wait, read on), because:

1: Considering how IPs work, by creating a game based on a setting and botching it you are greatly lessening the odds someone will do said good setting justice (see fallout). At best, you will have good spiritual successors, but these are not the same thing and 2: Depending on the case you may be influencing future games/books of the franchise, even if the rights to the franchise are not an issue. The whole "if you strayed so far from the original then why bother" can be a good question, but it doesn't influence whether something is good or bad.


We have to remember that a video game, especially one of TW's relative popularity, is not the same as some random fanfic written on the web. They have no effect on the future of the franchise you love, and if you get :x from the mere fact that it exists you should consider immediate help and/or meditation. Judge it for what it is, and move one. The problem is when you have IP and popularity involved. Again, I point to fallout: the problem is not that Fallout 3 exists and butchers what made fallout fallout, the problem is that the fact that it exists means we have to contend ourselves with New Vegas. And you have every right to call that bullshit. Again, this has nothing to do with how good or bad certain art is, just pointing out that even it is good doesn't mean it's stupid to complain, depending on your reasons for doing so.

TL;DR: If game/book/movie brings with it IP and popularity issues that might ruin the original course of the franchise, then by all means hate it for doing that and that rage is legitimate. If not, ignore it. However, in both cases, it can be good/bad and which one it is shouldn't be judged by how far it strays from the franchise.

-----

Also, regarding the moral choice in the trailer (haven't seen it, but from what I read) and the comparison to the ACT 1 decision from TW: both are terrible as moral choices for completely different reasons, and note that I liked the game enough that I'm giving it a second playthrough. Seems the woman in the trailer is guilty (or, at the very least, Geralt has no reason to believe she is not) and is being punished, and Geralt thinks with his lower head and butchers random soldiers because she is soooo pretty. The punishment is brutal, sure, but so are her crimes and it seems to fit according to the timeframe. Unless Geralt makes a habit of breaking into castles and stopping every torture for every crime, there's no moral choice here: let a lawful punishment go, or stop it only because the "victim" is a beautiful woman.

The ACT 1 decision is a classic case of a good idea with an awful execution.

There's a witch in a town with four head figures. You have a retard (as in, honest-to-god idiot) who raped a woman he loved because his (more intelligent and definitely evil) peers pressured him. He is, by the way, the best character for this kind of thing. You have a (now drunkard) merchant who killed his brother, but you have evidence both to suggest he did so under the magical influence of the witch and to suggest he did so on his own because he wanted more money. Again, a good character for this thing, yet not for the same reason as the first.

Then you have an amoral merchant who deals with anyone if the price is right. He would be a bad, simple character, but his existence has a point, because see, what he does is exactly what the witch does. You don't have proof she harms anyone directly (although there is evidence to suggest she had interest in murdering the merchant's brother, and may indeed have done so), but at the very least, she willingly sold poison to the aforementioned raped woman knowing full well she would use it to kill someone (herself, in the end). She is no better than the merchant: if she does not harm directly, she is more than willing to provide the means for people to kill others. And this is the best-case scenario.

Finally you have a priest, who wants to save the village but, being a fanatic and a stranger to the concept of irony, is willing to do whatever evil is needed so that the village can stay alive, disregarding the fact that everyone there, including himself, is pretty much an asshole. All while praising the holy flame. In the end, he decides to channel all the evils of the village into a scapegoat, the witch, in order to save his home from the incarnation of their own sins: the Beast. And what does the witch do, knowing this? Well, she starts preparing a spell to kill everyone.

See, you have a lot of potential here. If you do nothing, either the witch dies while the equally guilty (for the most part) villagers go on with their lives, or the witch succeeds in killing everyone and again, getting away with all she's done. You can kill everyone, but then you are breaking your "neutrality" thingy and becoming pretty much an asshole yourself. You can try to reason with them, but that likely won't end well. Heck, you could go with one side or the other depending on your preferences and on what clues you find (if you don't look around it might seem the witch really is mostly or completely innocent). Or decide some of the villagers are not really to blame while others are (the dialog leading to your choice suggests you can do this).

And how does it end? Well, your choices boil down to "stop the witch from making her potion, siding completely with the villagers and allowing her to burn while they go away scot-free" or "say everyone is an asshole, and that with that in mind, they should all start living their lives as decent people or you will kill everyone". This is not a moral dilemma, it's the classic choice between good and stupid neutral or stupid evil, depending on what you think.

A real shame, because handled better it could have been a great moment in cRPGs. The writing on the good path is very good, but it doesn't excuse the whole thing.
 

Whisper

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
4,357
This is not about saving a girl. This is about killing monsters.
Making it clear that humans are also, or can be, monsters.
Therefore removing the superficial fake border between the two, the "good" humans and "bad" monsters - thus making the story, setting and theme truly morally gray.

Idiots.

They are conducting execution after a trial where she was found guilty on horrible charges. They are not doing this for lulz or out of evil, just carring out punishment from court.

Saving her and killing honest soldiers, Geralt would be responsible for any new crimes she do (and for death of people who didnt deserve it), so maybe this makes Geralt monster, if you think about it.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
We have to remember that a video game, especially one of TW's relative popularity, is not the same as some random fanfic written on the web.

Right, they're the same as, for example, KotOR II. Or Batman: Arkham Asylum. Or whatever. People cry "lore rape" when lore is changed for the worse. Nobody raises a brow when it changed to be simply different. Unless they're a the cusp of retarded fandom. But few of the good people who have been discussing here are, I would reckon.
 

hiver

Guest
btw, grunker doesnt have any strong points or points at all - ever. All he splurges should be automatically disregarded as nonsensical blathering and everyone who doesnt do that is fucking stupid.


They are conducting execution after a trial where she was found guilty on horrible charges. They are not doing this for lulz or out of evil, just carring out punishment from court.

Saving her and killing honest soldiers, Geralt would be responsible for any new crimes she do (and for death of people who didnt deserve it), so maybe this makes Geralt monster, if you think about it.
They are not conducting an execution, moron - they are enjoying it and torturing her for their own fun. Which is obvious. They are fucking LULZING about it - are you fucking blind and stupid?
"Conducting an execution" actually means doing it swiftly and efficiently, without needlessly torturing the convicted.

Secondly, what fucking trial, what "horrible charges"?
How the fuck do you know that?

How the fuck do you know it wasnt a rigged scam? What if her crime was not giving last of her food to the army? Or refusing to have sex with whomever? Or trying to get vengeance for some wrong done to her, or her family or children or whatever else the fuck could it be?

And how the fuck are those "honest soldiers"?
And how the fuck do you know she will commit any fucking "future crimes"?

really.... What the fucking FUCK are you talking about?
 

MasPingon

Arcane
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
1,796
Location
Castle Rock
Michax from TW forums found some interesting things in the trailer. It freaked me out a bit.

6iu2.png

2zj1.png

icnd.png


Sorry for ruining yours "generic shit about White Knight saving an innocent woman" theory.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Wow, nice find.
Though it could be pure coincidence... you know, like when someone takes a picture of you while you talk or do, well, anything.
And your facial expression at the moment the picture is taken just looks... weird.
Could be the same here, as the same thing can happen when doing facial animations.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
uuuuh how cool and subliminal and subtle man

that changes everything right

just like shakespeare hid an extra page on the back of romeo and juliet with the real ending
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
She's probably happy someone is saving her. I know I'd feel sadistic glee if the guys who wanted to hang me were getting whupped by some stranger that showed up out of nowhere.

I imagine you'd react pretty much like the girl from TLW ;)

The Last Wish said:
the girl, drenched in the bald man's blood, threw up, became hysterical and fainted in fear when I approached her

I think I would. I'm not very used to rapesquads hanging me for cannibalism. Though it's happened once or twice, granted.
 

buzz

Arcane
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
4,234
:eek: For some reason those screenshots sent shivers down my spine and scared the shit out of me. However, it looks way too subtle for a video where a guy cuts through several armed soldiers/executioners like through butter.
 

toro

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
14,023
:eek: For some reason those screenshots sent shivers down my spine and scared the shit out of me. However, it looks way too subtle for a video where a guy cuts through several armed soldiers/executioners like through butter.

She probably cannot believe herself what an idiot is Geralt of Rivia.

Also the action scene is popamole.
 

MasPingon

Arcane
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
1,796
Location
Castle Rock
uuuuh how cool and subliminal and subtle man

that changes everything right

just like shakespeare hid an extra page on the back of romeo and juliet with the real ending
:butthurt:

:eek: For some reason those screenshots sent shivers down my spine and scared the shit out of me. However, it looks way too subtle for a video where a guy cuts through several armed soldiers/executioners like through butter.

Bagiński likes such a little touches. felipepepe described it nicely, when he've done his little Incline movie - make it short and full of content, to make people watch it more then once.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom