588 réponses à ce sujet

[Firky]

It's a tricky one. Because I, personally, wouldn't really want to censor the guy's opinion, even if it is all negative.

If it were all wrong, it depends why. Like, is it wrong based on some reasonable misconception that the readers might also experience? Or is it factually wrong? Is something demonstrably wrong, or just a point of comparison that readers might understand?

But, I think we can agree that good reviews don't have a lot of obviously biased or wrong info. (And I'd be happy in a world without scores, but would your average consumer, who just wants "at a glance?")

[AmstradHero]

Yeah, the line between editing and censorship could be somewhat tough when it comes to negative feedback. I think that there's a problem when reviews reinforce a potential misconception the players could have and then state that the game is bad because of it - this is the exact issue I had with lots of Alpha Protocol reviews. I guess I just think there's a difference between making a comparison and allowing that comparison to colour and permanently affect an appraisal. If things are factually wrong, then that is definitely bad, but if it's a matter of preference, then the writer should write in a way that suggests that. Of course, the idea that all readers will pick up on the nuance of writing and the difference between fact and opinion isn't at all guaranteed.

Also, no, I don't think we'll be rid of scores anytime soon, more's the pity.

[Siegdrifa]

Brockololly wrote...

MrCrabby wrote...

I agree with Allan and Blair. Just because something is in print does not lend it anymore credibility than an anonymous forum post. People here just like the article because it is critical of DA2 and are annoyed that Allan and Blair don't give it anymore weight.

This is a case of "See see someone in media agrees with me!". Well la dee dah. Gaming "journalists" have about as much integrity and credibility as someone selling Rolex watches in a back ally.

I certainly don't hold many games "journalists" in high esteem. And certainly all things being equal, a PC Gamer writer's opinions on what they'd like to see in DA3 don't have any more merit necessarily than anyone that posts on BSN and plays BioWare games.

Except for the fact that the professional reviewers and game journalists will end up writing reviews to these games. Reviews which will end up being read by a great many people. Reviews which very well may end up being aggregated into Metacrtic or GameRankings, where they very much do matter to a company like EA. Just read the transcripts or listen to a quarterly financial call sometime when somebody like Peter Moore or John Riccitiello is talking and you'll understand that critical reception does matter a lot to them and the relative health of a given game franchise. Metacritic scores matter- just ask Obsidian about New Vegas. And you read EA statements and they seem to care about having games reach certain Metacritic score thresholds.

Ultimately, thats not really a fan's concern but more people that are working on the game. But as much as I generally don't care for many games journalist types, it would be silly to write them off completely in terms of some of the power they can end up wielding.

I'm sure i read somewhere from a Bioware lead that when they release a game they always intend to hit above 90 at metacritic...
Sorry i couldn't find precislely that statement, so people are free to assume that i'm just BS.
However, i found something that somewhat relate that on this article:
http://pikigeek.com/...nch-in-history/

here is the citation :

"Mainly, most BioWare games that are new come together at the last like, four months or something like that. Usually they look like trainwrecks. When we’re showing them to the producers or publishers, they’re like oh my god, how is this game going to come together? And then it comes out, and it’s a 90 Metacritic game. But this game hasn’t been the same, it’s actually been in really good shape and playable for a long time."

When i was still working in the video game industry and did some game designe documents, i was frustrated that for publishers, stock holders and all these people that relate video game as business only and not as a creative activity, i was forced to always relate in the game design document that X concept and Y mechanic, with a game that was released and sold very well..... SO those people would eventualy put a validation on the project.
For exemple: let's say my game design involve sword fight like in Zelda 64, so the publisher and financer would simply look at how Zelda 64 sold and determine if it's a good idea in advance.... (yes, you get it right, it doesn't matter what the concept is and if it works fine, what matter to this few but powerfull peoples is, if some game did it before and sold well, then it's a good idea)
Which led me to... what reference i must put when the concept and mechanic are totaly new ? ffFFFFFF !!!!
(this is not a standard game design process, but some company can ask to write game design documents to be made like this, which is usefull as a reference, but it shouldn't be abused to the point that it give no chance to creative new concept to emerge).

That's why i said in my very few post in this thread, that game reviewers should not publish their opinion of what future game should be... it is like an unhealthy trade for a granted good score and it will hurt both the reviewer reputation and their impartiality (http://www.egmnow.co...lonial-marines/ ) as much as the dev studio and publisher risk to be accused to bought good review and blablabla... because in the end, some people who have power really care for a good metacritic score and not about the game itself, they don't intend to play it anyway, just make money out of it.

Reviewers should help games meet their public (doesn't matter if it's a wide or small niche, and help games doesn't mean giving a good score), not become a selfish fan who want's "his" version of the game rather than "other" version of someone else.

[Renmiri1]

I really don't care for game reviews. It has been ages since I agreed with a single one of them so I don't really think they are informative to me.

My process of buying games is Youtube and word of mouth from friends who have an opinion I respect. I rarely buy games at launch but sometimes I do a leap of faith and pre-order, if the company has been consistently producing kick ass games like, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed and Dragon Age, I was pleasantly surprised with all 3.

That said, I think it is a shame to have a press that is completely bought and biased so game reviewers get my goat. I despise badly written opinion pieces like the one the OP linked. They make the entire gaming world poorer by making it impossible for gamers to trust any article. I wish there was more integrity and professional pride on part of the gaming press, instead of being all "Fox News" all the time. UGH

[Nerevar-as]

Siegdrifa wrote...

[/i]When i was still working in the video game industry and did some game designe documents, i was frustrated that for publishers, stock holders and all these people that relate video game as business only and not as a creative activity, i was forced to always relate in the game design document that X concept and Y mechanic, with a game that was released and sold very well..... SO those people would eventualy put a validation on the project.
For exemple: let's say my game design involve sword fight like in Zelda 64, so the publisher and financer would simply look at how Zelda 64 sold and determine if it's a good idea in advance.... (yes, you get it right, it doesn't matter what the concept is and if it works fine, what matter to this few but powerfull peoples is, if some game did it before and sold well, then it's a good idea)
Which led me to... what reference i must put when the concept and mechanic are totaly new ? ffFFFFFF !!!!
(this is not a standard game design process, but some company can ask to write game design documents to be made like this, which is usefull as a reference, but it shouldn't be abused to the point that it give no chance to creative new concept to emerge).

This explains just about everything.

[lyleoffmyspace]

People calling The Witcher 2 immature is really weird.

It's not "mature" because of all the ****** and sex and swear words. It's mature because of the complex political plot - there's no big bad and everyone has their own motivation - including your allies and the main antagonist, who isn't doing it just because he's "crazy" (like Meredith) or "evil" (like the Archdemon).

It's also a very personal quest of self-discovery and what Geralt finds truly important in life, unlike Hawke's quest in DA2.

And when there is ******, and sex, and swearing, it's just kinda "there". No one makes a fuss over it. People know that those things happen, and don't make a fuss of it. Brothels brothel and people swear. Get over it, that's the medieval world. If people made a fuss of it then it wouldn't be mature. The female characters don't even use sex as a weapon. They're strong and just happen to be female, instead of being a woman as their main character feature (eg. Triss, Saskia, Philippa)

When rape is presented it's usually as a sickening or terrible thing and there a massive consequences involved for it.

Also the romance is far more mature and makes more sense than anything in Dragon Age.

TW2 is on the same level of maturity as A Song of Ice and Fire for me because it portrays a gritty world, and no one is calling out ASOIAF as being this really immature horrible sexist thing, are they?

Anyway, this is a good quote about TW and maturity:

The main things that make The Witcher series more 'mature' tend to be its emphasis on adult topic matter and political intrigue. A kid doesn't give a crap that the King of Temeria is fighting a war over his bastard children because he doesn't want thembeing used as pretenders to his throne by noble families looking for a casus belli to wage war against him, and yet that's the main plot for the beginning of the Witcher 2 and one that continues throughout the game, with the plot turning towards various kingdom fighting for political control over the Pontar valley and later a political summit to resolve the issue and attempted assassination there.

And while Witcher 2's prevalent themes were political in nautre, withthe first Witcher the prevalent themes were racism. Persecution of minorities (Non humans) and whether that persecution makes it right for those minority to then turn around and commit acts of, as the US would put it, terrorism.

Not really kids stuff.

Modifié par lyleoffmyspace, 18 février 2013 - 08:16 .

[BrookerT]

lyleoffmyspace wrote...

People calling The Witcher 2 immature is really weird.

It's not "mature" because of all the ****** and sex and swear words. It's mature because of the complex political plot - there's no big bad and everyone has their own motivation - including your allies and the main antagonist, who isn't doing it just because he's "crazy" (like Meredith) or "evil" (like the Archdemon).

It's also a very personal quest of self-discovery and what Geralt finds truly important in life, unlike Hawke's quest in DA2.

And when there is ******, and sex, and swearing, it's just kinda "there". No one makes a fuss over it. People know that those things happen, and don't make a fuss of it. Brothels brothel and people swear. Get over it, that's the medieval world. If people made a fuss of it then it wouldn't be mature. The female characters don't even use sex as a weapon. They're strong and just happen to be female, instead of being a woman as their main character feature (eg. Triss, Saskia, Philippa)

When rape is presented it's usually as a sickening or terrible thing and there a massive consequences involved for it.

Also the romance is far more mature and makes more sense than anything in Dragon Age.

TW2 is on the same level of maturity as A Song of Ice and Fire for me because it portrays a gritty world, and no one is calling out ASOIAF as being this really immature horrible sexist thing, are they?

Anyway, this is a good quote about TW and maturity:

The main things that make The Witcher series more 'mature' tend to be its emphasis on adult topic matter and political intrigue. A kid doesn't give a crap that the King of Temeria is fighting a war over his bastard children because he doesn't want thembeing used as pretenders to his throne by noble families looking for a casus belli to wage war against him, and yet that's the main plot for the beginning of the Witcher 2 and one that continues throughout the game, with the plot turning towards various kingdom fighting for political control over the Pontar valley and later a political summit to resolve the issue and attempted assassination there.

And while Witcher 2's prevalent themes were political in nautre, withthe first Witcher the prevalent themes were racism. Persecution of minorities (Non humans) and whether that persecution makes it right for those minority to then turn around and commit acts of, as the US would put it, terrorism.

Not really kids stuff.

The Witcher 2 isn't immature because it has sex in it, it's the way it is handled. A story isn't mature because it has "mature" themes. Duke Nukem has rape, sex, violence and war yet it is executed in such a way that makes these issues seems funny and immature. I'm not saying TW2 is any where near as immature as Duke Nukem, but the way it present's sex is immature, and there is so much of it in the game it cannot be ignored.

It's a sexist game because of the way it treats women, thats why it's immature, the game was marketed with a bloody in up calendar in Russia for goodness sake. There are women in the game with perfect high res bodies, but horribly low res faces, as if a womens body was more important than who she actually is.

Triss gets captured all the time, a lot of the women have lesbian *moments*, and the game has the nerve to call itself mature.

Modifié par BrookerT, 18 février 2013 - 08:48 .

[Medhia Nox]

Opinion.

I think the thing about The Witcher 2... is that the backstory is "mature" - but Geralt's story is ultimately the same immature garbage we see in so many stories (be they movies, books or games).

It isn't that the "Hero's Journey" has been so done to death - it's that few really seem to be trying very hard anymore.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 18 février 2013 - 08:55 .

[lyleoffmyspace]

The Witcher 2 isn't immature because it has sex in it, it's the way it is handled. A story isn't mature because it has "mature" themes. Duke Nukem has rape, sex, violence and war yet it is executed in such a way that makes these issues seems funny and immature. I'm not saying TW2 is any where near as immature as Duke Nukem, but the way it present's sex is immature, and there is so much of it in the game it cannot be ignored.

It's a sexist game because of the way it treats women, thats why it's immature, the game was marketed with a bloody in up calendar in Russia for goodness sake. There are women in the game with perfect high res bodies, but horribly low res faces, as if a womens body was more important than who she actually is.

Triss gets captured all the time, a lot of the women have lesbian *moments*, and the game has the nerve to call itself mature.

In my first playthrough of the game, my character had sex once.

In the second playthrough of the game, my character didn't have sex at all, and there was a grand total of 1 lesbian scene with two characters.

Don't know where all these "high res bodies low res face" comes from...I haven't seen any of that in the game?

The game to me is a story of monster hunting, high politics, and of friendship and self discovery.

Why is everyone playing this super sex edition of the game with lesbianism and sex around every single corner? I didn't play that version of the game. So what if the game is sexist? It's a medieval society, of course it's sexist. The world today is sexist...having a 100% gender equal world in a 1500s society is absolutely weird. The women characters are incredibly strong and not just for sex - see Triss, Sile, Philippa and Saskia. It's definitely not sexist, just some elements help to clour the world further.

I think this is just Bioware Social Network being prejudiced and biased towards a game with better story, presenstation, choice and characters than their beloved Dragon Age 2, so they just dismiss it as a "sexist game" so they don't have to address how the game was superior to DA2.

[BrookerT]

lyleoffmyspace wrote...

The Witcher 2 isn't immature because it has sex in it, it's the way it is handled. A story isn't mature because it has "mature" themes. Duke Nukem has rape, sex, violence and war yet it is executed in such a way that makes these issues seems funny and immature. I'm not saying TW2 is any where near as immature as Duke Nukem, but the way it present's sex is immature, and there is so much of it in the game it cannot be ignored.

It's a sexist game because of the way it treats women, thats why it's immature, the game was marketed with a bloody in up calendar in Russia for goodness sake. There are women in the game with perfect high res bodies, but horribly low res faces, as if a womens body was more important than who she actually is.

Triss gets captured all the time, a lot of the women have lesbian *moments*, and the game has the nerve to call itself mature.

In my first playthrough of the game, my character had sex once.

In the second playthrough of the game, my character didn't have sex at all, and there was a grand total of 1 lesbian scene with two characters.

Don't know where all these "high res bodies low res face" comes from...I haven't seen any of that in the game?

The game to me is a story of monster hunting, high politics, and of friendship and self discovery.

Why is everyone playing this super sex edition of the game with lesbianism and sex around every single corner? I didn't play that version of the game. So what if the game is sexist? It's a medieval society, of course it's sexist. The world today is sexist...having a 100% gender equal world in a 1500s society is absolutely weird. The women characters are incredibly strong and not just for sex - see Triss, Sile, Philippa and Saskia. It's definitely not sexist, just some elements help to clour the world further.

I think this is just Bioware Social Network being prejudiced and biased towards a game with better story, presenstation, choice and characters than their beloved Dragon Age 2, so they just dismiss it as a "sexist game" so they don't have to address how the game was superior to DA2.

You just have no idea do you? 

For starters: The low res/ high res thing happens in flotsom

The second bolded part: This is a stupid argument. This isn't medievil period, it's a wrold filled with elves, dwarves and dragons. Even then, it's not the fact that sexism exists world, it's the way the female characters are presented

The lesbian stuff is unavoidable on the loverth path, and just because you don't play it doesn't mean its not there. If a game was being racist, I mean actually racist and not just exploring it as a theme, in an optoional side quest, is it not racist?. It's like a weird It can't see me if I can't see it scenario. And Triss is storng woman who gets captured all the time.

And you are blind if you think that BSN on the whole loves DA2. I will always think that DA2 is superior to TW2, in story, characters and resentation. I'm not dismissing the game because it is sexist, i'm dismissing the fact that people call it mature, because it is not.

[MissOuJ]

BrookerT wrote...

The Witcher 2 isn't immature because it has sex in it, it's the way it is handled. A story isn't mature because it has "mature" themes. Duke Nukem has rape, sex, violence and war yet it is executed in such a way that makes these issues seems funny and immature. I'm not saying TW2 is any where near as immature as Duke Nukem, but the way it present's sex is immature, and there is so much of it in the game it cannot be ignored.

It's a sexist game because of the way it treats women, thats why it's immature, the game was marketed with a bloody in up calendar in Russia for goodness sake. There are women in the game with perfect high res bodies, but horribly low res faces, as if a womens body was more important than who she actually is.

Triss gets captured all the time, a lot of the women have lesbian *moments*, and the game has the nerve to call itself mature.

A million times this! You are flawless and this post is spot on.

[Dave of Canada]

I don't want to dive into this but I feel obligated to.

BrookerT wrote...

The Witcher 2 isn't immature because it has sex in it, it's the way it is handled.

Granted that's a very valid reason to see something as immature, I don't feel the game is immature in the way it handles things. Let's see how you feel about it.

A story isn't mature because it has "mature" themes. Duke Nukem has rape, sex, violence and war yet it is executed in such a way that makes these issues seems funny and immature. I'm not saying TW2 is any where near as immature as Duke Nukem, but the way it present's sex is immature, and there is so much of it in the game it cannot be ignored.

Perhaps in the first game with the optional sex cards, I'd agree. However, CDPR's portrayal of sexual themes was far from immature in the second game when it tends to portray it as an act between two consenting adults, the sex scenes are few and far between and are often done reasonablly well.

Unless there's something I missed from the second game?

It's a sexist game because of the way it treats women, thats why it's immature,

The women are often portrayed as strong, independent and proud. They're characterized as schemers, manipulators, idealists, etc and often times don't fill into the standard role of the female sex object because they're just as capable as anyone else.

Hell, I'd say the sorceresses are great female characters and are often under-stated.

the game was marketed with a bloody in up calendar in Russia for goodness sake.

You seem to forget that games market themselves in a gentlemen's magazine on occassion, it's nothing as if Witcher was some unreasonable standard which pulled this off. Hell, Dragon Age: Origins advertised "Sex and Violence" and had pin-ups as well. Is this any reason to dismiss the game as immature?

There are women in the game with perfect high res bodies, but horribly low res faces, as if a womens body was more important than who she actually is.

The same applies to male characters, it's the fault that almost everyone has the same body but different or re-used face models. Plot-relevant characters like Margot, Ves, Saskia, Philipa and others tend to all have the same care in the facial departement as the Plot-relevant male characters.

Triss gets captured all the time

Once is all the time?

a lot of the women have lesbian *moments*

Two characters--which one is a lesbian and one is an infiltrator--is a lot? The fact that both "lesbian moments" are also relevant to the plot doesn't matter either?

If this is immature gaming, I'd question the entire damned industry because I've yet to see many games with the same portrayal of relationships and people with the same fidelity as G.R.R Martin.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 18 février 2013 - 09:32 .

[lyleoffmyspace]

You just have no idea do you? 

For starters: The low res/ high res thing happens in flotsom

The second bolded part: This is a stupid argument. This isn't medievil period, it's a wrold filled with elves, dwarves and dragons. Even then, it's not the fact that sexism exists world, it's the way the female characters are presented

The lesbian stuff is unavoidable on the loverth path, and just because you don't play it doesn't mean its not there. If a game was being racist, I mean actually racist and not just exploring it as a theme, in an optoional side quest, is it not racist?. It's like a weird It can't see me if I can't see it scenario. And Triss is storng woman who gets captured all the time.

And you are blind if you think that BSN on the whole loves DA2. I will always think that DA2 is superior to TW2, in story, characters and resentation. I'm not dismissing the game because it is sexist, i'm dismissing the fact that people call it mature, because it is not.

Well you could say the same about DA2 couldn't you with the low-res Elves? That's just technical. For all I know you could've played it on low graphics whilst I played on high?

Okay so what? Philippa's a lesbian? She has a wooden ******? What's wrong with that? It's just there, it doesn't detract from her character...she's a power hungry sorceress, that's my impression I got from her character...not that she's a lesbian. You're just trivialising characters.

How is Triss being captured ONCE in the game sexist? It's for the plot, it's just normal. No one is saying by having Brienne (a strong woman character in Game of Thrones) getting captured that the entire series is suddenly sexist? How is that sexist I don't understand?

[BrookerT]

lyleoffmyspace wrote...

You just have no idea do you? 

For starters: The low res/ high res thing happens in flotsom

The second bolded part: This is a stupid argument. This isn't medievil period, it's a wrold filled with elves, dwarves and dragons. Even then, it's not the fact that sexism exists world, it's the way the female characters are presented

The lesbian stuff is unavoidable on the loverth path, and just because you don't play it doesn't mean its not there. If a game was being racist, I mean actually racist and not just exploring it as a theme, in an optoional side quest, is it not racist?. It's like a weird It can't see me if I can't see it scenario. And Triss is storng woman who gets captured all the time.

And you are blind if you think that BSN on the whole loves DA2. I will always think that DA2 is superior to TW2, in story, characters and resentation. I'm not dismissing the game because it is sexist, i'm dismissing the fact that people call it mature, because it is not.

Well you could say the same about DA2 couldn't you with the low-res Elves? That's just technical. For all I know you could've played it on low graphics whilst I played on high?

Okay so what? Philippa's a lesbian? She has a wooden ******? What's wrong with that? It's just there, it doesn't detract from her character...she's a power hungry sorceress, that's my impression I got from her character...not that she's a lesbian. You're just trivialising characters.

How is Triss being captured ONCE in the game sexist? It's for the plot, it's just normal. No one is saying by having Brienne (a strong woman character in Game of Thrones) getting captured that the entire series is suddenly sexist? How is that sexist I don't understand?

You are missing the point. It's not the fact that it's low res. It's the fact that the only part of the body they gave a toss in designing well was the boobs and vagina, how is this mature?

You walk in on Philipa beating her servant. Its only there for ZOMB LESBIANS, do you honestly feel otherwise? THey couldn't  have done it in amore subte way, like decent character development?

[lyleoffmyspace]

BrookerT wrote...

You are missing the point. It's not the fact that it's low res. It's the fact that the only part of the body they gave a toss in designing well was the boobs and vagina, how is this mature?

You walk in on Philipa beating her servant. Its only there for ZOMB LESBIANS, do you honestly feel otherwise? THey couldn't  have done it in amore subte way, like decent character development?

Was it? I thought the faces were just as well designed to be honest. Can you give me a screenshot of this low-res face as evidence then?

Well her servant turns out to be a big part of the plot...so yeah.

[Dave of Canada]

lyleoffmyspace wrote...

Well her servant turns out to be a big part of the plot...so yeah.

It's also the first scene where you see the statuette on Philipa's desk.

[Dutchess]

BrookerT wrote...

You are missing the point. It's not the fact that it's low res. It's the fact that the only part of the body they gave a toss in designing well was the boobs and vagina, how is this mature?

You walk in on Philipa beating her servant. Its only there for ZOMB LESBIANS, do you honestly feel otherwise? THey couldn't  have done it in amore subte way, like decent character development?

You never get to see a vagina. Just the pubic area. And I have played the game on my PC and have never noticed a jarring difference between face and body textures, despite trying out a few "ladies" at the brothel. 

And yes, I feel otherwise about Philippa/Cynthia. The scene does serve a purpose. It says something about Philippa, and later on you find out that Cynthia, who was supposedly submissive to Philippa, actually outsmarted her and was the dominating one after all. It does serve another purpose than LESBIANS, YAY! It portrays how Philippa feels in control and is being fooled because of it. If you wouldn't jump at the sight of boobs, you might have been able to see through the more subtle game that was played there. If you'd take a moment to think about the scene and what it could illustrate, instead of sticking to the LESBIANS part, you could perhaps realize that this indeed was a moment of character development. That it was done through the use of sex and sexuality does not make it immature. 

[MissOuJ]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Two characters--which one is a lesbian and one is an infiltrator--is a lot? The fact that both "lesbian moments" are also relevant to the plot doesn't matter either?

If this is immature gaming, I'd question the entire damned industry because I've yet to see many games with the same portrayal of relationships and people with the same fidelity as G.R.R Martin.

How is incredibly fetishistic portrayal of two women engaged in spanking relevant to the plot. At. All? Please, do explain. Also, the kiss between Philippa and Saskia is an important plot point; the dwarf in the background making comments about "lesbomancy"... not so much.

"Mature themes" and maturity are two different things. Think about... Call of Juares: The Cartel, for example. It handles several mature themes, such as drugs and human trafficing. It handles them by having the PC "interrogate" a stripper by strangling her, inciting gang violence and killing only black people for one whole level, and so on. Not something I'd call mature, or respectful, handling of those themes. And when you think about the real drug war in Mexico and its casualties... Yeah. Way to go, Ubisoft! Same with TW2: sex, sexual situations and nakedness are all well and good, and they are mature subjects not because the mere concept of sex has been labeled "R" by some random cultural pigeon-holing department, but because those aspects of human lives are when we are at out most vulnerable. Sex in particular is about trust. That's what makes it truly mature: only mature people can handle both the responsibility and the vulnerability.

In TW series there are many instances when sex is used as a cheap transaction, a prize for "services rendered", between (always) female NPC and Geralt - like that "get me X amount of bear skins and I'll sleep with out" forest nymph quest in TW1, and the succubus quest in TW2. And then there are the "set-piece" sex scenes like the one I mentioned above, when Geralt walks into Philippa spanking her naked apprentice. The one and only reason for that scene to be there is getting some cheep thrills out of it. It is demeaning, very sexist, and just plain immature.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 18 février 2013 - 10:41 .

[lyleoffmyspace]

It is demeaning, very sexist, and just plain immature.

And it's 100% optional.

[MissOuJ]

lyleoffmyspace wrote...

It is demeaning, very sexist, and just plain immature.

And it's 100% optional.

And it's still there. The fact that sexist, demeaning and immature content is optional (also, you'll most probably run into it on Iorveth's Path, and since the in-game desicions don't come with neon signs reading "Sexist content here! Turn now if you wanna skip it!" most players will run into it without trying to seek it out - unlike for example the succubus sex scene which I mentioned earlier) doesn't make it any less demeaning, sexist or immature - or any less problematic. It is avoidable, true, but metagaming shouldn't be the only way to avoid sexist material.

This applies to BioWare too, btw. Oh, hello there Harkin (avoidable)/Batarian recruiter (unavoidable) conversations! Like I don't face enough misogyny on a regular basis. At least there I could tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine. In TW2 the only comments you can make about this are along the lines of "do you also use muzzles?", which... yeah.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 18 février 2013 - 11:12 .

[Dave of Canada]

MissOuJ wrote...

How is incredibly fetishistic portrayal of two women engaged in spanking relevant to the plot. At. All? Please, do explain.

As renjility said, it introduces characterization to the group which is further explored down the line. What one does in their own bed chambers says a lot of the character, Philipa is portrayed as domineering and in-control of Cynthia in the relationship.

When this is turned around and it's revealed Cynthia was a plant, Philipa freaks out as her controlling nature isn't as great as she thinks it is. It's relevant because it plays a double-insult, not only is Philipa not in control as she thinks it is but it's also a great way to demonstrate that Nilfgaard is controlling the Sorceresses (which, by their nature, were put in charge to prevent the war of the North and Nilfgaard).

The scene serves as a great contrast between what's happening and what's actually happening.

It's also explored later with Letho using his thuggish appearance to also decieve the Sorceresses, their own ego blinding them to the hand that was being dealt.

In addition, Sorceresses have always been open in their sexuality throughout the Witcher universe because they're magically-altered physically (Yennefer was mentioned as showing signs of formely being a hunchback) and have enough influence in the world to be feared by nobility, they almost always take sexual partners as their aids and don't fret over what other people think.

How'd you deal with the scene? Show the Sorceress in a conserved fashion, Cynthia being her sexual partner in dialogue only and mentioning that Philipa likes being in control through dialogue? We're dealing with a visual medium. Show, don't tell.

Also, the kiss between Philippa and Saskia is an important plot point; the dwarf in the background making comments about "lesbomancy"... not so much.

This scene ruined the game?

EDIT: As in, that one line doesn't mean the entire game is immature.

Think about... Call of Juares: The Cartel, for example.

Never played it, can't comment.

Sex in particular is about trust. That's what makes it truly mature: only mature people can handle both the responsibility and the vulnerability.

That's a very naive way to look at it, not everyone explores sexuality and feels it in the same fashion.

• Triss and Ves are "trust'-oriented, as you've put it.
• Most of the other sorceresses and sorcerers we've met are promiscuous and kinky.
• ****s and Succubus use sex as a means to achieve what they want/need, Sorcereresses also do this.

In TW series there are many instances when sex is used as a cheap transaction, a prize for "services rendered", between (always) female NPC and Geralt - like that "get me X amount of bear skins and I'll sleep with out" forest nymph quest in TW1

I agree with TW1's handling of sex cards being immature, I'm against TW2 being labeled as such.

EDIT: Also what about my other points?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 18 février 2013 - 11:34 .

[MissOuJ]

Dave of Canada wrote...
As renjility said, it introduces characterization to the group which is further explored down the line. What one does in their own bed chambers says a lot of the character, Philipa is portrayed as domineering and in-control of Cynthia in the relationship.

... which could've been portrayed without use of fetishism. Or at least without the bare-chested whole body shots of Cynthia. And the whole "muzzle" commentary. Also, just pointing out you don't run into Dethmold spanking any males, apprentices or not. Because that's just eww, am I correct?

Dave of Canada wrote...
When this is turned around and it's revealed Cynthia was a plant, Philipa freaks out as her controlling nature isn't as great as she thinks it is. It's relevant because it plays a double-insult, not only is Philipa not in control as she thinks it is but it's also a great way to demonstrate that Nilfgaard is controlling the Sorceresses (which, by their nature, were put in charge to prevent the war of the North and Nilfgaard).

That might be, but again, it is possible to demonstrate this without the pandering use of sex. It's not there to be mature, it's there to pander to the male demographic.

Dave of Canada wrote...
In addition, Sorceresses have always been open in their sexuality throughout the Witcher universe because they're magically-altered physically (Yennefer was mentioned as showing signs of formely being a hunchback) and have enough influence in the world to be feared by nobility, they almost always take sexual partners as their aids and don't fret over what other people think.

Again, this is a writing decision Sapkowski and the game developers have made - most of whom are male. You think there's no connection there? And again, I ask: what about the Sorcerers? Don't see many of those sexually liberated magically altered pretty boys running around, hitting on Geralt and having gay spanking sessions.

Dave of Canada wrote...
How'd you deal with the scene? Show the Sorceress in a conserved fashion, Cynthia being her sexual partner in dialogue only and mentioning that Philipa likes being in control through dialogue? We're dealing with a visual medium. Show, don't tell.

How about... showing Philippa order Cynthia around? Just plain make her do stuff - fetch Philippa this or that, do menial things for Philippa. If the sexual relationship really is needed have Philippa make a couple crude jokes and maybe have some sexual innuendoes - like that massage scene. Or just skip the over-the-top porn moans and naked ****** shots, that works too. It's possible to do. The way it was portrayed was a writing decision made by the developers, and to say it was somehow inevitable because of the way the plot works out is just not the case.

Dave of Canada wrote...

Also, the kiss between Philippa and Saskia is an important plot point; the dwarf in the background making comments about "lesbomancy"... not so much.

This scene ruined the game?

No, nor have I in any shape or form argued that it did. I pointed out it highlights the less than mature attitude the game has towards sex and sexuality.

Dave of Canada wrote...

Sex in particular is about trust. That's what makes it truly mature: only mature people can handle both the responsibility and the vulnerability.

That's a very naive way to look at it, not everyone explores sexuality and feels it in the same fashion.

• Triss and Ves are "trust'-oriented, as you've put it.
• Most of the other sorceresses and sorcerers we've met are promiscuous and kinky.
• ****s and Succubus use sex as a means to achieve what they want/need, Sorcereresses also do this.

[*]That's your opinion, but I think it is what makes sex a mature topic: in the end, sex is about being comfortable with yourself and having the self-confidence to explore that with a partner - that's a lot more than most, say, teenagers can say. I didn't say that sex = love or that all sex is extra special and always beneficial, but that in the end, it is always measured in trust: in your partner and in yourself.
[*]
[*]Also, did you notice there is a very clear distinction here: "good girls" (Triss, the love interest, and Ves) don't have sex/only have sex with Geralt in the course of the game, and the promiscuous "bad girls" who use sex as a means to an end. Guys? Seem to only have sex because it's fun and they feel like they want to. You're also familiar with the implications of the succubus myth in the Catholic chuch, right? The female demons who would try to seduce men (particularly chaste monks and priests) into sex, and repeatedly having sex with one resulted in death. Again, there seem to be no incubus (a male equivalent) in Witcher lore...

Modifié par MissOuJ, 19 février 2013 - 12:12 .

[Nerevar-as]

MissOuj, just what do you think of ASoI&F, with all that free and explicit sex that adds nothing we didn´t already know about the characters? Do you consider it also immature?

"Sex in particular is about trust. That's what makes it truly mature: only mature people can handle both the responsibility and the vulnerability."

I have to agree that´s incredibly naive. You´ve played Origins, getting in a relationship with anyone but Alistair involved anything but trust (and if you haven´t taken him to Redcliff, not even him). And sex scenes in underwear as BW does IS immature. You either ftb or do something like ME1, not stay in the middle. Especially not in a +18 game.

EDIT: Triss has a darker side to her, such as using Geralt´s amnesia to sleep with him, something he wouldn´t do if he remembered, not to mention her lack of concern for her suppossed best friend. About Sucubi and other creatures, forget christian religion, Sapkowski´s versions usually involve some twist.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 19 février 2013 - 12:52 .

[MissOuJ]

Nerevar-as wrote...

MissOuj, just what do you think of ASoI&F, with all that free and explicit sex that adds nothing we didn´t already know about the characters? Do you consider it also immature?

Funny that you should mention ASoIaF: I don't mind the sex, I mind the rape. It's actually disturbing when you think about it: Martin has a lot more rape than consensual sex in his books. That's actually one reason why I stopped reading the series. Also, I don't recall him using needless sex scenes: all the consensual sex is there to establish relationships and reinforce them between characters. Rape, on the other hand, is there to such degree it is unnerving for me as a female reader.

Nerevar-as wrote...
"Sex in particular is about trust. That's what makes it truly mature: only mature people can handle both the responsibility and the vulnerability."

I have to agree that´s incredibly naive. You´ve played Origins, getting in a relationship with anyone but Alistair involved anything but trust (and if you haven´t taken him to Redcliff, not even him). And sex scenes in underwear as BW does IS immature. You either ftb or do something like ME1, not stay in the middle. Especially not in a +18 game.

Umm... not talking about games only here, talking about the real world cultural, social and psycological implications of sex and the reasons why it is considered a mature topic in our society in general. Those are the reasons we treat sexual acts as a tabo and as something private between two (or possibly more) consenting adults that should be kept from the public eye. How gaming/media in general has chosen to represent relationships and sexuality is a different thing entirely.

Have to agree the underwear sex scenes are of really poor taste and just silly, but I think they are actually a lot more mature than, for example, the succubus sex scene in TW2, which is redundant, pointless, and only there for a bit of cheap tillilation, just like the Hot Coffee Mod. Also sex scenes are not the be all and end all of mature representations of sex or sexuality. Also acting like a +18 game ows you [that's a general you and not a you you] (female) T&A and everything else is either immature or "false advertising" is in itself a pretty immature.

I'd suggest checking out Extra Credits's video on the subject: I think they do a great job explaining what I consider to be mature representation of sex in games and why I don't think increasing the amount of explicit sex scenes in gaming media is the way to achieve that.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 19 février 2013 - 01:54 .

[Lucy Glitter]

MissOuJ wrote...
That's your opinion, but I think it is what makes sex a mature topic: in the end, sex is about being comfortable with yourself and having the self-confidence to explore that with a partner - that's a lot more than most, say, teenagers can say. I didn't say that sex = love or that all sex is extra special and always beneficial, but that in the end, it is always measured in trust: in your partner and in yourself.
[*]
[*]Also, did you notice there is a very clear distinction here: "good girls" (Triss, the love interest, and Ves) don't have sex/only have sex with Geralt in the course of the game, and the promiscuous "bad girls" who use sex as a means to an end. Guys? Seem to only have sex because it's fun and they feel like they want to. You're also familiar with the implications of the succubus myth in the Catholic chuch, right? The female demons who would try to seduce men (particularly chaste monks and priests) into sex, and repeatedly having sex with one resulted in death. Again, there seem to be no incubus (a male equivalent) in Witcher lore...

Okay. We get it. You hate naked women in games and think it's sexist. Cool. Also, Incubi are in the books of The Witcher. I'm a female (I hate that I have to say that) and I didn't find Witcher 2 sexist in any way. In fact I found Triss to be pretty awesome and tbh I actually choose her over Yennefer, if I ever have to make it (which I think I will.) Triss always has a choice to have sex. She isn't doing it for anyone but her own personal satisfaction so I see no issues here. Most of the women in the game have sex with Geralt because he's a sexy piece of meat. That's part of his character. He's a damned womaniser and I see no complaints with Geralt, yet he is running around sexing up all these women and... oh... my god. Did I see Geralt naked?! OHMYGOD HOW COULD THEY?!?!? No, because the stereotype of manly men is never critisised, is it? Why is it always JUST the women? Seriously. 

Also also, I see you seem to think the world, in general, is a lovely, happy world where sex is always about love and sharing things and all that. Sex is an exploration of your deepest psychological needs and wants in the most basest of manners. Sometimes those needs are pretty twisted and very detatched from the sex that is portrayed in the typical happy, loving couple on billboards and... whatever else. The Witcher's universe is very dark and explores the darker side of humanity. It explores racism, needless violence, slavery etc. It explores those things not because, 'OHMYGOD ALL THAT STUFF IS SO COOL YEAH!!!" No. It explores it for many reasons. Because it is a way to comment on current issues and challenge our beliefs. Why the hell would we exclude the dark side of intercourse and sexuality from that list? Sex is... pretty damn common. In fact i'd say there are more than a million people on earth (maybe a billion!) doing it right now. Not all of them are going to be engaging in sex because they are comfortable in themselves. No way Jose. 

OkayIdidn'teditthisortaketimetoformulateaconciceargumentbye.[*]
[*]EDIT: Okay, so what you are really saying is that you just don't like seeing sex being portrayed in general. Okay, why didn't you just say that before? That's your opinion and cool. I agree to disagree. I like seeing all sides of the human condition portrayed myself. 

If you don't like it, don't play it or don't have Geralt have sex with anyone. Done. Problem solved. Kbai.

Modifié par Lucy_Glitter, 19 février 2013 - 02:21 .