283 réponses à ce sujet

[Gibb_Shepard]

Lithuasil wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Anyone who can talk about the Witcher2 without immediately demanding the heads of the developers on spikes, clearly shouldn't judge Rpgs. Not to mention his complaints basically boil down to "it sucks cuz plot wasnt HUEG ÄPIC", only slightly more elaborately phrased. Slightly.

Wait what? 

To address your second point, I think you're generalizing his argument. He wasn't saying that the game's flaw was that DA2 wasn't "EPIC" but more the idea that it has been diluted and streamlined to the point that the franchise has lost its charm. It held your hand to the point that the game felt linear and dreary. Where was the freedom of choice? DA:O (while definitely not perfect) at least hinted the consequences of your actions etc and seem to give the promise of a good franchise with better improved RPGs continuing along the line of classic RPG games like Baldur's Gate 2.  Instead what we got was something entirely different. 

Witcher2 was quite simply the worst thing to happen to TripleA - WRPGS period. There were hints of potential, but on the whole, the game could easily be an "How not to do it" guide, and it still stands tall, as the single most hatefully misogynistic piece of media I ever had the misfortune of experiencing.

And this people, is why she hates the Witcher 2 and it is the single worst RPG. Not because of the actual game, oh no, but because it was "mysoginistic". 

Dear lord.

[Fast Jimmy]

HanabPacal wrote...

What’s sad about this situation is that we have seen it many times before – way too many times.  An article, a blog, a blurb or whatever is written and subsequently embraced by many of the people who dislike DA2 as a sort of justification for how they feel about the game.  The article is then grasped and used as a weapon against those sitting on the other side of the argument, almost as an “I told you so”. 
 
In response, many of those who like DA2, and ‘protect’ it well beyond the bounds of sensibility, answer with bitterness, defensiveness, sarcasm and escalated extremism.  The usual method of argumentation against any such piece is to craft a response that attempts to discredit the article, the author or both by focusing on one idea, one sentence or even one word.  The focus on this one idea (one sentence, one word) is almost always blown way out of proportion to the context in which it was written and is taken to an extreme.  This one idea, even if it were merely a casual sentence of lamentation over a lack of fun in comparison to “X”, is attributed with a quality of all importance so that everything else, all of the salient points, fall to the wayside as they are completely ignored.
 
Even sadder than the situation described above is the fact that if the nature of the article, the blog, the blurb were reversed, people on the opposite sides of the argument would reverse roles accordingly.  If this article had been written with a positive outlook toward DA2 after an initial negative one was put forth, you can rest assured that many of those who like the game would be defending the article with every ounce of energy that they could muster.  At the same time many of those who dislike the game would be attempting to undermine it with an equal amount of fervor.
 
Isn’t it time to let go of the bitterness and the extremism?  We’re talking about a game here, not something with even an ounce of significance.  I can understand having a good debate, even a heated debate as the entanglement of verbal sparring can be very exhilarating.  But the situation as it now exists is one of nearly absolute ridiculousness.  The two sides are mirror images of each other, and have been for quite some time, regardless of the fact that blame for how bad things are on the BSN is always laid at the feet of those who dislike DA2.  The only real difference lies in the fact that many (way too many) people on the pro-DA2 side make bold statements claiming the moral high ground as they engage in scenarios like we have here.  Thus there is an almost constant undertone of hypocrisy walking hand in hand with that anger, bitterness, extremism and sarcasm.
 
Most likely this will be completely ignored, or possibly met with some brand new venom.  I don’t actually expect people to suddenly become good members of the debating society, but I hope that at least some of the extremism can be reined in for the sake of everybody involved.  At the very least, consider how things would have played out if the nature of the article were reversed.  I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that at this point in time the extremist arguing is more about ‘putting the other side in their place’ than it is about anything truly related to DA2.    

Here, here.

If the article was praising DA2 months after posting a negative review, the pro-DA2 camp would be defending the journalistic right of groups to change their mind and show the opinions of different writers and the anti-DA2 camp would be saying something was fishy, implying that BW had paid people off to write a better review to push DLC to be released in January.

I think a lot more conversations would not resort to this same, predictable bickering if most people ignored the trolls around here, the people who are on to post a duragatory remark about DA2 with no substance or the people who act indignant and outraged whenever someone suggests that DA2 wasn't the greatest caliber game created in the past decade. Those people are called trolls, regardless of how often they are on these boards, because they are trolling the waters for a response, eager to get into a fight to prove how right they are.

And most of us, like suckers, respond and give them exactly what they are looking for.

[Fast Jimmy]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And this people, is why she hates the Witcher 2 and it is the single worst RPG. Not because of the actual game, oh no, but because it was "mysoginistic". 

Dear lord.

<shrug> You can hate **** Germany, despite their incredibly brilliant feats of military tactics, mechanical and scientific engineering and unique social outlooks, for that whole racial purity thing.

Having a moral apprehension isn't negated because other aspects may have been pulled off extremely well. Its a valid reason to not like something.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<shrug> You can hate **** Germany, despite their incredibly brilliant feats of military tactics, mechanical and scientific engineering and unique social outlooks, for that whole racial purity thing.

Having a moral apprehension isn't negated because other aspects may have been pulled off extremely well. Its a valid reason to not like something.

I can't say ****? They were a legitimate politcal group and had great significance to 20th century history. Can I not say the Huns or the Kahns either?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<shrug> You can hate **** Germany, despite their incredibly brilliant feats of military tactics, mechanical and scientific engineering and unique social outlooks, for that whole racial purity thing.

Having a moral apprehension isn't negated because other aspects may have been pulled off extremely well. Its a valid reason to not like something.

I can't say ****? They were a legitimate politcal group and had great significance to 20th century history. Can I not say the Huns or the Kahns either?

Unforunately, as someone who used to mod a couple of different forums, I can understand the tempation to put that word in the filter.  It's one of those words that has, in forums such as these, really come to mean "I want to hit you and your position with an emotionally charged label that will make people distance themselves from you and force you to spend your time defending against the label instead of discussing the matter at hand" about nine out of ten times that it's used. 

Also unfortunate is the fact that even when the comparison to said group or their philosophies is apt and appropritate, many will dismiss its use as being in the other nine times out of ten.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:57 .

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<shrug> You can hate **** Germany, despite their incredibly brilliant feats of military tactics, mechanical and scientific engineering and unique social outlooks, for that whole racial purity thing.

Having a moral apprehension isn't negated because other aspects may have been pulled off extremely well. Its a valid reason to not like something.

I can't say ****? They were a legitimate politcal group and had great significance to 20th century history. Can I not say the Huns or the Kahns either?

Unforunately, as someone who used to mod a couple of different forums, I can understand the tempation to put that word in the filter.  It's one of those words that has, in forums such as these, really come to mean "I want to hit you and your position with an emotionally charged label that will make people distance themselves from you and force you to spend your time defending against the label instead of discussing the matter at hand" about nine out of ten times that it's used. 

Also unfortunate is the fact that even when the comparison to said group or their philosophies is apt and appropritate, many will dismiss it's use as being in the other nine times out of ten.

It's actually become one of my favorite logical fallacies, just because of how often you see the internet throw it around.

http://www.fallacyfi...g/adnazium.html

[Bayz]

Is to make this forum legal in Germany:P

That aside is fun how you can't say **** but can swear with other words that, granted not always are rude words but still are most of the time when used...

[Gibb_Shepard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And this people, is why she hates the Witcher 2 and it is the single worst RPG. Not because of the actual game, oh no, but because it was "mysoginistic". 

Dear lord.

<shrug> You can hate **** Germany, despite their incredibly brilliant feats of military tactics, mechanical and scientific engineering and unique social outlooks, for that whole racial purity thing.

Having a moral apprehension isn't negated because other aspects may have been pulled off extremely well. Its a valid reason to not like something.

Even if this "morally ambiguous" aspect is true to what actually hapenned back then? 

[Bayz]

Well their brilliant military tactics, mechanical and scientific engineering and unique social outlooks didn't saved their asses when two armies from countries more industralised than them actually kicked their butts badly.

I mean the fact that people depict them as so "superiorly awesome" just makes them fall from higher heights anyway...I mean they were the guys with:

- The best equipment (untrue, they sticked to a ridiculous standards of mm, while their weapons tended to be slightly more reliable, they were less likely to pierce surfaces than soviet, and were way harder to make than american's)

- The best tanks (only true during the start of the war, after the T34 started to be mass produced the end was nigh)

- The best army (again untrue in terms of professionalism and veterans, the russians had seen war more recently before the war started, despite Stalins purges and were far more motivated, let alone the americans took the "total war" discipline more seriously making their army way more productive, the germans only used their industry to fully support the war effort in the last years despite Speer saying they needed to do it before. And don't let me start with the brits who couldn't have 10 consecutive years of peace straight from 1914 to 1939)

- The most disciplined troops (kinda true in a sense that despite everyone being drafted, the wehr was the only one that thought giving the soldiers more training than a couple of months might be useful...but then again, they used the SS as an occupying force, the SS were NOT an army but a paramilitary group, basically ultra brainwahsed civilians given the best equipment and sent to the front straight away...what can go wrong, right?)

And still lost the war...is like playing the most maxed out char, best armor, best tactics best bestest ever and then failing always against your first "rats in a cellar" scenario...they just don't live up to the hype...

- The Blitzkrieg concept of mechanised war was part of officers from the wehr, but it all started with british theorists and DuGalle of all things writting over how to implement mechanised warfare into normal way of war...Then Guderain wrote "Achtung Panzer" and things in mechanised warfare hadn't changed much since...at any rate Guderain wasn't a ****, just part of the army, like Rommel and others...I have not a huge idea about the other "****" advancements, but I am sure that they were not as "****" as they were just German...and I separate a political party from an entire nation quite often...

[xkg]

I love how the last few posts (especially this one above me) are related to the IGN article.
Inevitable thread lock is coming fast.

Modifié par xkg, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:08 .

[Lithuasil]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


Even if this "morally ambiguous" aspect is true to what actually hapenned back then? 

I don't mind realistic sexism. Stuff like Morrowind did it is fine and adds to the immersion. Problem is, Witcher2 - the game, not the people in the world, could only be more hatefully sexist if it'd jump out of the Dvd drive and physically assault me.
Mind you - I'm not one to judge art by morals. I don't even mind that the devs confused "gritty" with "everyone swears like a sailor". 
What I do mind, is shoddy programming, a combat system broken beyond repair, a completely backwards difficulty curve, plotholes the size of jupiter, blatant lies about the supposed freedom the game offers, a set protagonist that contributes nothing but takes away from the story, characters and conflicts that are blatantly shoplifted and the game violently janking me away from anything remotely interesting in favor of grind-quests.

You know, the other things Witcher2 did wrong.

[xkg]

Lithuasil wrote...
What I do mind, is shoddy programming, a combat system broken beyond repair, a completely backwards difficulty curve, plotholes the size of jupiter, blatant lies about the supposed freedom the game offers, a set protagonist that contributes nothing but takes away from the story, characters and conflicts that are blatantly shoplifted and the game violently janking me away from anything remotely interesting in favor of grind-quests.

Lol.  For a moment i was sure that you are talking about DA2 here.

Modifié par xkg, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:03 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

When it comes to DA2, it's like those of us who felt let down by the game or have major criticisms are dismissed as "trolling haters" a lot...

I knew some things were changing, but I really did expect a "spiritual successor" to DA:O. I expected improvements and changes, not what felt like a different game entirely, and often an entirely different world.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Lithuasil wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


Even if this "morally ambiguous" aspect is true to what actually hapenned back then? 

I don't mind realistic sexism. Stuff like Morrowind did it is fine and adds to the immersion. Problem is, Witcher2 - the game, not the people in the world, could only be more hatefully sexist if it'd jump out of the Dvd drive and physically assault me.
Mind you - I'm not one to judge art by morals. I don't even mind that the devs confused "gritty" with "everyone swears like a sailor". 
What I do mind, is shoddy programming, a combat system broken beyond repair, a completely backwards difficulty curve, plotholes the size of jupiter, blatant lies about the supposed freedom the game offers, a set protagonist that contributes nothing but takes away from the story, characters and conflicts that are blatantly shoplifted and the game violently janking me away from anything remotely interesting in favor of grind-quests.

You know, the other things Witcher2 did wrong.

Uh, did we play the same Witcher 2? The one I played I would describe as more sexist than Human Revolution but less sexist than Mass Effect 2, with fun combat, and some of the better storytelling I've seen in a recent WRPG. You're right about the difficulty curve, though.

EDIT: And how did the DA2 IGN thread become the TW2/WW2 thread?

Modifié par Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:31 .

[Realmzmaster]

When it comes to DA2 both sides as HanabPacal points out can be extreme in their views. Both sides have their trolls. The point (from reasonable gamers) is that those who dislike DA2 want to be go back to the things that made DAO great, but those who like DA2 do not want to go back to the things that they disliked in DAO. It is not possible for both groups to get everything they want.

Compromise will have to be made. The problem is where does that compromise lie.

The article simply highlights the different opinions that can occur within the same organization which mirrors some of the discussion on the forum.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:37 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Lithuasil wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


Even if this "morally ambiguous" aspect is true to what actually hapenned back then? 

What I do mind, is shoddy programming, a combat system broken beyond repair, a completely backwards difficulty curve, plotholes the size of jupiter, blatant lies about the supposed freedom the game offers, a set protagonist that contributes nothing but takes away from the story, characters and conflicts that are blatantly shoplifted and the game violently janking me away from anything remotely interesting in favor of grind-quests.

You know, the other things Witcher2 did wrong.

Combat system is terrific, i didn't play it at launch so i can't speak for how it was before patch 2.0. Same goes for difficulty curve. I think you should elaborate on these supposed plot holes, because i am willing to bet there is an expllanation that you have conveniently forgotten. Characters and conflicts that are shoplifted? Are you seriously saying you HATE this game because it borrows cliches that every other form of media in the past that has to do with fantasy has done countless times? The Witcher 2 does not make you grind, that is just a blatant falsehood.

I've got a funny feeling you didn't complete the game. Just a funny feeling, could be completely false.

[Lithuasil]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...


EDIT: And how did the DA2 IGN thread become the TW2/WW2 thread?

The article compares the two games, favoring TW2 thus jeopardizing his chances of being taken seriously - and we're on the internet so National Socialists are always relevant  

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


Combat system is terrific, i didn't play it at launch so i can't speak for how it was before patch 2.0. Same goes for difficulty curve. I think you should elaborate on these supposed plot holes, because i am willing to bet there is an expllanation that you have conveniently forgotten. Characters and conflicts that are shoplifted? Are you seriously saying you HATE this game because it borrows cliches that every other form of media in the past that has to do with fantasy has done countless times? The Witcher 2 does not make you grind, that is just a blatant falsehood.

I've got a funny feeling you didn't complete the game. Just a funny feeling, could be completely false.

Hopefully without hijacking the thread too far - 

I finished it (twice, to follow both path of the only decision in the game that made a difference). I can't speak for the state after patches - back when I played, the combat (as in all of it, excluding the first major boss) consisted of mashing light attacks, hoping to lock the enemy in a chain before they do the same to you - which was mildly challenging during the tutorial - after which the game constantly got easier, to the point where the second and third boss were defeated by standing perfectly still and wailing at them.

I really can't be asked to disect the plot (and more importantly the massive walking problem that is Geralt - seriously why do I have to pilot this **** when there's Iorveth and Vernon Roche, both of which actually... you know have business being in the plot) again - feel free to pm me if you insist.
Suffice to say though - if we have the criminally opressive sherrif Captain of the guard fighting an Archer in green, hiding in the forest with his merry men  Scoia'thel - and the Forest is called Sherwaedd... we've gone beyond borrowing imho.

Modifié par Lithuasil, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:59 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

The Witcher 2 does not make you grind, 

It does make you collect http://tvtropes.org/...earAsses]Twenty Bear Asses[/url] a lot, but that's okay in my book because it's A) fun, the protagonist's job. Playing Witcher 2 and complaining about collecting monster bits is like playing Assassin's Creed 2 and complaining about assassinating people.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Lithuasil wrote...

favoring TW2 thus jeopardizing his chances of being taken seriously

Well, TW2 is generally considered the better game, and the two did come out at the same time, and have a similar setting and tone. I don't think the comparison is out of order.

[Lithuasil]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

The Witcher 2 does not make you grind, 

It does make you collect http://tvtropes.org/...earAsses]Twenty Bear Asses[/url] a lot, but that's okay in my book because it's A) fun, the protagonist's job. Playing Witcher 2 and complaining about collecting monster bits is like playing Assassin's Creed 2 and complaining about assassinating people.

Aside from the fact that I indeed expected to get involved in the plot, rather then seeing it happen while I'm out killing frog-things for coin - how is it an excuse, if you could've known before hand, that an awful game mechanic was in there?

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Lithuasil wrote...

Aside from the fact that I indeed expected to get involved in the plot, rather then seeing it happen while I'm out killing frog-things for coin - how is it an excuse, if you could've known before hand, that an awful game mechanic was in there?

If you play a game where the protagonist is a professional monster hunter, you would expect professional monster hunting to be in the game, no?

But I'm more interested in the sexism argument. I don't recall anything particularly sexist in Twitcher 2 beyond your standard-issue male-gaze video game bollocks.

Modifié par Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut, 16 décembre 2011 - 05:45 .

[LinksOcarina]

Lithuasil wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


Even if this "morally ambiguous" aspect is true to what actually hapenned back then? 

I don't mind realistic sexism. Stuff like Morrowind did it is fine and adds to the immersion. Problem is, Witcher2 - the game, not the people in the world, could only be more hatefully sexist if it'd jump out of the Dvd drive and physically assault me.
Mind you - I'm not one to judge art by morals. I don't even mind that the devs confused "gritty" with "everyone swears like a sailor". 
What I do mind, is shoddy programming, a combat system broken beyond repair, a completely backwards difficulty curve, plotholes the size of jupiter, blatant lies about the supposed freedom the game offers, a set protagonist that contributes nothing but takes away from the story, characters and conflicts that are blatantly shoplifted and the game violently janking me away from anything remotely interesting in favor of grind-quests.

You know, the other things Witcher2 did wrong.

Pretty much this. Never mind the fact that combat was pretty meh in terms of an RPG on the PC, but the fact that everything felt plastered on to the main storyline made The Witcher 2 feel like an amalgam of what has come before it.

And I really want to emphasize the sexism again because gratuitous nudity and skin-tight clothing is NOT REALISTIC. I am sorry, but the misconception that flashing nude womens breasts and having a graphic sex scene does us no credit except making the game look like a skinemax movie. It degrades the women in the game as nothing more than objects, even strong ones like Triss. 

And because I really want to hammer this home, the "sex" scenes in Dragon Age II, yeah they werent really graphic. But the point of them was to show feelings of love, lust and romance, which they suceeded in doing. When you are cuddling Merrill, holding Fenris' hand or just shagging with Isabela, there is a lot more weight behind it because it is toned down to being about what sex is; intimacy.  They  are, dare I say it, more realistic than what The Witcher games shows us, because it shows us true emotions through an act that many would consider taboo or private. The Witcher 2 just re-affirms stereotypes more by keeping everyone curvy, naked and offering a sex scene with a loveless romance, if you ask me. 

Yeah, i'm ranting on this one because it always bothered me since it ruins the "semblence of your choices" in game. And once again, its a perfect oppertunity that this writer from IGN missed.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 16 décembre 2011 - 06:14 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

LinksOcarina wrote...

And I really want to emphasize the sexism again because gratuitous nudity and skin-tight clothing is NOT REALISTIC. I am sorry, but the misconception that flashing nude womens breasts and having a graphic sex scene does us no credit except making the game look like a skinemax movie. It degrades the women in the game as nothing more than objects, even strong ones like Triss. 

And because I really want to hammer this home, the "sex" scenes in Dragon Age II, yeah they werent really graphic. But the point of them was to show feelings of love, lust and romance, which they suceeded in doing. When you are cuddling Merrill, holding Fenris' hand or just shagging with Isabela, there is a lot more weight behind it because it is toned down to being about what sex is; intimacy.  They  are, dare I say it, more realistic than what The Witcher games shows us, because it shows us true emotions through an act that many would consider taboo or private. The Witcher 2 just re-affirms stereotypes more by keeping everyone curvy, naked and offering a sex scene with a loveless romance, if you ask me. 

Yeah, i'm ranting on this one because it always bothered me since it ruins the "semblence of your choices" in game. And once again, its a perfect oppertunity that this writer from IGN missed.

Well, last time I checked breasts exist in reality. I don't think nudity makes a game any more or less realistic. I do however agree with you that the gratuitous nudity tends to work against the generally strong characters. Witcher 2 isn't the only game with similar problems - it's a running issue with recent Bioware games as well, and everyone needs to think more about how and where to use sexuality in a way that supports vs. detracts from a narrative. I have the same issue with A Song of Ice and Fire (the book and the show).

I disagree with you re: Dragon Age 2, however. I generally dislike the way that Bioware games tend to frame sex as a reward for good behavior vs. something that people do because they enjoy it. Considering the historical background of the whole sex-as-reward worldview, I think that it's far more sexist on balance than about 10 seconds of nudity.

Witcher 2, on the other hand, got a lot of credit from me because it depicted the effects of external stresses on trust in an existing relationship. That's a lot more complex than the standard video game "do quest, receev secks + troo wuv" model. I also liked that it actually ackowledged that there is a grey zone between friendship, casual sex, and an actual relationshp. So it also did a lot of things right re: the (possibly) romantic  subplot.

[Lithuasil]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...


If you play a game where the protagonist is a professional monster hunter, you would expect professional monster hunting to be in the game, no?

But I'm more interested in the sexism argument. I don't recall anything particularly sexist in Twitcher 2 beyond your standard-issue male-gaze video game bollocks.

And making said monster hunter the protagonist was the single worst design choice. Again, how is any of this an excuse.

But the sexism thing - I'm not even talking gratuitus, completely out of place nudity. Just for the tip of the Ice-berg, let's play a fun game.
Think of a female character, any character that isn't
a) A hooker
evil as satan
c) completely inept and in constant need of saving, despite any powers or strength she supposedly posesses.

Not asking for sympathetic characters, or well written ones, or realistic ones - just characters that are neither damsels in distress, nor monsters...

[LinksOcarina]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Well, last time I checked breasts exist in reality. I don't think nudity makes a game any more or less realistic. I do however agree with you that the gratuitous nudity tends to work against the generally strong characters. Witcher 2 isn't the only game with similar problems - it's a running issue with recent Bioware games as well, and everyone needs to think more about how and where to use sexuality in a way that supports vs. detracts from a narrative. I have the same issue with A Song of Ice and Fire (the book and the show).

I disagree with you re: Dragon Age 2, however. I generally dislike the way that Bioware games tend to frame sex as a reward for good behavior vs. something that people do because they enjoy it. Considering the historical background of the whole sex-as-reward worldview, I think that it's far more sexist on balance than about 10 seconds of nudity.

Witcher 2, on the other hand, got a lot of credit from me because it depicted the effects of external stresses on trust in an existing relationship. That's a lot more complex than the standard video game "do quest, receev secks + troo wuv" model. I also liked that it actually ackowledged that there is a grey zone between friendship, casual sex, and an actual relationshp. So it also did a lot of things right re: the (possibly) romantic  subplot.

That is one of the problems with George R.R Martins work too; and the show. It gets to the point of being distracting and distasteful.

As for Dragon Age II, the sex or the relationship is really not a reward in this game. Rather, it is an option. If it was a reward, it would give benefits to the characters versus changes in appearance and dialogue. At best all you get is a few friendship/rivalry points but even then that tailors more to the non-romance options during dialogue scenes.

Plus it can happen while being good or bad, the friendship/rivalry system in-game is what makes it more dynamic.Fenris for example is more passionate and lustful as a rival versus intimate and reluctant as a friend, so the difference in their treatment is important here. 

So the relationships are less about a reward, and more about relationship dynamics. Witcher 2 I will give you the fact they acknowledge boundaries of relationships, but so does Dragon Age II, sometimes to the extreme. Isabela (and because I liked it so much Zevran from Origins) are  the most gratutious characters in-game, but are also the most complex in terms of relationships and intimacy. It is honestly fascinating to watch the layers peel back on them, questioning their own beliefs and feelings on relationships versus casual sex.

And yeah, I don't mind breast shots, but when the first game of your series has trophies that are nude sex cards...thats not exactly a precedent you want to set, and while the cards aren't in Witcher 2, the problem is the pandering which is fairly absent in Dragon Age, and that for me is a good thing at least.

Lithuasil wrote...


And making said monster hunter the protagonist was the single worst design choice. Again, how is any of this an excuse.

But the sexism thing - I'm not even talking gratuitus, completely out of place nudity. Just for the tip of the Ice-berg, let's play a fun game.
Think of a female character, any character that isn't
a) A hooker
evil as satan
c) completely inept and in constant need of saving, despite any powers or strength she supposedly posesses.

Not asking for sympathetic characters, or well written ones, or realistic ones - just characters that are neither damsels in distress, nor monsters...

If we are talking about Dragon Age and The Witcher only, Aveline and Merrill are the only ones I can think of, although Merrill is a bit shaky as an example.  Triss is probably the best example from The Witcher 2, but even then it pales in comparison to other heroines.

Outside of these games...Samus comes to mind, not the "Other M" Samus though. So does Tali from Mass Effect and Alyx Vance from Half-Life 2.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 16 décembre 2011 - 06:50 .