- Status
I played Doom when I was 9, I played Vice City when I was 13 ( and that had a lot of violence and nudity in it ) and really I didn't care much for it beyond the initial stage of angst. ( Which granted did last for a few hours but still ).
So this whole notion of not buying mature game for children doesn't really stand as far as I am concerned, especially when there are fully grown adults which get a lot more squeamish at violence and nudity then children do.
Not every pc- or video game is a piece of art, but I would definitely say that both Witcher titles are among those that are. I understand that some people might not want to see nudity or gore (altough I don't agree with that), but we wouldn't change a painting or a book because of the content it shows. That's why we shouldn't change the Witcher. There is a vision behind this game and taking things away from it is taking things away from this vision.
As did I. Maybe I should have explained my point a bit better.CostinMoroianu said:
Stupid parent goes and buys child a rated M game, sees festival of gore(obvious exaggeration for most games) then protests violent video games that are made for those that are above the ages of 17 or 18.
I started even earlier, funnily enough the first my first PC game was Doom as well. Started somewhere around 4-5 doesn't mean I could play it easily usually it was just me holding down 1 or 2 keys then pressing the fire button with difficulty turning around slowly but the only "do not introduce children to reality" notion I find BS.CostinMoroianu said:
The thing to notice here is that none of the elements, gore, nudity, language, is added for shock value, but instead to add realism, depth, and layers to the games.
I also dislike the idea of filters because it makes it seem like the elements mentioned above are superfluous- they are not, they expose different dimensions and details of the storytelling. Adding filters would be just as unnatural as reading a book with imagery or words censored.
I also dislike the idea of filters because it makes it seem like the elements mentioned above are superfluous- they are not, they expose different dimensions and details of the storytelling. Adding filters would be just as unnatural as reading a book with imagery or words censored.
I disagree, if only on account of the finishers pack in TW2. This is not ultra-gore but it's over-the-top visual death effects. It's intentionally flashy and "wow" inducing (I happen to think they're great) but often unrealistic and not story-related. One may also note they can be disabled/enabled. I don't think this is really that far off from what the OP suggests (at least regarding violence, I could always do with more sex myself).cmdrsilverbolt said:
Nah, dude, they add realism to the game. Have you ever seen an artery get cut, you'll get to if work as an EMT, or if you visit a farm/slaughterhouse, and it looks just as "flashy". If you're talking about Geralt's "fancy moves" as he does so, that's erroneous- he never does anything out of the ordinary while the camera is showing said finishers, all his moves are normal combat moves. They only look "wow inducing" because of the special focus.
You can see for yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Peizpja5Vjc
Also, if they can be disabled, what's the fuss?
You can see for yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Peizpja5Vjc
Also, if they can be disabled, what's the fuss?
I've said it before and will say it again. As long as no one forces censorship on me I don't care if it's an option.
If it's an optional thing to turn off some blood & gore or nudity. It shouldn't bother anyone.
Actually no one has a right to complain if it's an optional thing for those who want it.
If the game creators makes it available NO ONE can say they can't do that.
If they don't and someone makes a mod for it then it's still a choice to use it or not.
A lot of games have an option to turn off blood and gore, we just don't notice because we don't bother with it.
If any of you think it's wrong to choose to remove violence and nudity then nobody should be allowed to mod even the slightest thing. Because modding goes against the original vision of the creators.
So no recipe cost reduction mods, no better looking armor/weapons and no FCR since that changes something in the core game.
If someone makes forced restrictions, then all bets are off..
I'm looking at you sniper elite v2, even imported from the UK didn't work without using a VPN for steam, but that could lead to account banning...
If it's an optional thing to turn off some blood & gore or nudity. It shouldn't bother anyone.
Actually no one has a right to complain if it's an optional thing for those who want it.
If the game creators makes it available NO ONE can say they can't do that.
If they don't and someone makes a mod for it then it's still a choice to use it or not.
A lot of games have an option to turn off blood and gore, we just don't notice because we don't bother with it.
If any of you think it's wrong to choose to remove violence and nudity then nobody should be allowed to mod even the slightest thing. Because modding goes against the original vision of the creators.
So no recipe cost reduction mods, no better looking armor/weapons and no FCR since that changes something in the core game.
If someone makes forced restrictions, then all bets are off..
I'm looking at you sniper elite v2, even imported from the UK didn't work without using a VPN for steam, but that could lead to account banning...
Okay, options are fine. As long as censorship takes place AFTER the game is written and developed, and NOT DURING. Being cognizant of these kinds of "options" can change a game without meaning to, and that's what worries me.
But seriously, I don't think anyone is entitled to options in any game; they're added at the discretion of the developers, i.e. if there's time and resources.
But seriously, I don't think anyone is entitled to options in any game; they're added at the discretion of the developers, i.e. if there's time and resources.
Woah, he does a stealth kill on the xbox version? That kinda messes with the whole purpose of using stealth in TW2. Anyway, they're all cool and very flashy but I hope there's a little less emphasis on finishers for TW3. Or they implement them better at any rate. Got me killed dozens of times.cmdrsilverbolt said:
OT: what the op asks for requires a lot of effort that should be spent elsewhere. So I'm against this as well. Mods will eventually be available who don't want to see naked people.
Specifically, an option to curb profanity would come at the price of additional VA. I'd much rather have CDProjekt spend such time, money and drive on expanding dialogue itself.cmdrsilverbolt said:
No, no, and no. The Witcher games are created a certain way, for mature audience, to show adult themes. Nobody would seriously ask for Game of Thrones censored version, with no nudity, or gore. To have it all in game, as I see it, is the point of a game. The world is dark and full of terrors, you know. Also it is not that excessive, as some people claim.
Sex is optional, except the first cut-scene in TW2. Don't want to see nudity, don't go to the brothel. To go to the brothel, to pay a whore, and to see a towel?
/>
Dwarves don't curse, they just speak this way (as a lot of Russians in Russian countryside, btw). In real life a lot of people curse a lot, and some people speak using f-words twice in every sentence. In TW2 it is actually not over the top even with the dwarves, and it is not gratuitous. Simply the way these people behave in that world.
Too much gore? You know, I really fail to understand it. "Too much death and suffering" complaint I can understand, and sympathize, and suggest to play other games instead. But killing hordes of people is OK as long as it does not offend our esthetic scene or something? Like all this blood and body parts make people uncomfortable, while plain stabbing through the heart is not? You know, for those who is OK with clean killings, may be gore is necessary, as a reminder that death is never clean.
In essence, look at it this way: it is CDPR's vision of that world, like the world in GOT is Martin's vision. To have censoring options is to go against creators' vision (plus, it may be costly), and it shouldn't be done. TW games are not the only RPGs on the market. There are other, milder RPGs to play. Diversity is a spice of life, so let us have some games, movies, and TV shows for mature audience only, some - for everybody, and some - for kids. To censor mature games would be as inappropriate, as to add nudity, cursing, and gore option to Nancy Drew games.
Sex is optional, except the first cut-scene in TW2. Don't want to see nudity, don't go to the brothel. To go to the brothel, to pay a whore, and to see a towel?
/>Dwarves don't curse, they just speak this way (as a lot of Russians in Russian countryside, btw). In real life a lot of people curse a lot, and some people speak using f-words twice in every sentence. In TW2 it is actually not over the top even with the dwarves, and it is not gratuitous. Simply the way these people behave in that world.
Too much gore? You know, I really fail to understand it. "Too much death and suffering" complaint I can understand, and sympathize, and suggest to play other games instead. But killing hordes of people is OK as long as it does not offend our esthetic scene or something? Like all this blood and body parts make people uncomfortable, while plain stabbing through the heart is not? You know, for those who is OK with clean killings, may be gore is necessary, as a reminder that death is never clean.
In essence, look at it this way: it is CDPR's vision of that world, like the world in GOT is Martin's vision. To have censoring options is to go against creators' vision (plus, it may be costly), and it shouldn't be done. TW games are not the only RPGs on the market. There are other, milder RPGs to play. Diversity is a spice of life, so let us have some games, movies, and TV shows for mature audience only, some - for everybody, and some - for kids. To censor mature games would be as inappropriate, as to add nudity, cursing, and gore option to Nancy Drew games.
Really? He grips the blade of his sword and slams the hilt into the necks of his enemies in normal combat? He pulls out both silver and steel swords to dual-wield impale dudes in normal combat? I've never seen that.cmdrsilverbolt said:
And there's no "fuss" about them, the point about being able to disable them is that it goes against your point that "we shouldn't add the feature to disable violence because it undercuts the validity of said violence." There's already gratuitous violence in TW2 that can be toggled. And I have no problem with any of that.
Flixster said:Really? He grips the blade of his sword and slams the hilt into the necks of his enemies in normal combat? He pulls out both silver and steel swords to dual-wield impale dudes in normal combat? I've never seen that.
And there's no "fuss" about them, the point about being able to disable them is that it goes against your point that "we shouldn't add the feature to disable violence because it undercuts the validity of said violence." There's already gratuitous violence in TW2 that can be toggled. And I have no problem with any of that.
Then maybe you'd never understand the Witcher world, I freindly advise you to read the books: you'll find Spakowski draws harder gore scenes. The series Witcher books are not a Walt Disney's tale, you know. CDPR love the Spakowski's White Wolf and they give him a digital life with an careful fidelity. Changing that is changing Spakwoski's creation.
I think Corylea or someone once posted an article about those moves somewhere. They are legitimate fighting moves even described in swordmaster manuals.Flixster said:Really? He grips the blade of his sword and slams the hilt into the necks of his enemies in normal combat? He pulls out both silver and steel swords to dual-wield impale dudes in normal combat? I've never seen that.
And there's no "fuss" about them, the point about being able to disable them is that it goes against your point that "we shouldn't add the feature to disable violence because it undercuts the validity of said violence." There's already gratuitous violence in TW2 that can be toggled. And I have no problem with any of that.
@ Flix: Now that you mention it, I wish those moves were part of normal combat. This only means that we're missing out on the full range of attacks of which Geralt is capable.
Regardless, like I said, these moves add realism to the game, and censoring them just means you don't want to see that stuff, not that a swordsman is incapable of attacking like that.
The fact is that the world, and not just Geralt's world, is defined by physics which would show "flashy" or "wow inducing" attacks if we viewed fights IRL.
So the blood gushing, the splatter, the hitting-the-opponent-in-unique-ways-to-exploit-critical-points, all of these aspects add substance to a made-up world by adding real life details.
Also, Geralt is not a teddy bear, and seeing him do these things adds another dimension for you to understand the character.
Not to mention, the player is able to appreciate their actions on a visceral level by seeing their exaggerated impact. If anything, these cut-scenes tell us that swordplay is not to be taken lightly, and fights should be prevented if possible because they have irreversible consequences.
Also, you do in fact invalidate someone's creative expression when you censor it any shape or form. You're essentially saying that what they did was unnecessary, or something we can do without. I am saying that all things, as we witness in the game, are added for the purpose of defining the world and the characters.
Since this is a commercial product, you can get away with asking for censorship, but the truth is that you're maiming the art and storytelling, and let's not pretend otherwise.
But whatever, as long as the game does not suffer because of censorship DURING THE DEVELOPMENT process, I couldn't care less about what anyone else did.
Regardless, like I said, these moves add realism to the game, and censoring them just means you don't want to see that stuff, not that a swordsman is incapable of attacking like that.
The fact is that the world, and not just Geralt's world, is defined by physics which would show "flashy" or "wow inducing" attacks if we viewed fights IRL.
So the blood gushing, the splatter, the hitting-the-opponent-in-unique-ways-to-exploit-critical-points, all of these aspects add substance to a made-up world by adding real life details.
Also, Geralt is not a teddy bear, and seeing him do these things adds another dimension for you to understand the character.
Not to mention, the player is able to appreciate their actions on a visceral level by seeing their exaggerated impact. If anything, these cut-scenes tell us that swordplay is not to be taken lightly, and fights should be prevented if possible because they have irreversible consequences.
Also, you do in fact invalidate someone's creative expression when you censor it any shape or form. You're essentially saying that what they did was unnecessary, or something we can do without. I am saying that all things, as we witness in the game, are added for the purpose of defining the world and the characters.
Since this is a commercial product, you can get away with asking for censorship, but the truth is that you're maiming the art and storytelling, and let's not pretend otherwise.
But whatever, as long as the game does not suffer because of censorship DURING THE DEVELOPMENT process, I couldn't care less about what anyone else did.
This thread reminds me of a show I used to watch called "Southland", it was a very gritty and realistic show about cops in Los Angeles and it was extremely good. Only problem with it was that it wasn't an HBO, Showtime, Starz etc. show so it got censored in many places(curse words, nudity and such) and it made it a whole lot worse, and of course vivaxardas also made that point with Game Of Thrones earlier, so I am absolutely against censoring that. Luckily CDPRED isn't owned by EA so that won't happen. Why would you want to take one of the few truly mature games out there and dumb it down like that? Especially since that's one of their trademarks.
- Status