The Witcher 3 Shows What It Means To Kill Monsters

[Agayek]

So basically they want to be Game of Thrones now. Because real art is brooding and always depressing!

To be fair, it's not exactly like the first two games were any less brooding or depressing. This trailer is more-or-less the same tone as every bit of any Witcher game or even book ever released to the public.

Expecting it to be lighthearted and positive is some combination of ignorant, naive, and bullheaded, especially since CDPR has never made any secrets about the tone they're aiming for. It may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't make it any inherently worse.

Pro-tip: The tone of a work, taken on its own, has little to no bearing on the overall quality. Grimdark can be just as good as Happy-fun-tiemz, it doesn't even take any extra effort to be so, so long as the creators are skilled at their craft.

 

[Vhite]

Not really sure what you're trying to do here but you could at least put a bit of effort into it.

I'm just sick and tired of this trend for the past decade of how only good stories for TV shows, movies and yes, video games have to be dark, depressing, moody and basically acts like it needs Prozac badly. I think Yahtzee said it best in one of his episodes about how all Fantasy games have to be dark and moody just to even be considered fantasy these days. I forget which episode that was though.

Hating something because It's overused and harms the medium is fine. However, hating it even when it's used well is just stupid. I prefer high fantasy over dark but I would rather have sea of good grimdark games than average palette.

 

[Suncatcher]

The setting of the Witcher series has always been pretty close to realistic for the dark ages, plus monsters and magic. There are very few clear moral choices since 'innocent' generally means less 'good' and more 'powerless'; humans are generally bastards when they're placed in a society that allows for it, as most of history and countless psychological studies have demonstrated.

High fantasy either pretends that people are better than they are or uses magic to upgrade everything, making a happy shiny world and showing you great heroes within it. It's entertaining, and valuable because it gives people an escape from the banality and shittiness of real life. There's certainly nothing wrong with the genre and I quite enjoy it. But the heroes are always so far away, impossible paragons under circumstances we have no experience with, saving everyone by magic and finding true love and never failing when it really matters.

Low fantasy goes about things realistically, making the world about as terrible as it would honestly be under the conditions presented. And then it gives you heroes who try to introduce a little spark of light in the darkness, who find what little good there is in the world and defend it to the utmost. The stories are more believable and relatable, the heroes have flaws and they sometimes lose just like real people, and they inspire people to do better and try to fix whatever tiny things they can. Someone with a decent life reads a good grimdark story and their own problems seems smaller and more manageable; someone with serious problems can actually relate to the hero and take comfort in their story; someone pushed into a truly terrible situation, somebody who's lost track of the good in the world, is inspired to not give up and to keep moving forward.

That's what Geralt does. As a Witcher he's supposed to just kill monsters, collect his pay, and leave humanity to humanity's tender mercies. Instead he makes trouble. When he sees someone just trying to survive being strung up by psychopaths, he murders four people to save one. When he sees a petty despot lording over dozens of generally decent if not particularly good or noble folks, he removes them. Even though he knows that the cost in blood will be higher in the end, even though that woman likely won't last much longer anyway, and some new dictator will fill the void, he continues to try because every once in a while he manages to actually save just one good person, to permanently fix a problem, to make the world some tiny fraction better of a place. And so he ends up being called a monster, the Butcher of Blaviken, and eventually ends up impaled on some bigot's pitchfork.

I thought that the story of the first game captured that theme quite well; it is very easy to compromise, to side with one evil or the other and get through your personal goals with their assistance. But the true path refuses to join either army, and so ends up fighting both sides for the sake of common folk who couldn't care less about you or your ideals.

 

[ciancon]

Wow, that completely blew an AC4 trailer I saw a few mins ago out of the water!

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Also, the line about "Not choosing at all" can actually be made in the game. You can stay Neutral while everyone on either side tries to recruit you.

That isn't what he was saying though. He was saying he wanted to kill them and the monster, not that he wanted to remain neutral. Eg, choose between killing the evil of whatever monster he slayed(which they paid him for) and killing the evil they represented as well. Because it isn't choosing if he does both and that is his preference, even if it isn't viable most of the time and really only was in this situation because they were in the middle of nowhere.

Looking good, can't wait to see if they pull off the non-linear open world aspect without sacrificing on storytelling.

So basically they want to be Game of Thrones now. Because real art is brooding and always depressing!

The Witcher games have been around longer than GoT and have always been like this and the books were released at around the same time the ASOIAF books were.

Not really sure what you're trying to do here but you could at least put a bit of effort into it.

Technically not that I care, as both series are fairly different and both seem to stand well on their own merits; but the first ASOIAF book came out in 1996 the first Witcher novel came out in 1992, meaning it predates Game of Thrones by around 4 years.

What this teaser and this article basically says is that Life only has depressing, dark and brooding moments. I would say that is just as narrow minded and naive as people would call idealists. Anyone who sees the world as being only one extreme, whether it's happy or sad, is idiotic.

You never played any of the Witcher games did you? Or at least you certainly didn't play for more than an hour. You should probably at least be familiar with something before you start criticizing it, there are plenty of happy times in the Witcher.

 

[freaper]

Found it! It was the intro to Two Worlds II And He's just as right here as he was then.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2819-Two-Worlds-II

Spoiler: Well, you know

Turns out some people like the dark and brooding world. I for example like the way they deal with real life issues and current problems. The gay (as in happy) colorful worlds of yore, on the other hand, strike me as extremely artificial, and, in my opinion, incapable of dealing with more interesting themes. Besides, it's not like all of these gritty fantasy universes have no humor or jolliness to them, you just have to look for it.

On a side note; don't use "DEEP" ironically, it makes you look like that guy.

 

[Simple Bluff]

I agree with the guys who are saying this trailer is pretty shallow, but I can't stop being impressed by the "Killing Monsters" line long enough to care. I bet Geralt's been waiting to use that one for a long time.

Regardless though, I like the odd self indulgent no-reason-to-exist CGI trailer. Especially the ones with energy - you can tell the developers had a lot of fun making it. And I have a lot of fun watching them.

Now (for no reason at all) one of my faveorites, for my fellow spectacle whores:
Phwoar

 

[Syntax Error]

snip

What I meant is that in the first game in Chaper 4

Spoiler: Witcher 1 spoilers here

There's a brewing conflict between the Fish People and the inhabitants of Mury Waters, the nearby town. To show that the other side wants peace, both sides demand tribute. The fish people want the village's Prized Cow, the villagers want... something, I forgot. But then you can take a third option and deal with the actual source of the conflict: a local "God" of the fish people responsible for all the grief in this part of town.

In the climax of the same chapter, there's a huge battle in Murky Waters between the Elven Rebels and the knights of the Kingdom. You can Choose either side, but that will piss the other off, OR you can choose neither and just bail out, and the battle will be a free-for-all.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Found it! It was the intro to Two Worlds II And He's just as right here as he was then.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2819-Two-Worlds-II

Spoiler: Well, you know

It's worse than that, it's not even HIS opinion. He's basically just spouting the observations of other people (namely, someone who's JOB is to point-out the foibles in games and then rip them apart). He's right up there (or down there, rather) with people who watch an episode of South Park, then use that as their base material for their opinions in life. "Oh what's that? South Park did an episode where they cracked jokes about X celebrity? Well I'm gonna go through life making fun of that celebrity now; even though I know nothing about him/her beyond what South Park told me."

Heck, I have a couple of friends like that. Ever since they saw Team America, they always make fun of Matt Damon anytime a commercial for one of his movies comes up on TV, or anyone suggests the idea of going to see a movie that they know he's in. Yet they've never even seen any of his movies nor do they follow any celebrity gossip. All that they know is that some movie decided to portray him as only being able to say his own name, and that's now their opinion of him. Meanwhile, I've gone on to watch some of his movies, and while he isn't perfect, he's a perfectly fine actor in more movies than not.

 

[Extragorey]

Eh, it's more about how the trailer seems to want to ask complex questions on the surface yet fails at bringing a message across that isn't a 14 year old teenager's idea of justice.

Oh, so taking the stance that abusing and hanging a person to death - for any reason - is wrong... is purely a 14-year-old's idea of justice?
Wow, way to marginalise the morally conservative among us.

 

[Childe]

They are beating a pretty woman and enjoying it. That must mean they are evil. And the woman must be innocent and pure because she is pretty.

Judge Gerult of Rividerp sentences you to DIE! *flashy action scene*

AND ALL OF THE JUSTICE HAS BEEN JUSTICED THAT DAY. 14 YEAR OLDS ALL OVER THE WORLD REJOICE.

I wish there was an extended version of this trailer where the woman turned out to be the real evil. I didn't expect to criticize The Witcher for its cliche portrayals but here I am. Who's the real monster, Geralt? Oh that's right, you didn't smile while cruelly murdering those men, which indicates that you didn't like it therefore it's totally okay. Must be why you took the time and set up a noose instead of putting the guy out of his misery. Because you SO hate what you're doing, but this will serve as a good example to .

Fuckin Witcher, man. SO DEEP


Who wants to bet that he's gonna bang that chick later? See, in a normal fairy tale, they'd just kiss and ride into the sunset or something. But The Witcher is dark and gritty so they bang.

There was a lot of internal monologue about evil. The video isn't saying that the women isn't evil or that the men are good or more evil. Its about making choices about which evil you choose to face

 

[Alarien]

Trailer would have been a lot more compelling if he had just killed her too, in some quick and somewhat humane way. If she was actually found "guilty" of something, then justice all around, but who knows, we haven't played that story out.

I don't think it's become fashionable to hate The Witcher, not in the same way it's fashionable to hate FFVII or ME3. The Witcher is a polarizing series for good reasons. I liked The Witcher 1 a lot, because it was a resurrection of the western CRPG during a period when they were dying off. It's combat was sorta inept, but playable and the characters were ok. The story was passable. In the end, though, it was fairly enjoyable.

The Witcher 2, however, was a total mess for me. Whereas a lot of RPG's, especially action RPGs, are starting to move away from "locked in town area where you randomly talk to everyone, get quests, go into wilderness, trek back to town" system that has been in place since... oh... before Baldur's Gate 1 I'm sure, The Witcher 2 continued that and it just felt old. The combat was ok, except the reliance an utterly inane potion system, which nearly required short term potions and, thus, short term ability to predict your upcoming combat. It was just stupid. The game felt tired and the systems felt sorta broken.

I know others loved it. That's great, I really hope one day I'll work up the interest to get back into it and finish it off, but I just can't bring myself to do so in the wake of many other games that I think just play better and are more interesting to boot. I know it's supposed to get better later in the game, but the first several hours were just too boring for words for me.

That's not fashionable hate, it's based on a lot of reasons, specific to my taste. A lot of people reasonably enjoy The Witcher, a lot don't, and, frankly, that's ok. (What's not ok is when the level of fanboy love or neigh-sayer butt-hurt ex-fanboy hate go into massive tirades lambasting anyone for giving a different opinion. For examples of that, I'm sure you can look to Mass Effect 3's haters or Halo's supporters. I'd say Half-Life's supporters (personally, I can't stand it) but that game's polish and competence are so high that at least those people's love is grounded in reality)

 

[RedDeadFred]

They are beating a pretty woman and enjoying it. That must mean they are evil. And the woman must be innocent and pure because she is pretty.

Judge Gerult of Rividerp sentences you to DIE! *flashy action scene*

AND ALL OF THE JUSTICE HAS BEEN JUSTICED THAT DAY. 14 YEAR OLDS ALL OVER THE WORLD REJOICE.

I wish there was an extended version of this trailer where the woman turned out to be the real evil. I didn't expect to criticize The Witcher for its cliche portrayals but here I am. Who's the real monster, Geralt? Oh that's right, you didn't smile while cruelly murdering those men, which indicates that you didn't like it therefore it's totally okay. Must be why you took the time and set up a noose instead of putting the guy out of his misery. Because you SO hate what you're doing, but this will serve as a good example to .

Fuckin Witcher, man. SO DEEP


Who wants to bet that he's gonna bang that chick later? See, in a normal fairy tale, they'd just kiss and ride into the sunset or something. But The Witcher is dark and gritty so they bang.

They are Nilfgaarding soldiers. You can tell by their dress and by what they are saying (Imperial gold). Nilfgaard is invading the North. This is obviously an act of them pillaging what they think they've won. So ya, I'd say they are evil bastards. Geralt doesn't want to get involved in the war but he doesn't like seeing the innocent getting shit on.

I could see how you wouldn't get all that from the trailer though if you haven't played the previous game.

Also, having just rerolled my captcha a dozen times to find something that wasn't an ad captcha, what the hell are you supposed to type in for those ads that are in different languages. I have no idea what the thing is saying... do I just type in the product name?

 

[Extragorey]

Oh, so taking the stance that abusing and hanging a person to death - for any reason - is wrong... is purely a 14-year-old's idea of justice?
Wow, way to marginalise the morally conservative among us.

I know, right. How dare I marginalize the hypocri morally conservative among us. I am literally le Hitler.

If you say so. Besides, you seemed to have missed the message the video was actually giving: evil is evil, no matter the degree of extremity. Geralt believed what the men were doing was evil, and acted accordingly. It doesn't matter what the woman did or didn't do - that's a question for another day, if or when a future confrontation occurs. To address your original comment, it isn't even about justice - justice is another thing entirely, based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights. Geralt obviously doesn't care for that - he just saw evil, and decided to put a stop to it.

But rather than focusing on "oh, that woman's probably evil anyway," the better discussion comes from looking at the irony of Geralt's own actions - killing the guys - and how that action itself is a form of evil. Such hypocrisy is commonplace in modern sensibilities and ethics debates, and indeed makes for far better discussion (if you were actually inclined to discuss something and not just mock other people's opinions).

 

[RedDeadFred]

They are Nilfgaarding soldiers. You can tell by their dress and by what they are saying (Imperial gold). Nilfgaard is invading the North. This is obviously an act of them pillaging what they think they've won. So ya, I'd say they are evil bastards. Geralt doesn't want to get involved in the war but he doesn't like seeing the innocent getting shit on.

They are from the Nation of Evil, therefore they are Evil. Gotcha.
Things are surprisingly clear-cut in the Witcher universe, aren't they.
And yes I've played The Witcher 2, which is why I'm a bit disappointed in this trailer.

It's like you read the first part of my comment and then skipped the rest...

 

[NamesAreStupid]

Yeah, this really isn't anything new to the series. Abigail from The Witcher 1. Malena from The Witcher 2. Woman accosted by men. Choose which to side with.

Rarely is the matter as straight-forward as this little Pre-rendered cutscene. In Abigail's case, she was a witch, and even tried to bribe you with sex. Still, there was evidence that the town's people were actually the ones responsible for what she was accused of.

In Malena's case, she was a straight up *****. If you side with her, she leads you into an ambush, and if you investigate her story, you find she actually did what they say she did.

Really, this vid probably isn't the best representation of the game.

1. Prerendered cutscene.
2. Just a scaled down version of stuff we've already seen.

Still excited about the game, though.

About Abagail there is also this:
"Abigail is secretly a member of the Cult of the Lionhead Spider: this is revealed when Geralt chooses to leave her fate to the villagers. She curses Geralt in the name of Coram Agh Ter. Whether this means she is also responsible for the misdeeds of the other villagers is unclear ? possibly, she had something to do with influencing the merchant to kill his brother as she has a suspicious doll of his likeness in her hut. ".

 

[Racecarlock]

"A good plot should not mimic reality in the sense that you can finish each quest in a million different ways,"

No, but finding all of those different ways is one of the fun parts of a game. Giving you every option possible makes it feel more like you actually have some effect on the world. And it lets the game flow more organically.

Also.

believable situations are the key to a good story

Gurren Fucking Lagann. Okay? Just watch that show once and tell me you still believe that. The key to a good story is good characters. Well rounded good guys and menacing and threatening bad guys. That's it.

I mean, if that quote is true, then Every Day The Same Dream already has a better story than the witcher 3.