Sycophant said:
It's a lack of faith in Gaider's work.
But we have no idea what the plot is about. I'll give them the benefit of he doubt and say that if they unanimously agreed that the scene would be better off cancelled, that it was probably the right call.
KnightofPhoenix said:
Then you're mistaken as to what art in general, and fiction in particular is.
For example, should Seven's David Fincher have held back?
Should Pasolini in his «Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom» have been mindful of people's feelings?
Please.
It's up to the spectator to determine whether his or her own sensibilities will be at risk. That's what adults do.
AgentBlue said:
Quite true, but Bioware does not hold to the principle, except to use it as a flame shield in times of need. Neither does anyone feel like applying it to this situation, because the quality of the writing is a bygone conclusion.
AgentBlue said:
Evidently you didn't read the part you conveniently cut out. So I'll just paste it and bold the parts that answer you:
"In other words, I believe that rape is a subject that writers can deal with, if and only if said writers take it seriously and do not shrug it off as "lol funny" or perhaps worse "aww it's romantic."
If they are incapable of dealing with the subject matter with the gravitas and seriousness it needs, they are better off avoiding it or face the consequences of their sloppiness and accept aggressive criticism."
To simplify it, an artist can portray whatever he / she wants as long as it is done with the appropriate seriousness it needs. Otherwise, they should accept criticism.
But if I understood the article correctly, it's like a lot of people are finding rape where there is none. I have a hard time believing Gaider would actually write a rape into the story without noticing it. I didn't understand it that he wrote a rape romantically or goofily..KnightofPhoenix said:
You also have to understand our initial reaction to you writing that if there's anything that can be interpreted as rape in the story it should be scrapped, because that's what you wrote. You did explain yourself better later though, but you still brushed off my question as a reductio ad-absurdum.
KnightofPhoenix said:
Oh but I did read it.
No sacred cows.
Have you ever been to a stand up comedy act where they routinely joke around about the likes of rape, murder, physical deformities and what not? Sure, anyone is free to throw harsh criticism at them.
Should they care?
Not a rat's rear end.
Do not mistake art, fiction, humour and entertainment at large for moral manifestos.
AgentBlue said:
Nah, what he's saying is that if writers want to be controversial, especially today, they have to be ready for the fallout. If they don't want to deal with it, the only solution is to not publish at all. eg Phil Fish's exit from the industry.
Elida said:
Which is the reason everyone disregards feminists except the ones wanting to make a quick cash grab by using the latest extravaganza.
Sycophant said:
Yep, that read was priceless. Now I won't be surprised by ANYTHING in Bioware stories.
Sycophant said:
Yes, character reactions should have accounted for previous actions of Geralt. Two games feel more disconnected that they should be, and minor changes and cameo appearances do not really help.
But it was just a second game, and CDPR were still learning. So I do not really hold it against them, not like I hold a lot of plot b.s. in Bioware games who are RPG veterans.
I am sure TW3 will be connected to TW2 in a much more meaningful way.
Elida said:
Everyone agreed that it did give off that vibe, including Gaider himself. Maybe he's that poor of a writer that he doesn't even realize what he's writing, doesn't really surprise me. But the entire team agreed. If it gives off the vibe of rape, when he didn't even intend it, then chances are it was really crap and insensitive. So yes, it should be removed.
@ Agent Blue
No I am not interested in these kinds of performances, I find them revolting.
However it is not a pertinent comparison. I know what these performances are about, that's how they present and advertise themselves. As such I avoid them.
However when playing a game that doesn't present itself that way and is a completely different genre, and when said team find out that they give off the vibe of something bad that they did not even intend, they should remove it.
Well, if the issue is that artists or writers should expect criticism, why, sure. They should.
From people whom do not understand what art, humour are about.If you fail to understand why humour, in particular, is precisely more needed and useful regarding this gruesome matters, then you do not understand humour at all.
That's one of the perks of living in a free society. Everybody is entitled to voicing their concerns.
If I were to write a novel where the protagonist is a psychotic rapist who shows no remorse for his actions and depict the scenes accordingly, showing his seeming detachment, how on Earth would anyone be justified in criticizing me? Would I be endorsing serial rape? Would I be preaching on the virtues of sadism?
And if we are not to hurt anyone's feelings, where does it stop? Fat people, stupid people, ignorant people, short people, short penis people? It's usually lie the fat mock the short whom in turn mock the gipsy who mock the homeless who mock the bald who mock one-legged who mock the fat.
Bunuel and Dali shot a surrealist movie called «Un Chien Andalou» where a man slices up the eyeball of a woman with a razor. There is no vestige of emotion on his face. His demeanour is that of a zealous accountant.
Go watch that.
From people whom do not understand what art, humour are about.If you fail to understand why humour, in particular, is precisely more needed and useful regarding this gruesome matters, then you do not understand humour at all.
That's one of the perks of living in a free society. Everybody is entitled to voicing their concerns.
If I were to write a novel where the protagonist is a psychotic rapist who shows no remorse for his actions and depict the scenes accordingly, showing his seeming detachment, how on Earth would anyone be justified in criticizing me? Would I be endorsing serial rape? Would I be preaching on the virtues of sadism?
And if we are not to hurt anyone's feelings, where does it stop? Fat people, stupid people, ignorant people, short people, short penis people? It's usually lie the fat mock the short whom in turn mock the gipsy who mock the homeless who mock the bald who mock one-legged who mock the fat.
Bunuel and Dali shot a surrealist movie called «Un Chien Andalou» where a man slices up the eyeball of a woman with a razor. There is no vestige of emotion on his face. His demeanour is that of a zealous accountant.
Go watch that.
AgentBlue said:
You watched Un Chien Andalou too? Good taste man.
But again you miss the point. The gaming industry is not catering and dudebroing because it is forced to, it is doing it because it wants to, for that is the easiest way to cash. This isn't about artistic freedom, especially to Bioware, this is about profits, pure and simple. To put it in a different way, you can't take off the chains they put on themselves of their own free will.
AgentBlue said:
I do not give a damn what you think I understand or not, that was not the subject of the discussion.
I would be justified in criticizing you if you as a writer portrayed it as funny, intending your readers to take pleasure or laugh at your rape scene.
Writing a scene from the perspective of a psychopath, where the intent is deliberately to disturb the reader not indulging in your ignorance or idiocy, is a different matter.
KnightofPhoenix said:
Well, I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
But the point is that you keep trying to force art and humour into a mould they just won't fit and such attempt springs from your apparent misunderstanding of the two.