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

[Mrowak]

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?).

 

[Grunker]

It's more about the theme, the tone, the subject matter, the atmosphere, the context and the "magic"

No, it's about whatever the fuck the new creators want it to be about. I'm sorry.

Take the world of the witcher and change it to "acid-trippin' ninja hobbits from space" and I am off the ride, brother.

Whether you're on or off the ride doesn't matter much when you're criticizing something. Your criticism of something is irrelevant if all it is is "well, I don't like that."

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

This is fandom gone bad. Read BC's excellent musings on the topic in this topic. Something "gets" to be whatever it wants to be. Its only "responsibility" to critics and users to the extend that it has any is that it has quality.

And quality isn't derived from some adherence to the original work. KotOR 2's deconstruction of Star Wars is only possible because it shits on many things established in the Star Wars universe (and in the original for that matter). KotOR 2 is way less adherent to original three films than The Witcher games are to the books.

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.

[...] why would you want to do anything for fans? [...] Fans are clingy, complaining dipshits who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices, the happier you'll be for it.

Truer words were never spoken, and discussions like this is why.

Now, here's the truth: you don't dislike the games' take on Geralt because they're not true to the original works. You dislike them because they are poorly written in comparison. And you'd be right. But as far as video games go, they are expertly written, and as far as quality comparison to the original, they just might be some the best games ever.

In closing, you are a clingy, complaining dipshit and you should stop holding derivative works hostage to your ideas of what the original was like. Start criticizing them for being bad instead

(you know I love you Mrowak)

 

[Septaryeth]

The trailer could've easily been made more in line with the story's central themes:
2. Have the woman start looting the corpses as Geralt and Vesemir leave. This suggest that she could really be guilty of what she was accused of, and provides a measure of moral ambiguity that the trailer severely lacks. Also hints at the ultimate futility of saving a single person in a war that is likely claiming tens of thousands, which is another idea continuously brought up in the Witcher books.

This idea sounds way better.
Appeal to people who only want to see the actions, as well as portraying deeper themes to people who want to see more story.

All you want to is to simplify it, leaving no space for supposition. It's funny you define it as "portraying deeper themes". :patriot:

How exactly is it more simplified?
This is a trailer about someone saving a damsel in distress with him speaking irrelevant monologue, a completely one sided argument.
Yes, yes, the soldier beating a peasant girl up, therefore our protagonist just decided to kill them, blah, blah, blah.
At least MasPingon's suggestion would flash out more about the state the land and the ongoing war, and how it relates to the witcher, not just displaying "badass character with gray morality".
Your so called suppositions are people trying to defend CD projekt for their new "edgy" and "dark" trailer, while it's nothing more than showcasing CGI and meaningless fight scenes.

 

[MasPingon]

First of all, it's not CDPR, it's Platige Image. They got their own view on Geralt's personality and got their own style in making short animated stories. Starting from Cathedral, you got to have a basic knowledge on topic to fully understand what did you just saw. I can understand someone may not like that way of telling the story but most of complains here are just laughable. The whole point of this trailer is that it doesn't tell much about Geralt's motivations in helping the girl, we can only guess based on our knowledge of the character. I don't see it as a flaw, but one of the biggest qualities of this short story.

 

[Mrowak]

DISCLAIMER: Please skim through the whole thing before replying. I made the mistake of answering as I read your post and here's the result...

It's more about the theme, the tone, the subject matter, the atmosphere, the context and the "magic"

No, it's about whatever the fuck the new creators want it to be about. I'm sorry.

To a degree, yes. But only to this certain extent. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point of taking up the franchise in the first place, right?

Take the world of the witcher and change it to "acid-trippin' ninja hobbits from space" and I am off the ride, brother.

Whether you're on or off the ride doesn't matter much when you're criticizing something. Your criticism of something is irrelevant if all it is is "well, I don't like that."

It is, when it is given the context, and the context is given by the legacy. Again, I might enjoy "acid-trippin' ninja hobbits from space" on its own. I might even write a glowing review of it. But when something is marketed as a great and faithful spiritual successor, and then it doesn't live up to the standard, then yes me being on the ride does matter. Objectively.

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

This is fandom gone bad. Read BC's excellent musings on the topic in this topic. Something "gets" to be whatever it wants to be. Its only "responsibility" to critics and users to the extend that it has any is that it has quality.

BC is an excellent speaker whose rhetorics and insightful remarks coupled with "chaos neko magick, nyahahaha!" infallibly render one at loss of arguments, completely shifting your view. Fun times, but...

Snap out of it brother! I know you enjoyed Sapkowski's works. Remind yourself why. Remind yourself of the characters and contexts of events and resolutions, of twists and turns, of themes and plots. Now think about all those things going away, because... duh, "artistic" license. Not a pretty picture, ain't it (not that i fear CDP will fuck things up this bad )?

On the side note, indeed BC is right about the entire "squabbling" (my version of Geralt is better! Nah, mine is!). That's why I do not squabble to point out your obvious mental deficiency and ignorance or to boost my ego (ok, that's a lie ) - I am arguing for different reasons entirely. [read on, brother ]

And quality isn't derived from some adherence to the original work.

I think that it is, at least in the sense, you should not make things worse, but better. Otherwise, what is the reason for using the original work in the first place, if not to improve it?

KotOR 2's deconstruction of Star Wars is only possible because it shits on many things established in the Star Wars universe (and in the original for that matter). KotOR 2 is way less adherent to original three films than The Witcher games are to the books.

Again, do not make things worse. Kotor 2 takes SW with all its themes and stuffies, and makes it into something grander. Still eagerly awaiting that in TW.

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.

Did I say I would not welcome change? Hell, brother, i would gladly see some, especially more freedom in characterisation and character-building, so as to get off the rails and have some fun gameplay integrated with the story better through improved character development system. Again, less superficial stuff, more what makes TWitcher's world so unique and enjoyable.

[...] why would you want to do anything for fans? [...] Fans are clingy, complaining dipshits who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices, the happier you'll be for it.

Truer words were never spoken, and discussions like this is why.

But they are doing exactly that! For the fans! To have more relatable, easier to understand content, better marketing material!! That's the irony of the whole situation! It's not because they are ambitious, they want to try new things, they want to make the character evolve in unexpected interesting way - they wouldn't choose the most formulaic, one-dimensional take (which is in line with the character but not the theme) - it's merely the surface of what these original stories were about. And that's the entire problem of the trailer. Read your first posts in this thread, then watch the trailer again, then say if I am wrong.

Now, here's the truth: you don't dislike the games' take on Geralt because they're not true to the original works. You dislike them because they are poorly written in comparison. And you'd be right. But as far as video games go, they are expertly written, and as far as quality comparison to the original, they just might be some the best games ever.

Remember, I do not dislike the games. I've finished each part 4 times - I do not do that with the games I do not enjoy. I too recognise them as one of the better specimen of action RPGs around. And I am less annoyed by the quality of writing (which indeed is by gaming standards one of the best), but by unwillingness to take risks (which, again ironically, is the position you should argue in favour of with your "creative license" angle - you are a consumer! You should demand more!).

In closing, you are a clingy, complaining dipshit and you should stop holding derivative works hostage to your ideas of what the original was like. Start criticizing them for being bad instead

Now my battlebrother, of all the people you should know, that while I may be critical of certain views here, it's not like I shouting in a shrill voice "betrayal"!! I do tend to take the radical position (if only because it is the most interesting one) alligned with me, but I pride myself at being distanced from "nerdrage". Here were, two friends discussing details of a video game in baking. It's not for you or others to have epiphany and go "halleluiah!! how could we have been so blind?!", it's more about self-expression and communication of ideas in gentlemanyly manner, the sheer joy of banter and opportunity to reflect upon opinions of others. And that we argue a little about it? Next day we will brofist in an Obsidian thread or somewhere. Life's good. If not for those moments, then what is even the point for coming to the Codex? To go all circlejerk or "it's just ur opinion, dud"?

(you know I love you Mrowak)

bro

...






It's been a while since I penned such a monster. Nevar again!

 

[kazgar]

Is this the deepest 2 and a half minutes of purely promotional video game CGI ever? 8 pages point to yes.

suck on it final fantasy.

 

[Grunker]

To a degree, yes. But only to this certain extent. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point of taking up the franchise in the first place, right?

Yes. Even non-parodies can have only tangetical relation to their original work without them breaking some sort of universal rule for quality. You are grasping at straws. The baseline is that any given work can only be judged based on its own quality. Whatever surrounds it doesn't matter when you criticize that work. You can discuss it relation to all sorts of works (not only that which it has been derived from), sure, and you can gain valuable and worthy knowledge from that, but ultimately, when determining the merits of something, you must start by accessing the quality of that work in a vacuum.

The divergence from the original work might matter to you because you had hoped for something else, but it is completely meaningless to hold something beholden to something else when judging its merits (see why later).

Let's say The Witcher was a fantastic game. It played well, had tons of C&C, and great writing. Now let's say it had all this, but diverted a lot from the source material and made Geralt a woman. Would all the aforementioned qualities suddenly disappear from it? No. Are you entitled to think it is silly? Well, yes, but that has zero fucking relevance when discussion the quality of the game proper.

If you disagree, well, then you disagree, but you'd be wrong.

It is, when it is given the context, and the context is given by the legacy. Again, I might enjoy "acid-trippin' ninja hobbits from space" on its own. I might even write a glowing review of it. But when something is marketed as a great and faithful spiritual successor, and then it doesn't live up to the standard, then yes me being on the ride does matter. Objectively.

When did marketing suddenly enter the picture? You're arguing all over the place here, but let's reply to the point anyway:

1) Can you criticize the company for false marketing? YES.

2) Does the false marketing have any relation to the quality of the product? NO. The product can be shit/fantastic regardless of whether what marketing said was correct or not.

Do you get the point yet? Something is what something is. It is not what something else is.

All art discussion becomes worthless if everybody's personal feelings of what we should judge stuff against has to enter the equation every. single. time. something is to be discussed.

You know the only ones who do this? Fucking geeks and fucking nerds and they do it with their fucking continuity bullshit. WE GET IT. THESE CHARACTERS MATTER TO YOU. TOO BAD THAT IS FUCKING IRRELEVANT WHEN DISCUSSING THE QUALITY OF SOMETHING. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS TOWARDS FICTIONAL CHARACTERS.

Jeez.

Quality isn't derived from some adherence to the original work.

I think that it is

Well, you're wrong.

Snap out of it brother! I know you enjoyed Sapkowski's works. Remind yourself why. Remind yourself of the characters and contexts of events and resolutions, of twists and turns, of themes and plots. Now think about all those things going away, because... duh, "artistic" license. Not a pretty picture, ain't it (not that i fear CDP will fuck things up this bad )?

Jesus christ Mrowak. If the games are shit then the games are shit. They are not shit because they do something different with characters I love. I may personally lament the crap out of the fact that I don't get to see characters I've grown attached to and would like to see, but the quality of a new narrative where these characters behave differently exists completely independent of that.

You know what the perfect example of my point is (ironically enough since I just ranted about geeks)? Fucking comics. A massive mutitude of variations of the same characters. Alternate universes where the Joker acts completely different. Some where the same superhero has almost divine powers and others where he is a villain incapable of anything. A complete mixing up of character traits. A Constantine which, early on, is a straight horror with some religion and demon-shit in the horizon, who later becomes a leftist hippie. And they are all excellent. They all work, and many times even as part of the same continuity.

You are flat-out, straight-up, completely wrong when you claim that a piece of art/whatever can vary in quality not just based on its own merits but based on the merits of other works. It makes no sense to discuss anything if everything is fundamentally dependent on something else to gain its artistic value. It makes no sense that two identical works of art, according to you, can vary greatly in quality if one is a derivative work. The same story about a monster-hunter suddenly goes from GREAT to SHIT because in one reality it's based on a book and in another it isn't.

Remember, I do not dislike the games. I've finished each part 4 times - I do not do that with the games I do not enjoy. I too recognise them as one of the better specimen of action RPGs around. And I am less annoyed by the quality of writing (which indeed is by gaming standards one of the best), but by unwillingness to take risks (which, again ironically, is the position you should argue in favour of with your "creative license" angle - you are a consumer! You should demand more!).

Listen, Mrowak, you're getting side-tracked. I'm going to stick with my original point: your problem with the games isn't that they deviate from the books (you're too bloody smart for that). Your problem is that the games could be much better. They are simply not on par with the quality of their source material. Your issue isn't that they break continuity, but that they are not as good.

I don't have a "creative angle", I couldn't give a toss whether the games followed the continuity 100% or diverted greatly. I just want quality stuff. So you see, I am demanding more. Even more than you, because I don't think either game is worth finishing 4 times

I'm not arguing that the games should diverge, I'm saying that if they do, that fact is completely unrelated to their objective quality.

A pleasure arguing with you as always. This is the first case however where I not only think our views do not align, I think you are completely wrong

 

[MasPingon]

You know the only ones who do this? Fucking geeks and fucking nerds and they do it with their fucking continuity bullshit. WE GET IT. THESE CHARACTERS MATTER TO YOU. TOO BAD THAT IS FUCKING IRRELEVANT WHEN DISCUSSING THE QUALITY OF SOMETHING. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS TOWARDS FICTIONAL CHARACTERS.

1 often miss a point of discussion
2 write a long post trying to prove something everybody knows about
3 don't notice you are trying to invent a wheel
4 loop

 

[Mrowak]

I don't have a "creative angle", I couldn't give a toss whether the games followed the continuity 100% or diverted greatly. I just want quality stuff. So you see, I am demanding more. Even more than you, because I don't think either game is worth finishing 4 times

Hey, those Enhanced Editions with all the changes were fun! It was worth seeing changes and extra quests (if applicable) in all sides of the story in both games.

I'm not arguing that the games should diverge, I'm saying that if they do, that fact is completely unrelated to their objective quality.

No, they are not. See Fallout 2 -> Fallout 3 or Diablo 1 -> Diablo 3. 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. And I am the guy who was quite balanced about the game when reviewing it).

A pleasure arguing with you as always. This is the first case however where I not only think our views do not align, I think you are completely wrong

Bro, believe me I understand your point, and I do not think you are wrong per se. I agree you can be creative and imaginative with your license, and yes that at the end of it there is no point lamenting changes and byproducts of creative process, when the overall product is still solid. But... that doesn't change the fact that legacy *is* one of the most important factors when continuing a franchise. When you've come to see a tragedy, and what you get is a slapstick comedy I think you are entitled to have some reservations about it.

 

[Grunker]

You know the only ones who do this? Fucking geeks and fucking nerds and they do it with their fucking continuity bullshit. WE GET IT. THESE CHARACTERS MATTER TO YOU. TOO BAD THAT IS FUCKING IRRELEVANT WHEN DISCUSSING THE QUALITY OF SOMETHING. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS TOWARDS FICTIONAL CHARACTERS.

1 often miss a point of discussion
2 write a long post trying to prove something everybody knows about
3 don't notice you are trying to invent a wheel
4 loop

hohoho

yeah, fuck you

Mrowak's point was that a derivative work's quality was dependant on its adherence to the original. He flat-out states that. My post responds directly to that. So fuck off with your edgy, empty posts and type in an argument or stop wasting my time.

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."

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. 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.

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.

When you've come to see a tragedy, and what you get is a slapstick comedy I think you are entitled to have some reservations about it.

YES YOU ARE BUT IT CAN STILL BE A HILARIOUS COMEDY

JESUS

Don't you get why your expectations of seeing a tragedy are completely irrelevant in a discussion of how funny the comedy was? If you don't get that, then we might as well just hit the brakes and stop this.

 

[AngryEddy]

I'm not arguing that the games should diverge, I'm saying that if they do, that fact is completely unrelated to their objective quality.

Just stop while you're ahead. You're arguing for lore rape and corporate sabotage of established fiction at this point, and you're coming off like an irrational shithead defending an illogical point. Case in point, I remember Final Fantasy fans seeing the 3D movie about ghosts, complaining that the movie had nothing to do with Final Fantasy, and the title was used merely to draw potential customers in. That "tiny diversion" from the established FF franchise was enough to piss a bunch of people off and draw negative attention to everyone involved with that movie.

I don't have a "creative angle", I couldn't give a toss whether the games followed the continuity 100% or diverted greatly.

Then stop arguing, dick pump. I do take creativity and story telling incredibly serious, since entertainment is a way of inventing epic stories, creating heroes and villains that people will remember for a long time. If you don't understand how interactive fiction should be judged, then keep your gab shut. Diverting from established lore is bad, appealing to children is bad, being afraid to kill off protagonists is bad, being afraid to let antagonists win is bad etc. I could go on but you should get the point.

 

[Infinitron]

Grunker is absolutely right. People these days, for some reason, don't like talking about objective measures of quality. Instead they focus on their subjective pet issues. It's pretty tiresome.

I'll take "lore rape" from Chris Avellone or CD Projekt's writers (when they aren't phoning it in with cheesy trailers for the Call of Duty crowd) any day.

 

[Whisper]

AHAHAHAHAHAAHA

That trailer is so awesome considering this quote from The Last Wish:



Way to miss the point, CDProjekt

And that isn't even an obscure reference, it's one of the more well-known quotes from the books. Anyway, I predict more storyfapping material with terrible action combat is afoot. If the open world crushes the storyfapping thereby destroying the only good remaining thing in the series, I shall lament it to no end

/brofist

 

[Declinator]

I'm not arguing that the games should diverge, I'm saying that if they do, that fact is completely unrelated to their objective quality.

Just stop while you're ahead. You're arguing for lore rape and corporate sabotage of established fiction at this point, and you're coming off like an irrational shithead defending an illogical point. Case in point, I remember Final Fantasy fans seeing the 3D movie about ghosts, complaining that the movie had nothing to do with Final Fantasy, and the title was used merely to draw potential customers in. That "tiny diversion" from the established FF franchise was enough to piss a bunch of people off and draw negative attention to everyone involved with that movie.

No, Grunker is right and his point is logical.

Maybe they used FF name for money but that doesn't make the movie worse. It just doesn't matter.
Same thing with Fallout 3, I really didn't care about the "lore rape" and just judged F3 on its own merit and it still obviously came out wanting in many respects.

About the trailer: I wanted Geralt to kill both the guards and the woman or else just leave them alone. What he did seems illogical when he had no way of knowing whether she was guilty or not.

 

[Whisper]

Comment from youtube:


i m pretty sure if that chick was an indian guy he would just choose evil and walk away.

 

[made]

Nothing stimulates thoughtful discussions like a Witcher CGI trailer.

 

[MasPingon]

Grunker is absolutely right. People these days, for some reason, don't like talking about objective measures of quality. Instead they focus on their subjective pet issues. It's pretty tiresome.

Objective measures of quality you say? You mean yours and strawman Grunker's opinion? Like in that infamous Fallout thread?

 

[Grunker]

Grunker is absolutely right. People these days, for some reason, don't like talking about objective measures of quality. Instead they focus on their subjective pet issues. It's pretty tiresome.

Objective measures of quality you say? You mean yours and strawman Grunker's opinion? Like in that infamous Fallout thread?

The amount of butthurt oozing out this post man

 

[Whisper]

Someone in thread already pointed out that in chapter 1 of witcher 1, there was situation "innocent women VS lynch mob" but in the end it was obvious that she was secret member of spider cult known by blood sacrifices.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Abigail

 

[RRRrrr]

Am I the only one who thinks Grunker didn't say anything of value despite the walls of texts?
Something can be good even if it doesn't stick entirely to the original source, who would have thought
Marketing !=game quality, what a revolutionary discovery that will certainly change the world! If only we knew
A game is bad when it is bad, imagine the implications!!!


Thanks Grunker, your posts were very enlightening

 

[Grunker]

who would have thought

It seems you missed the part where the people I argue with say that the inherent quality of a derivative work depends on the quality of the original.

It might seem an obvious point to you, as it does to me, but nevertheless the case is that is the very point we're arguing about. Did you have something to contribute?

 

[RRRrrr]

who would have thought

It seems you missed the part where the people I argue with say that the inherent quality of a derivative work depends on the quality of the original.

It might seem an obvious point to you, as it does to me, but nevertheless the case is that is the very point we're arguing about. Did you have something to contribute?

What Mrowak is saying is that he would have been happier if The Witcher games did justice to the books (which he considers good for some reason).

KotOR 2's deconstruction of Star Wars is only possible because it shits on many things established in the Star Wars universe (and in the original for that matter). KotOR 2 is way less adherent to original three films than The Witcher games are to the books.

Again, do not make things worse. Kotor 2 takes SW with all its themes and stuffies, and makes it into something grander. Still eagerly awaiting that in TW.

I don't think he was trying to establish that the only way for an adaptation to have any good qualities whatsoever would be to stay absolutely true to the original.
The whole discussion seems pointless simply because the points argued are obvious. If Mrowak actually meant the inherent quality of a derivative work depends solely on the quality of the original in all cases and not that the TW books are better than the game and the game would be better if it stayer true(er) to them, I apologize.

EDIT: There are a lot of people holding strange views, I hope you have the ability to ignore them. Otherwise you would probably go crazy if you stumble upon a conspiracy theory forum or something. Wasting so much energy on obvious things is fruitless.


EDIT2: My opinion is that the books were never good to begin with and it would be really hard for TW games to worse. I actually think that they are more interesting than the books in terms of story and writing (which only Polish people find good presumably because much is lost in translation). The games also have fewer cringe-worthy moments as opposed to the books (especially the saga) which were painful to read. Imo it is a mediocre fantasy at best and I really don't see what the fuss is all about. The games also seem to less influenced by sexual fantasies which doesn't say much.

 

[Grunker]

What Mrowak is saying is that he would have been happier if The Witcher games did justice to the books

No, it isn't. Because as you'd note if you read my posts, I have said multiple times that his personal opinion is his, and I can't challenge that. Yet he still disagreed with me.

EDIT: There are a lot of people holding strange views, I hope you have the ability to ignore them. Otherwise you would probably go crazy if you stumble upon a conspiracy theory forum or something. Wasting so much energy on obvious things is fruitless.

What's the point of wasting time here if not on pointless discussion?

 

[tuluse]

@Grunker, one thing I think you've glossed over is that a work of art can be asked to justify the reason it used an existing work, or why it made changes from it.

 

[Grunker]

@Grunker, one thing I think you've glossed over is that a work of art can be asked to justify the reason it used an existing work, or why it made changes from it.

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.