Sarkeesian predicts Witcher 3 will be "misogynist".

[Gamewidow]

White not exactly a leap forward in male-female relations, i personally found the sex cards in the first game to be great fun. I never once felt demeaned by them, not did i find that the narrative of the game necessarily demeaned the women depicted in them. At the time, sexual encounters in games were relatively rare and this was one innovative (if perhaps primitive, by our current standards) way to deal with it. I found them quite tame, even if US game rating agencies saw the need to to tone them down even further (see the discussion the wiki).

Similarly, i found the short videos in the second game a step forward, if perhaps not to everyone's taste. Geralt is a sexy protagonist and in the books, he does get his fair share of female attention, even if his heart ultimately belongs to one particular sorceress. I think suggesting that the Witcher games are poster children for misogyny is misguided.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

The same applies to the barmaid in the Vizima outskirts, I've forgotten her name, who rewards Geralt for walking her home.

Vesna Hood.

 

[dragonbird]

White not exactly a leap forward in male-female relations, i personally found the sex cards in the first game to be great fun. I never once felt demeaned by them, not did i find that the narrative of the game necessarily demeaned the women depicted in them.

I have mixed opinions on them. It really depends on what argument is used to oppose the cards.
The fact that Geralt has the opportunity to have so much sex in TW1 doesn't disturb me in the slightest. It goes back to what I raised in my last post - the women concerned are all consenting adults, they're usually the ones to suggest sex, they get as much enjoyment out of it as Geralt. Sex between a man and a woman is NOT demeaning to the woman.

But then there's the meta-level, that this is a video-game, that the real reason all of these women have sex with Geralt isn't for Geralt or the woman's enjoyment, but for the player, who is assumed to be a hetero male, and that it's turned into a collectible. At that level, I think it was a mistake, and something that is continuing to have repercussions.

 

[GuyNwah]

I think the sex cards in the first game are taken for something they're not, and that is what makes them controversial or thought to be juvenile or demeaning. We look at them according to our usual experience of such images and say "Ooh la la, French postcards!", or how you can assemble a catalog of them, "Gotta catch 'em all!" We neither look closely at them, nor do we consider how (or even whether) they might be serving a dramatic purpose in the game.

In a signficant sense (though, of course not the only one), the game is about Geralt's memory. It's about what he can and can't remember; it's about who he remembers and what he remembers about them. And that's why the cards are important. Look at one closely; take your time and really look, longer than the two seconds the average painting in a museum gets. If you can't ignore the in-your-face breasts, look at a censored version. They're very detailed, some of them exquisitely. They represent the things Geralt saw in the women he made love to, what he learned about them, how he remembers them. They're his memories, and I think he treasures every one of them.

 

[Sardukhar]

...yeaah..I'm gonna go with the sex cards being what they look like - titillation.
Sometimes a stone lion is just a stone lion and I think the sex cards were another way to sell the Witcher and distinguish it from the less-adult fare out there.

Whatever. It may be something CDPR is known for now, but it's just one of many things, most of them of much greater import and value, and fading into distant memory daily.

 

[octavian123]

She's a fucking retard.

 

[dragonbird]

She's a fucking retard.

We've moved on a bit, but I assume this was referring to Sarkeesian? Keep the comments appropriate please - "retard" isn't.

 

[wisielec]

...yeaah..I'm gonna go with the sex cards being what they look like - titillation.
Sometimes a stone lion is just a stone lion and I think the sex cards were another way to sell the Witcher and distinguish it from the less-adult fare out there.

Whatever. It may be something CDPR is known for now, but it's just one of many things, most of them of much greater import and value, and fading into distant memory daily.

And I think its a eqivalent of animation. They didnt have the means to do it like in TW2 so they made an exquisite art pieces, put 'em on cards. Thats all. I dont see tittilating anywhere here.

 

[StaGiors]

I think Dragonbird sums it up quite nicely.

Some people think of the cards as Guy N'wah does. That they are works of art, that "serve a dramatic purpose to the game".

Some people think of the cards as Sardukhar does. That they were just a marketing thing.

It really depends on how one wants to view it. Both arguments are valid, but I tend to lean towards the first side. Since it is more "positive".

That being said, I do not fully believe that Guy is right and Sard is wrong. We simply can not know. Since the RED's have not, to my knowing, answered why they decided to put the cards in the first game.

But them realizing that they have made a mistake, and not wanting to repeat it is quite commendable. They didn't even try to defend their decision. It doesn't really matter, since the issue is controversial. What matters is that they won't do it again. Even if they think that their decision was misunderstood.

 

[dragonbird]

Since the RED's have not, to my knowing, answered why they decided to put the cards in the first game.

I wasn't around in those days, but others in the forum were. I remember hearing well after the event that it was actually a very simple reason - that they had ratings issues with showing sex in the game back in those days, and the cards were a last-minute addition to solve the problem.

Does anyone know if this was true, or just a theory passed around teh internetz?

 

[wisielec]

'Bout Sarkeesian - I am sorry but I have to

correspondedly followed by

 

[wisielec]

As I remember it was technical issue and they didnt want to put "silly" sex scenes that were off at that time. Engine limitations and all. So they did the sex cards, thats all, there is no profound logic about them - it was easiest, cheeper and less time consuming.

EDIT: errr... did I confused topics or something? I'm sure I did post in another... ah, it was closed, some posts moved. I'm ok now, thanks for caring

 

[dragonbird]

As I remember it was technical issue and they didnt want to put "silly" sex scenes that were off at that time. Engine limitations and all. So they did the sex cards, thats all, there is no profound logic about them - it was easiest, cheeper and less time consuming.

Thanks - that makes sense.
Always good to hear from the old-timers :unworthy:

 

[sidspyker]

Thanks - that makes sense.
Always good to hear from the old-timers :unworthy:

You're calling others old

 

[dragonbird]

You're calling others old

In mind, in memories, in body. All different.
@wisielec - yes, there was a lot of overlap, and the OP was OK with it, so we closed the other thread, and copied ongoing discussions over here. Just to confuse people.

 

[wisielec]

In mind, in memories, in body. All different.
@wisielec - yes, there was a lot of overlap, and the OP was OK with it, so we closed the other thread, and copied ongoing discussions over here. Just to confuse people.

Aye, thought as much, always wantses catchsy me not paying a dime of attentions! :lawl:

 

[Damariel]

 

[Dona.794]

In a signficant sense (though, of course not the only one), the game is about Geralt's memory. It's about what he can and can't remember; it's about who he remembers and what he remembers about them. And that's why the cards are important.

This reminds me of my first impression of the cards, actually. I thought Triss had given it to me (as in, a physical photo/painting of herself) because she wanted me to remember her. The journal info had a little heart and all, and I figured Geralt kept important info in his journal so he wouldn't forget in case things go awry again. It is the sheer quantity of the cards that disappointed me, and the way they were acquired - often in really random or bizarre circumstances. I didn't have interest in collecting them, so having them pushed on me was a little annoying.

Anyway, TW2 addressed all of the problems the card system had. You can go through the entire game without triggering a single encounter and the dialogues are clear on what's about to happen. Most of them made sense, too.

 

[Blothulfur]

For me that's just buying into the hate train Sarkeesian is riding, self righteous hate for those whom are supposedly supressing her, but none of us are. We work, we struggle, we do our best to be a good person and respect the women who are our equals, because as adults who have lived, loved and worked beside women we know they are equal. Different but equal to us men.

When she condemns the Witcher's she's doing so from an area of ignorance (though to be honest I doubt she's even played them,) because although the world is flawed and sexist the women in it prove their worth repeatedly. Their deeds, their very existence mocks the sexism of the world they live in, and just as the mighty Philippa makes potentates and power brokers dance for her delight, so mothers in lowly Lobinden command respect and attention from their sons, because they are wise, necessary, strong and beloved.

This is not presented blatantly, but it's undeniable, from the beginning the games have been shaped by the powerful women within them, just as much as the men. I like this subtle approach, it has far less of the stink of lecturing to children about it and more of a questioning aspect, it respects and expects us to do what's right. I think what she wants is more obvious presentation as befits her more simplistic mind and tastes, and any truth or realism glossing over in the name of political correctness, but that of course just means running away from any problem and denying the past. And those who do not learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.

My two penneth anyway.

Edit: Then again it's different for me, I was raised among the strong women of my homeland, whom fairly much ruled their homes with an iron fist. When I saw Thatcher ruling England in the same way it just felt natural, she was a northern woman and you pitied those who opposed her. Course maybe you can have too much strength.

 

[GuyNwah]

Edit: Then again it's different for me, I was raised among the strong women of my homeland, whom fairly much ruled their homes with an iron fist. When I saw Thatcher ruling England in the same way it just felt natural, she was a northern woman and you pitied those who opposed her. Course maybe you can have too much strength.

I've heard that Northern and Scots women are much alike that way: In battle, strive to wound a Scotsman; do not kill him. If you wound him, his mother will have to care for him. But if you kill him, his mother will take up his sword and come after you.