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

[Mrowak]

Disclaimer: Sorry for the delay. Was on a massive binge. Still sobering up. The essential non-trite lecturing part is in bold.

No, they are not. See Fallout 2 -> Fallout 3 or Diablo 1 -> Diablo 3.

Mrooooooooooowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak, for fucks sake. Firstly, those games are direct sequals, secondly, they are crap because they are crap, not because they do not adhere to their original works. In fact, we have a review right here on this very side, by none other than VD, saying how Fallout 3 is an average game. And he would be right. It only becomes shit the moment you keep it beholden to some arbitrary standards based on what the original was. "It's shit because it's first person and the original was isometric" i.e. "it's shit because it's a dog and not a cat."

Gruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer, my dearest bro. What the hell did I do to deserve this label of a spit foaming, nerdrage filled, basement dwelling fat geek that goes "waaah, it's all shit, because it doesn't fit my headcannon!!"? I know that I can be a self-righteous prick at times, but I thought that I maintained pretty balanced profile, being rather open-minded about various issues, remembering never to go ballistic on anyone in a discussion, trying not to champion absolutes or downplay opinions.

Believe me, I know what objectivity means and how a work needs to be judged by its own merit. I actually do a lot of that in my reviews and debates, trying to distance myself from binary "it's shit"/awesome shtick we Codexians love so much. So what gives now? Did me mentioning that *I* did not like the trailer for this and this reason made me a deluded fool, with limited perception? Can I not have my personal opinion? Can I not share it with anyone, because, duh, it's biased by "the shackles of context"?

The legacy on its own gives you certain expectations and once they are not fulfilled, well, I think there are legitimate reasons to criticise the thing, or not buy it (e.g. there is a reason why I won't purchase expansions to Diablo 3.

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

I should not be going into that, because it's all the stuff we know, but the hell... While I can certainly see the context and legacy issues can cause bias, completely downplaying them is the opposite end of the vile spectrum. For the purposes of this discussion I will use and the example of Diablo games.

What got me and many people into Diablo series, was the atmosphere of gothic horror, the cheap thrills that came with it, the level design, the judeo-christian themes, good singleplayer with randomly implemented quests etc etc. Now, when Diablo 3 came in people were legitimately concerned about appearance of those elements in the sequel. And the concerns were founded. Now, am I and those people a bunch of dumb-witted whiners, who should have shut up and enjoyed D3 for what it is - a(n admitedly) great h&s about hoarding loot and killing monsters in colourful explosions with friends? Or are we right to be disappointed by the elements that we enjoyed being substituted by elements that we do not like? In a review of Diablo 3 do people do not deserve to be informed that certain features they might have liked before are not there anymore, and there's nothing new to fill the void, so there isn't a point on spending the money? Lastly, does the fact that something is good at something else than I want must mean that I will enjoy it at all on this different level? Must I like apples, because there are no oranges in this particular fruit basket, anymore?

Forgive me my mood for trite grade school "wisdom", but looking back at the entirety can be quite limiting... and liberating at the same time.

So when in that other reply to @MasPingon you say

Mrowak's point was that a derivative work's quality was dependant on its adherence to the original.

I say, yes it does. But not in the binary sense of "good" and "bad" *quality*, but having certain descriptive *qualities* or lacking them.

The quality of something owes nothing to what you expected, those are completely normative, subjective things that are fundamentally uninteresting to discuss. When I discuss the quality of a movie about pirates I don't waste 30 minutes establishing what the other party expected considering his 15-year backstory in shipping.

You can care, and it can be your explanation for why you think Diablo 3 or Fallout 3 sucks, but it isn't a fundamental reason for why the games are bad.

I dare you find my quote saying that those games are objectively "bad". Look into my Diablo 3 review - I spend a lot of time comparing it two earlier pieces - that's true. But the ultimate conclusion comes from judging the game on its own merits (the "good game, bad product" thing).

But... that doesn't change the fact that legacy *is* one of the most important factors when continuing a franchise.

Important in which capacity? Important for fan-service? Sure. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing descriptive quality. And that does not depend on marketing, fan-service or anything else.

Jesus, Gruuuunkeeerrrrr? Where did I demand a fan-service? In fact I am very much against it. Hell, I thought that the fact that as a TWitcher game fan (who finished both games 4 times), I can distance myself and criticise my favourite studio for inconsistencies and cheap money grabs, makes my more unbiased in the larger scope of things. But apparently now I am blind fanboy. Meh...

Oh, and as history proves you are so wrong in saying that descriptive quality does not depend on marketing or fan-service, but I am not in the mood for taking our discussion in this direction.

Let's make it clear, once and for all: the only thing I criticised was the trailer. The only thing I criticised in the trailer (which is expertly done, with beautiful models and animations, great horeography and generally attention to detail, all topped by terrific music) was the disappointing resolution - in the exact *same* vein you did on page 1 of this very thread. I did so because I get to call shenanigans at the company swearing to be faithful to the material in their marketing, (similarly to how Vault Dweller or VenitlatorOfDoom can call bullshit on alleged "true RPG experience"), when from the trailer it seems they do not understand it.

Does this one, little criticism make me bitter inside so much I scream "betrayal!!" at 2 am at night as I wet my bed crying in impotent rage? Fuck no! I am hoping that judged for its own merits (as in the case of TW1 and 2), I will like the game, as at least based on our current information it's shaping up nicely. I will, however, hold my right to call out any fanboy claiming how thematically aligned TW3 will be with the novels, if - by my own judgment - this will not be the case... and discuss the matter, just as I always do.

 

[Grunker]

Gruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer, my dearest bro. What the hell did I do to deserve this label of a spit foaming, nerdrage filled, basement dwelling fat geek that goes "waaah, it's all shit, because it doesn't fit my headcannon!!"? I know that I can be a self-righteous prick at times, but I thought that I maintained pretty balanced profile, being rather open-minded about various issues, remembering never to go ballistic on anyone in a discussion, trying not to champion absolutes or downplay opinions.

Believe me, I know what objectivity means and how a work needs to be judged by its own merit. I actually do a lot of that in my reviews and debates, trying to distance myself from binary "it's shit"/awesome shtick we Codexians love so much. So what gives now? Did me mentioning that *I* did not like the trailer for this and this reason made me a deluded fool, with limited perception? Can I not have my personal opinion? Can I not share it with anyone, because, duh, it's biased by "the shackles of context"?

Firstly: I believe you are strongly overestimating the amount of nerdrage contained in my posts debating with you. The only nerdrage I have gathered in this thread has been towards MasPingon, and that's not nerdrage, more butthurt, but now that he has shown he believes a supposedly hidden facial expression in the trailer totally changes everything I'm suddenly feeling a lot calmer on that point. Forgive any grievance towards you, but I don't recall our previous exchanges being any less heated... that's why I come to the 'dex, to yell at niggers, and if that's not your pleasure, well... FUCK YOU RETARD OMG

Secondly: I'm not gonna bother with the rest of your post. Not because I don't think you deserve the time, but 'cause frankly, there's no point unless we clear something up. I'm gonna go ahead and say you're being a dick here. Here's why:

You're completely entitled to have some personal dislike for something because you liked the original better, but a derivative work doesn't have less chance of having quality because it changes stuff about the original.

Now, you'll forgive a brother for believing that the fact that you argued on beyond that point showed that our fundament agreement was what I had said all along: you believed quality could be derived from elsewhere than the work itself, I did not. Otherwise, why would you ever argue beyond this point? You could just have said: "oh, well, then we agree!"

So, now either you've backpedaled quite a bit on that point, or otherwise I have misunderstood you. Frankly, seeing as I stressed the above in every single post, I think I might be forgiven for believing we agreed what the debate was about (if that's not enough for you, multiple people supporting both you and me in the context of the discussion I thought we were having ought to justify any misunderstanding I have apparantly been having). But in case all you were saying this time was in fact "Grunker, of course objective quality has nothing to do with anything else than a given work in itself, I'm just talking about my own personal opinion", then it's good that we cleared that up, though I'm awfully sad that we wasted so much time on something we have fundamentally agreed upon from the start. In case that's so, however, I will direct you to my previous point:

Your criticism of something is irrelevant if all it is is "well, I don't like that."

In other words; why the fuck should it ever be interesting to discuss why Mrowak the nice forum user with the weaboo anime avatar likes something or does not? Or for that matter Grunker the ballistic, nerdrage filled, spit foaming, basement dwelling fat geek (wow, that's a lot of adjectives you put on my ass there, good thing I was the one apologizing to you, lol... I know I've put on some weight since I stopped smoking, but dayuuuum, man). It doesn't, does it? It's a pretty uninteresting discussion.

I'm not interested in that discussion, that's for damned sure. Debating why someone feel the way they do sounds like a lot of wasted effort. That's like debating what an RPG is or whether turn-based or RTwP is better. *shiver*

Where did I demand a fan-service? In fact I am very much against it.

Me too. Awwww. I won't bother you with my personal reasons for that however. Luckily the trailer sucks on many other criteria.

(seriously bro, I don't fathom how you can call me out on nerdrage when I already stated I love your ass (no homo) and posted an all cute <3-troll just for you... )

 

[Metro]

You have plenty of nerdrage fueling you. Fuck, man, look how long your responses are to this trivial shit. Embrace your rage, let it flow!

 

[Grunker]

You have plenty of nerdrage fueling you. Fuck, man, look how long your responses are to this trivial shit. Embrace your rage, let it flow!

I don't rage. I get butthurt. There's a difference. And I could never get butthurt over Mrowak

When it comes to the big posts... well, like I said earlier, it strikes me as odd to complain about people discussing on a discussion forum.

(the truth is the summer holidays in academia are way too fucking long)

 

[Metro]

You should spend this time more productively like researching Mount & Blade and composing questions for the TaleWorlds devs at Gamescom.

 

[Grunker]

You should spend this time more productively like researching Mount & Blade and composing questions for the TaleWorlds devs at Gamescom.

I'm going to showings of M&M, Wasteland 2 and visiting bitComposer. I severely doubt I will have time for anything else given I only have 1 day. If I do, I promise to go to Mount & Blade and ask them stupid questions that no one will be interested in.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Michax from TW forums found some interesting things in the trailer. It freaked me out a bit.

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

 

[Grinolf]

Michax from TW forums found some interesting things in the trailer. It freaked me out a bit.
Sorry for ruining yours "generic shit about White Knight saving an innocent woman" theory.

So morally bankruptcy of the trailer, with killing presumably innocent soldiers and freeing a criminal, confirmed? Good to know.

 

[Infinitron]

Geralt being used by manipulative women? NO!

 

[MasPingon]

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.

Firstly: I believe you are strongly overestimating the amount of nerdrage contained in my posts debating with you. The only nerdrage I have gathered in this thread has been towards MasPingon, and that's not nerdrage, more butthurt, but now that he has shown he believes a supposedly hidden facial expression in the trailer totally changes everything I'm suddenly feeling a lot calmer on that point.

What? I didn't say it changes anything. It just suggests that there is something wrong with the girl. Geralt's questionable choice isn't something that suddenly appeared with her facial expression.

 

[Grinolf]

Geralt being used by manipulative women? NO!

In books, manipulative women were used by Geralt, who had no problem seeing through appearance. Atleast, I can't remember any episode, when it wasn't so.

 

[Grunker]

Geralt being used by manipulative women? NO!

In books, manipulative women were used by Geralt, who had no problem seeing through appearance.

the last wish (the actual short story itself) pretty much revolves around geralt being a sucker for a woman

What? I didn't say it changes anything.

Sorry for ruining yours [...] theory.

you cannot ruin anything with a secret message the director hid at the end credits while thinking "hm-hm-hm so clever" along with some autistic forum user who watched the video in super slo-mo

 

[Grinolf]

the last wish (the actual short story itself) pretty much revolves around geralt being a sucker for a woman

Not that I like her, but Yennefer is a very unique case and it is not like Geralt was used in that story. Definitely not in sence of that trailer. I was reffer to other sorceress, who tried to use Geralt in the last book with a very dubious success.

 

[Mrowak]

Michax from TW forums found some interesting things in the trailer. It freaked me out a bit.

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

Yeah, I noticed that some time ago, when the nerdrage dissipiated. Still, it has not been the discussion about the woman being manipulative and crafty, but Geralt being stupid with "generic shit about White Knight saving an innocent woman" all the while spitting grimdark oneliners.

However, seeing all of this from a perspective I must say: this is marketing genius, plain and simple. First they make top quality trailer which goes viral. Then the trailer sparks an all out war across interwebs causing participants to get invested in the franchise more, whichever side of the debate you support. Lastly, these datails are noticed, which reveals deviousness and craftiness behind the development process of the short.

I still hate Geralt being stupid here, but at least it's warraned by the conveyed message (it's made clear he is the stupid one in this scenario).

 

[MasPingon]

However, seeing all of this from a perspective I must say: this is marketing genius, plain and simple. First they make top quality trailer which goes viral. Then the trailer sparks an all out war across interwebs causing participants to get invested in the franchise more, whichever side of the debate you support. Lastly, these datails are noticed, which reveals deviousness and craftiness behind the development process of the short.

I still hate Geralt being stupid here, but at least it's warraned by the conveyed message (it's made clear he is the stupid one in this scenario).

That's exactly mine impression. We can argue about Geralt being too hasty/stupid in helping the woman but I think that's not the point of this "advertisement". What they wanted to achieve is to show that no matter what moral decision you make, it will be somewhat arbitrary. With all that trash talk about shades of grey since TW1 this is something that finally accurately reflects it. It's an example of tragic conflict(on the smaller scale) where no matter who you side with, you loose.

 

[Grinolf]

That's exactly mine impression. We can argue about Geralt being too hasty/stupid in helping the woman but I think that's not the point of this "advertisement". What they wanted to achieve is to show that no matter what moral decision you make, it will be somewhat arbitrary. With all that trash talk about shades of grey since TW1 this is something that finally accurately reflects it. It's an example of tragic conflict(on the smaller scale) where no matter who you side with, you loose.

Yes, idea, that by helping unknown person alleged in very serious crimes against seemingly legal authorities one can free an actual villain, is so deep, that I can easily been drown in it.
After been properly delighted by how smart and talented CD Project writers are, of course.

 

[MasPingon]

Yes, idea, that by helping unknown person alleged in very serious crimes against seemingly legal authorities

 

[made]

First they make top quality trailer which goes viral.

Source? I don't usually follow gaming media apart from my beloved Codex.

it's made clear he is the stupid one in this scenario.

Is he now? He's seen enough shit in his time that he pretty much expects everyone to turn on him and screw him over. But in the situation he finds her in, it's a defenseless woman being tortured by "monsters" and no matter who she is or what she may have done (he says he's not going to weigh one evil against another), so he has no choice but to intervene. It's not how I'd define stupidity.

 

[Grinolf]

IMG

It is literal description of what happened in the trailer. How could you ever be not sure?

 

[Mrowak]

First they make top quality trailer which goes viral.

Source? I don't usually follow gaming media apart from my beloved Codex.

Nah, it's just me seeing the same trailer again discussed on Facebook and other places.

it's made clear he is the stupid one in this scenario.

Is he now? He's seen enough shit in his time that he pretty much expects everyone to turn on him and screw him over. But in the situation he finds her in, it's a defenseless woman being tortured by "monsters" and no matter who she is or what she may have done (he says he's not going to weigh one evil against another), so he has no choice but to intervene. It's not how I'd define stupidity.

I would have bought this interpretation if not for three things:

1. The "killing monsters" angle and oneliner. Honestly, if not for this I would have little reservations about the trailer. What gives him the right to pass judgment on those soldiers, calling them monsters and executing them? Or say that the woman was innocent and the hanging and torment really wasn't what she deserved? I can buy that he cannot watch/hear a fair lass being tortured, but how does he go from that to "you don't deserve to live, you fiends". So yeah, in saying those last words at the end he is stupid.

2. By the act of interveneing he does in fact weight one evil against another. Unless killing soldiers is not evil. Or releasing a murderous cannibal to cut throats of wounded soldiers is not evil either. So yeah, with "killing monsters, my arse" he is stupid.

3. Shit, when you think about it, with his meddling into affairs that are quite beyond him, killing whoever he *thinks* is a monster based on his arbitrary and ignorant judgment, then leaving the corpses behind, going into the sunset unmindful of the havoc he has wraught, I say that in his stupidity Geralt comes acress as a genuine monster himself.

The funny, and most ironic thing about the trailer is that when those soldiers, while gruff and cruel, were still "on the level" by TWitcher world's standards by going by the book, reading out official verdict in controlled, fair manner and executing their sentence, lacking murderous maniac glee about them. Now the woman exhibits exactly this glee about her, although at the given time she does not do anything morally questionable. I find this contrast to be quite fascinating.

 

[LundB]

It's an example of tragic conflict(on the smaller scale) where no matter who you side with, you loose.

Nonsense. If he let the soldiers carry on, he'd simply be allowing a murderous cannibal face the standard sentence for her crimes. There's a clear lesser evil, yet he picked the greater. He could have chosen the lesser evil, or even neither evil by giving the girl a quick death or killing both parties.

The idea that freeing a person convicted of gruesome crimes from the people carrying out an ordinary (though unpleasant) sentence might not be a good thing is hardly super-deep.

 

[made]

1. The "killing monsters" angle and oneliner. Honestly, if not for this I would have little reservations about the trailer. What gives him the right to pass judgment on those soldiers, calling them monsters and executing them? Or say that the woman was innocent and the hanging and torment really wasn't what she deserved? I can buy that he cannot watch/hear a fair lass being tortured, but how does he go from that to "you don't deserve to live, you fiends". So yeah, in saying those last words at the end he is stupid.

A reference to one of the best lines from TW1, where he explains that both his swords are for killing monsters. It just shows that man or monster makes no difference to Geralt; he judges both by the same standards. But as you will have noticed, he left said sword sheathed, so initially he didn't mean to kill them but they left him no choice by attacking him with a wooden stick (ok, that part...)

2. By the act of interveneing he does in fact weight one evil against another. Unless killing soldiers is not evil. Or releasing a murderous cannibal to cut throats of wounded soldiers is not evil either. So yeah, with "killing monsters, my arse" he is stupid.

In this case he simply decided that the torture of the cannibal needed to stop. Should he have questioned both parties at length, weighed all pros and cons, consulted with Vesemir, only to find that there's no clear choice to make? He's done that in the past, and he's tired of choosing the lesser of two evils. So he acts on an impulse and says fuck the consequences.

3. Shit, when you think about it, with his meddling into affairs that are quite beyond him, killing whoever he *thinks* is a monster based on his arbitrary and ignorant judgment, then leaving the corpses behind, going into the sunset unmindful of the havoc he has wraught, I say that in his stupidity Geralt comes acress as a genuine monster himself.

But that's what he does all the time (during TW1 and 2) - meddling in affairs only to later realize that his meddling had unforeseen, invariably negative, consequences. It's in his nature.

Now keep in mind this is likely a cutscene from the game. The soldiers sent him on a hunt and Geralt returns with the antlered head of a creature we see him fighting in another trailer. Chances are this is one of those C&C moments in the game that can go either way, and perhaps has cutscenes for every outcome, so in another we might see the girl dangling from the tree instead. Or maybe he finds her again later, feasting on hapless villagers, and gets a chance to kill her anyway. In The Witcher 3 the possibilities are endless.

 

[MasPingon]

It's an example of tragic conflict(on the smaller scale) where no matter who you side with, you loose.

Nonsense. If he let the soldiers carry on, he'd simply be allowing a murderous cannibal face the standard sentence for her crimes. There's a clear lesser evil, yet he picked the greater. He could have chosen the lesser evil, or even neither evil by giving the girl a quick death or killing both parties.

The idea that freeing a person convicted of gruesome crimes from the people carrying out an ordinary (though unpleasant) sentence might not be a good thing is hardly super-deep.

Nonsense. He clearly said he doesn't want to choose between lesser or greater evil, he did what he thought should be done. It was loudly announced through his monolgue, so every retard could understand what's going on. Did he make a good decision, that's another story.

Did you noticed this is a war time and Nilfgaard soldiers are invaders on this lands? Who have deliver a judgment? A judge? Why Nilfgaardian law should be respected in Northern Kingdoms? Can you call someone who eat human flash not to starve a cannibal? There are a lot of unanswered questions raising doubts.

 

[Mrowak]

1. The "killing monsters" angle and oneliner. Honestly, if not for this I would have little reservations about the trailer. What gives him the right to pass judgment on those soldiers, calling them monsters and executing them? Or say that the woman was innocent and the hanging and torment really wasn't what she deserved? I can buy that he cannot watch/hear a fair lass being tortured, but how does he go from that to "you don't deserve to live, you fiends". So yeah, in saying those last words at the end he is stupid.

A reference to one of the best lines from TW1, where he explains that both his swords are for killing monsters.

It just shows that man or monster makes no difference to Geralt; he judges both by the same standards. But as you will have noticed, he left said sword sheathed, so initially he didn't mean to kill them but they left him no choice by attacking him with a wooden stick (ok, that part...)

That's just CDPRed licentia poetica. They really needed badass oneliner in TW! As you might have noticed I am not a fan of oneliners, but whatever, I'll roll with it.

2. By the act of interveneing he does in fact weight one evil against another. Unless killing soldiers is not evil. Or releasing a murderous cannibal to cut throats of wounded soldiers is not evil either. So yeah, with "killing monsters, my arse" he is stupid.

In this case he simply decided that the torture of the cannibal needed to stop. Should he have questioned both parties at length, weighed all pros and cons, consulted with Vesemir, only to find that there's no clear choice to make? He's done that in the past, and he's tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

And yet he does that i.e. he chooses what appears to be a obviosuly lesser evil (saves the damsel in distress).

So he acts on an impulse and says fuck the consequences.

So he acts how? Stupid! That's the textbook definition for you.

3. Shit, when you think about it, with his meddling into affairs that are quite beyond him, killing whoever he *thinks* is a monster based on his arbitrary and ignorant judgment, then leaving the corpses behind, going into the sunset unmindful of the havoc he has wraught, I say that in his stupidity Geralt comes acress as a genuine monster himself.

But that's what he does all the time (during TW1 and 2) - meddling in affairs only to later realize that his meddling had unforeseen, invariably negative, consequences. It's in his nature.

Well, he does not meddle there - he is unwittingly pulled into those affairs in TW1 and TW2, and he doesn't want to be involved, whereas here...

Now keep in mind this is likely a cutscene from the game.

I don't think so - it's most likely just TW3 promo material. I agree that it would make a splendid quest in the game, teaching players to delve deeper into details, not to be fooled by appearances, and to be on their guard.

The soldiers sent him on a hunt and Geralt returns with the antlered head of a creature we see him fighting in another trailer. Chances are this is one of those C&C moments in the game that can go either way, and perhaps has cutscenes for every outcome, so in another we might see the girl dangling from the tree instead. Or maybe he finds her again later, feasting on hapless villagers, and gets a chance to kill her anyway. In The Witcher 3 the possibilities are endless.

Yeah, that would be awesome.

 

[made]

And yet he does that i.e. he chooses what appears to be a obviosuly lesser evil (saves the damsel in distress).

There's a clear lesser evil, yet he picked the greater.

Apparently it's not so obvious after all.

Well, he does not meddle there - he is unwittingly pulled into those affairs in TW1 and TW2, and he doesn't want to be involved, whereas here...

I seem to remember plenty of quests in both games where he decides to meddle of his own accord.

I don't think so - it's most likely just TW3 promo material.

Doubtful. CGI comes cheap in Potato but it ain't free. Seems like a big waste to only use this for a one-shot trailer.