- Status
And what doesn't? Like TW2 is absolutely without a flaw? Don't get me wrong, I love The Witcher series like you can't even imagine, but it doesn't mean i cannot be critical. I don't like Bioshock as a game that much, mostly because I don't like shooters (and I'm not much of a gamer, really), but I can appreciate the story. It wasn't terribly original and not without problems, but so wasn't TW2. So there.CostinMoroianu said:
/end threadCostinMoroianu said:
/>Seriously, KoP, you're awesome.
I don't demand. I am fully aware I am not in a position to demand anything. As a fan, I am expressing my wishes and pointing out to areas where there can be improvements.CostinMoroianu said:
He ^^ and thanksCostinMoroianu said:
Unfortunately, what offends people is entirely subjective, and why I feel CDPR should limit the type of criticism they respond to. Because this is the single common complaint about them that will not go away. More than any other developer I know of, they are taken to task for offending people, and when TW3 arrives the forum will be filled with threads complaining about:blueteainfusion said:
-affronts to women
-affronts to gays
-complaints about violence and gore
-complaints about sex
-complaints about nudity
Someone, somewhere will always be offended.
Yes absolutely. I trust in CDPR's wisdom to be able to differentiate the legitimate complaints and what stands to be improved, from complaints that fundamentally oppose their vision (like removing nudity or gore for instance).slimgrin said:
Well, PC is very subjective by its nature, kind of like obscenity to Potter Stewart. And there are people who are offended by depictions or accounts/suggestions of sex, as well as child murder, lesbianism, S&M, bestiality, prostitution, and general debauchery. You cannot argue there aren't people offended by such depictions. So when you take into account all of the people who can be offended - should they choose to - by different depictions in TW2, it is clear TW2 is not PC, and no less non-PC than TW1.KnightofPhoenix said:
That's why I dislike using the term PC and dislike it when people throw it around. I just use the word "decency." You can portray anything you want, just do it well and with the appropriate amount of sensitivity.SystemShock7 said:
But yes I am sure some were offended by the presence of S&M (why it's awesome...).
But by the same token, bioware games can be seen as not PC either. It has all of the above.
It is one thing for CDPR to change characters and their motives, and to remove certain things, and another - to modify a structure of the narrative in order to remove unintended ambiguity. If Dethmold and slave scene were in the beginning of Chapter 3, and Dethmold scaring Anais right before Roche shows up, nobody would complain about any offense. It is always good for a writer to be self-conscious about such things, and to predict a possible reaction. I can get that intended offenses can have value for some writes, but non-intended are not doing any good to anyone. If things can be modified without compromising a story, why not?
The one compromise I would have been ok with is giving Geralt a chance to either scold Roche for being a sadist, or staying silent. That way the scene stays in and the player can react to what has happened.vivaxardas said:
That's where you're being impractical in your idealism- you can't be asymmetrically sensitive when you decide that you want to be sensitive; otherwise, you're just biased for your "side" of the argument, and you don't actually care about people's feelings.KnightofPhoenix said:
Offense to nudity and gore are legitimate concerns, just as any perceived (assumed) slight against homosexuality, and actually people offended by nudity and gore have more of a case because such instances in the game were explicitly utilized, whereas the game does not have an explicit anti-homosexual agenda.
If the idea is to offer safe and sensitive, unoffensive games, then you can't pick and choose for what to be sensitive; the only reason it makes sense to pick and choose is if you want to indulge in thought crime policing for art, which is absolutely absurd and impractical.
If people are worried about castration of gays in TW3, then don't worry- I don't think it's going to happen; just like it didn't happen in TW2, btw, because to me Dethmold will always be a shrewd douchebag before he's someone gay. In that way, I think TW2 is more progressive than some of its players.
Ok.KnightofPhoenix said:
How do you portray child murder with "decency and sensitivity"?
How do you portray prostitution with "decency and sensitivity"?
How do you portray sadomasochism with "decency and sensitivity"?
Look, everyone is just going on tangents trying to make some sort of point and trying to dissect every word... bottom line is, OP got offended because he perceived Dethmold was castrated specifically because he was a homosexual. Fine, and too bad for him. Again, I wonder what his reaction would've been had Dethmold been impaled.
There's always Grand Theft Auto.
They are criticized (I don't know if more than other developers) for a various possible reasons (my interpretation):slimgrin said:
- they bragged beforehand how they were going to create the best RPG for mature players - which, let's be honest, virtually invites people to nitpick and mock, searching for any faults and immaturity in the "hyped" product;
- when something becomes reasonably popular, various people want to check it out. Broader audience equals more varied response and obviously leads to the rise of the probability of there being people who didn't like the content for one reason or the other;
What certainly didn't help CDPR's reputation (I'm talking about social issues in the narative, not anything else at the moment) is that there really were/are some credible issues with the portrayal of some groups. Whatever they personally bother you or not is different matter. I know tons of people who felt uncomfortable with them.
And I felt that the developers' stance concerning nudity, sex, violence and controversial issues like rasism was always clear. I don't feel cheated in any way, I knew what I was buying and I enjoy that aspect. Believe me though, if they ever stated that they don't give a rat's ass about women/sexual minorities/the disabled rights, I wouldn't be here. Since they didn't, I'm assuming they're on my side. Thus I feel welcome to give some feedback on these issues.
No, and we've already had this discussion.cmdrsilverbolt said:
Yes, being offended by nudity is a legitimate concern. But if nudity is a part of the vision, then they simply have to avoid the game. As such, the creators do not have to respond to such complaints, esp when they make it clear that their product has nudity (so really, no excuse for those who bought it).
The concern about ambiguity that might be mistook as homophobia is different. It's not part of the vision, people are not warned of it. It's just opening itself to unnecessary criticism and un-intended offense.
That and the presence of nudity is not an affront to anyone's rights. Homophobia, whether intended or not, is.
So yes I am biased towards the latter more than the former, I never hid that.
By portraying it seriously, as not something to be taken lightly or as a joke, but as something that is horrible and horrific.SystemShock7 said:
By portraying it seriously, with the people engaged in it as people.
If they want to address sex trafficking, again portraying it as the serious and horrific problem that it is.
I really don't get what's the fixation with S&M. It's just rough sex with tools. As long as it's consensual, there is no problem.
Unless you are talking about a master - slave relation, in which case treat it seriously.
See, what you're doing now is that you're arguing your interpretation against what you think mine is. Of course there are different possible interpretations for that scene. I don't think TW2's a homophobic game either, or I wouldn't be here. The point isn't that you can interpret the scene differently, the point is it's very easy to interpret it as homophobic because a lot of the usual elements are there, and that's unfortunate.SystemShock7 said:
If they want to portray homophobia in the game world, that's fine too as long as they do it well. They did it with racism.gregski said:
The problem is not that. The problem is in feeling like the game is promoting or indulging in homophobia, which I do not believe is the case. But I understand people having that vibe.
See, that's exactly the distinction I was talking about, and I think that scene crosses that line, although probably accidentially. I think we all agree that one thing that's so great about these games is that the writers don't pull any punches in how they portray their world, and that's why Costa and others have this strong aversion against the idea of any sort of "political correctness" infused into them. It always reeks of censorship or not doing things the way you really want because you're worried it might offend somebody. There's no problem with the world of the Witcher games being homophobic. It's also deeply misogynistic and racist, so it would be pretty weird if there wasn't a lot of homophobia. There's also no problem with the implication that Roche might be a homophobe. Like others have said, he's not exactly a nice guy to begin with. The problem is that in that particular scene, it looks like WE are supposed to be shocked that Dethmold is having sex with this dude.gregski said:
- Status