852 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

ladyvader wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

And for the record, there are shows like "Spartacus" and "True Blood" that I actually watch and like that feature nudity and sexual content. "Spartacus" especially. You see EVERYTHING, both boys and girls. But more often than not, the sex scenes serve a purpose. The scenes between Crixus and Lucretia come to mind. Contrast that with the scenes between Crixus and Naevia, and you'll see what I mean. One is about power and domination, and underscores the fact that even though Crixus is the top dog among the gladiators, he's still a slave, and literally a sex slave to the woman of the house. But he loves Naevia, and their scenes are about tenderness and a certain sense of impending doom and despair. There is a POINT to them.

I can't believe no one responded to this. People are taking me to task for my "tone" and all that, and then I write something pretty darned on-topic and get bupkiss.

That's because you made a point they really can't argue with. 

Has nothing to do with that, this thread is going at such a fast pace responses wise it's hard to catch every single post. Her post is silly in some regards now that I have read it. She likes nudity in those TV series because it has a plot basis in her mind. But that plot basis is no more so than the Geralt and Triss ones and I pointed that out about the nature of how Geralt lives and the risks of each day which is no different then "their scenes are about tenderness and a certain sense of impending doom and despair" in TW2 (excludes brothel ones) however even the brothel ones builds a more believable realistic world where poverty and despair encroach on everyones lives and seek comfort and gain through means at their disposal. And just like in her example those series there is an element of "more often than not". It's simple double standards on her end and subjective about what makes a difference to the story or not. Like Merin said there was no question so my reply is purely an opinion based on what read rather than answering any questions.

No comparison. Of course it doesn't help that the voice acting in Witcher 2 is irretrievably bad, the characters have as much depth as a piece of paper. Geralt is a "badass" cliché, Triss is a stripper cliché, and the whole thing comes across like something Zack Snyder would imagine as "female empowerment" à la Sucker Punch.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

And where is the astounding misogynism in TW2 (other than it being set in an actual medieval setting with people not taking women seriously)?

My question to that: is it presented as a bad thing?

What I love about the game is that it doesn't moralize.

What it does show is several females being good leaders, excellent politicians and strong fighters.
It shows someone like Vernon Roche, having a woman as his right hand, which is rare. And we see women fighting with the Scoia'Tael rebels.

But it doesn't go out of its way to say "it's wrong!!"
And yea, Geralt sometimes does say "women" in a playfully dismissive manner once or twice. I prefer it that way.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 septembre 2011 - 01:40 .

[hoorayforicecream]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And where is the astounding misogynism in TW2 (other than it being set in an actual medieval setting with people not taking women seriously)?
Before you say because Geralt saved Triss, first he doesn't have to, second, she saved his life too.
Because she left her neck exposed and was the submissive one in that particular scene (she's pretty dominating in TW1)?
Or because Geralt's genital was not shown? Triss' genitals were not shown either, and last I heard, many women find male chests attractive and yet we don't cover it up.

Sooo....where?
Perhaps because sorceresses dress in revealing ways, which is part of mage culture and is a method of manipulation, and I'd say many of them are more competent than male leaders.

Sure one could play Geralt as a James Bond character, but no one is forcing you.

The repeated commentary about Triss's ass during the opening of act 1 (when Roche is carrying Triss over his shoulder after she faints) seemed like it would qualify.

[1136342t54_]

Future Guy wrote...
I don't see pandering as a bad thing.  It is paid entertainment afterall.

I never said it was bad. It actually depends on the person watching it.

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And where is the astounding misogynism in TW2 (other than it being set in an actual medieval setting with people not taking women seriously)?

My question to that: is it presented as a bad thing?

What I love about the game is that it doesn't moralize.

What it does show is several females being good leaders, excellent politicians and strong fighters.
It shows someone like Vernon Roche, having a woman as his right hand, which is rare. And we see women fighting with the Scoia'Tael rebels.

But it doesn't go out of its way to say "it's wrong!!"
And yea, Geralt sometimes does say "women" in a playfully dismissive manner once or twice. I prefer it that way.  

Out of curiosity, hasn't your universal reaction been the destruction of the Scoia'Tael?
Also, why do you "prefer it that way?"

[Marionetten]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The repeated commentary about Triss's ass during the opening of act 1 (when Roche is carrying Triss over his shoulder after she faints) seemed like it would qualify.

Does that make Isabella a man hater? Just curious as she's an expert when it comes to lewd commentary.

[Ryzaki]

Marionetten wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ugh. Witcher 2 love scenes? No thanks. Just go back to ME1 please. classy, sensual and mature.

I'm really not understanding what is so sensual, classy and mature about sideboobs. Maybe I'm missing something?

Visually speaking The Witcher 2 destroys everything BioWare has ever produced. That bath scene is gorgeous to look at not only because of the characters but also due to the fantastic environments. Shagging the captain in some drab room with dimmed lights just doesn't compare. In fact, I always found those scenes exceedingly sleazy.

 

Yes because ME1's build up and dialogue was destroyed by the Witcher's dull barbie doll flat faces. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The repeated commentary about Triss's ass during the opening of act 1 (when Roche is carrying Triss over his shoulder after she faints) seemed like it would qualify.

That's Roche. And if you consider that mysognist, please explain Ves as his right hand. I saw it more as playfully deffusing tension in a rough situation.

I fail to see how that's the game being mysoginist. Sure, you can say Roche was, and it adds character imo. 

Why can Isabela stare at Varric's chest, but Roche can't complement Triss' ass?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 septembre 2011 - 01:46 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Xilizhra wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And where is the astounding misogynism in TW2 (other than it being set in an actual medieval setting with people not taking women seriously)?

My question to that: is it presented as a bad thing?

What I love about the game is that it doesn't moralize.

What it does show is several females being good leaders, excellent politicians and strong fighters.
It shows someone like Vernon Roche, having a woman as his right hand, which is rare. And we see women fighting with the Scoia'Tael rebels.

But it doesn't go out of its way to say "it's wrong!!"
And yea, Geralt sometimes does say "women" in a playfully dismissive manner once or twice. I prefer it that way.  

Out of curiosity, hasn't your universal reaction been the destruction of the Scoia'Tael?
Also, why do you "prefer it that way?"

Because it fits a medieval setting.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

Out of curiosity, hasn't your universal reaction been the destruction of the Scoia'Tael?
Also, why do you "prefer it that way?"

Hmmm? You mean me being against the Scoia'Tael? Yea, that has nothing to do with gender.

Because it adds more character to the universe and setting we are playing in. More realism, if you wish to call it that.
When it says it's a medieval fantasy, it makes sure it feels something remotely resembling medieval societies.

[1136342t54_]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
That's Roche. And if you consider that mysognist, please explain Ves as his right hand. I saw it more as playfully deffusing tension in a rought situation.

I fail to see how that's the game being mysoginist. Sure, you can say Roche was, and it adds character imo. 

Why can Isabela stare at Varric's chest, but Roche can't complement Triss' ass?

Because no matter what sex or sexuality you have no choice but to stare at Varric's chest.

[MerinTB]

Siansonea II wrote...
Well, I wanted to address the idea that I was coming from a place of "prudery" or "man hate", and only the most simplistic interpretation of my earlier posts would lead one to believe that was the case. I wanted to show that I'm not afraid of nudity (I'm a huge Renaissance art fan, I am quite accustomed to seeing the human form in all its glory) and I'm not afraid of intimacy/sex as a storytelling tool. But the Witcher 2 isn't doing any of that. It's an obvious attempt to titillate, and I suppose it's something that only a woman would notice, since the titillation aspect of it is clearly not developed from a female point of view at all. Do you think very many female players see themselves as Triss? She's not even the player character. And the camera's focus is on her from start to finish. That's not storytelling, that's pandering. Honestly, do people really not see it? I feel like there's an elephant in the room, and people are insisting it's just a lamp.

There are several directions this kind of discussion could come from that wouldn't be combative but straight up just sharing of views and opinions.

One would be where neither side calls the other "prude" or "perv", no one addresses age or relationship status of anyone in the discussion, and everyone respects each person's personal views whether they enjoy nudity or think that the only place nude bodies belong are inside clothes (or possibly the shower/bath.)

Another would be to let the ad hominem slide off, completely ignored, and try to wade through to the few valid points being made.

The former seems unlikely to ever happen, the latter is probably asking too much of most people.

---

I am not ashamed to admitting that I like tittilation.  I think tittilation gets a bad rap.  I also like gorey horror movies. *shrug*

I cannot stand crime games or gangster movies.  I do not see the "enjoyment in viewing", any "entertainment value" at all in "glorifying" or "idolizing" criminals.  That's me.  But I'm not going to go around and tell those who DO enjoy such things that, because I hold a different view of such things, that they are "wrong" or that their games and movies are "immature."

That's not me saying you were doing that, just to be clear.

Anywho - games are not highbrow.  To pretend that stuff is put into them to be just pure drama or high art or whatever stance one takes in saying that "nudity" or "gore" or "bad language" or "whatever your personal bugaboo is" has "no place in games" is, in my opinion, just silly.

Games are entertainment media.  What entertains some people in games?  Sports?  Racing?  Shooting people in the head?  Chopping up zombies with axes?  Building cities?  Romancing and dating numerous people?  Playing god and ordering your faithful followers off a cliff?  Building a doorless room around a poor Sim to watch them die?  Having an interactive sex scene?  Robbing a store?  Running a cop over with a car?  Letting a giant monster lose to smash buildings and eat people?

Why are some of those acceptable as fantasies to experience via video games and others are not?

[hoorayforicecream]

Marionetten wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The repeated commentary about Triss's ass during the opening of act 1 (when Roche is carrying Triss over his shoulder after she faints) seemed like it would qualify.

Does that make Isabella a man hater? Just curious as she's an expert when it comes to lewd commentary.

Considering she's an equal opportunist, I would say that her attitude in objectifying people is pretty equal. When do Roche or Geralt objectify men?

[Dragoonlordz]

Ryzaki wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ugh. Witcher 2 love scenes? No thanks. Just go back to ME1 please. classy, sensual and mature.

I'm really not understanding what is so sensual, classy and mature about sideboobs. Maybe I'm missing something?

Visually speaking The Witcher 2 destroys everything BioWare has ever produced. That bath scene is gorgeous to look at not only because of the characters but also due to the fantastic environments. Shagging the captain in some drab room with dimmed lights just doesn't compare. In fact, I always found those scenes exceedingly sleazy.

 

Yes because ME1's build up and dialogue was destroyed by the Witcher's dull barbie doll flat faces. 

If anything Biowares titles have more barbie doll faces than WItchers by a truly long way.

[jeweledleah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And where is the astounding misogynism in TW2 (other than it being set in an actual medieval setting with people not taking women seriously)?

My question to that: is it presented as a bad thing?

What I love about the game is that it doesn't moralize.

What it does show is several females being good leaders, excellent politicians and strong fighters.
It shows someone like Vernon Roche, having a woman as his right hand, which is rare. And we see women fighting with the Scoia'Tael rebels.

But it doesn't go out of its way to say "it's wrong!!"
And yea, Geralt sometimes does say "women" in a playfully dismissive manner once or twice. I prefer it that way.  

see, those are the parts that I likke.  there are a lot of good things about Witcher, and I honestly don't even mind it that hecould be a James Bond like, bangs everything that moves.  i just don't see the point of showing aforementioned boinking in excruciating detail at every chance.  it doesn't make the game mature.  Gray morality and intricate story make the game mature.

[Dragoonlordz]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The repeated commentary about Triss's ass during the opening of act 1 (when Roche is carrying Triss over his shoulder after she faints) seemed like it would qualify.

Does that make Isabella a man hater? Just curious as she's an expert when it comes to lewd commentary.

Considering she's an equal opportunist, I would say that her attitude in objectifying people is pretty equal. When do Roche or Geralt objectify men?

In this world and in that world of which created there are men who belittle women and women who belittle men. It adds realism to have a variety which encompasses all types.

[Marionetten]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Considering she's an equal opportunist, I would say that her attitude in objectifying people is pretty equal. When do Roche or Geralt objectify men?

Are you saying only bisexuals are allowed to make lewd comments? That's pretty discriminating of you.

[MerinTB]

Siansonea II wrote...
and the whole thing comes across like something Zack Snyder would imagine as "female empowerment" à la Sucker Punch.

Wow.

Sucker Punch is not female empowerment.  It's a statement on the exact kind of exploitation of women in "male dominated entertainment media" that you are attacking here.

Some people read some bad reviews of that film and it's become something of a generally accepted reality that the film was trying to be "female empowerment" when it's the farthest thing from.

sorry, I loved Sucker Punch and I, for one, got what Zack Snyder was trying to do - your mileage of course may vary

[jlb524]

This TW2 vs. BW stuff argument is tiring.  They each do their own thing when it comes to sex and romance and if you don't like it, don't play it or don't do the romances.

Future Guy wrote...

I don't see pandering as a bad thing.  It is paid entertainment afterall.

Unless they're pandering to 'teh gays' amirite?

[KnightofPhoenix]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Considering she's an equal opportunist, I would say that her attitude in objectifying people is pretty equal. When do Roche or Geralt objectify men?

So objectifying people is alright if it's equal?

Well the biggest bastard in the entire game is a straight male. 

Roche and Geralt are not bisexual, why would they sexually objectiy men?

[hoorayforicecream]

Marionetten wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Considering she's an equal opportunist, I would say that her attitude in objectifying people is pretty equal. When do Roche or Geralt objectify men?

Are you saying only bisexuals are allowed to make lewd comments? That's pretty discriminating of you.

I'm saying that if one objectifies one gender, one should objectify all genders. Otherwise it's sexist.

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Out of curiosity, hasn't your universal reaction been the destruction of the Scoia'Tael?
Also, why do you "prefer it that way?"

Hmmm? You mean me being against the Scoia'Tael? Yea, that has nothing to do with gender.

Because it adds more character to the universe and setting we are playing in. More realism, if you wish to call it that.
When it says it's a medieval fantasy, it makes sure it feels something remotely resembling medieval societies.

I would find it more acceptable if we weren't forced to play the character, a fact that ensures that I'll never play the thing.

[Siansonea]

Future Guy wrote...

ladyvader wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

ladyvader wrote...

That's because you made a point they really can't argue with.

Or because it's completely skewed. 90% of Spartacus is spent watching sweaty half-naked men duke it out. The female nudity definitely takes a backseat to the barrage of schlongs and glistening abs. And you know what? That's perfectly fine and Spartacus was one of my favorite shows of the season. But really, it's hardly some perfect example of equal pandering.

Which was the point.

So would this be considered as a misandric trope?  It seems some think that the opposite is a misogynistic trope.

Actually, it's more of a countertrope. And it's almost beside the point, since the meat and potatoes of the show is about power and dominance, and the lengths that people will go to maintain or upset the balance of power. John Hannah, Lucy Lawless, the late Andy Whitfield and Peter Mensah are riveting to watch because of how they bring the story to life, not because of sweaty abs or anything like that. Honestly, I almost didn't give the show a chance because I assumed it would be gratuitous for the sake of being gratuitous. But I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't. And the fact that it gives men a little of "their own medicine" is a bonus, and hopefully makes them see how pervasive the objectification of women is elsewhere.