Homosexuality in the Witcher 3

[spacehamsterZH]

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.

tl;dr version of what I just said. I'm sorry, I'm wordy.

 

[blueteainfusion]

What if homophobia is a part of the vision? Not CDPR's real world beliefs, but their vision of the Witcher's world?

I'd expect it to be presented in the condemning light, with at least one sympathetic character vocally disapproving (as it is with racism or sexism in the game world). But to be honest, nowhere in the game I've seen or remembered any instance of homophobia, expect in the Dethmold death scene, and even that is arguable on in-story level. So I'm not sure if it's the world and its society that is homophobic, or the narrative itself (as it was presented).

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

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.

It's possible to imagine any scenario as "ambiguous" about anything, so it's really impossible to not offend someone.

Moreover, something might seem as silly and unimportant to you, but it could matter the world to someone else, so it's unfair for us to decide what should and shouldn't be policed in such a case- you're better off policing everything.

I don't understand the point of a game aiming for sensitivity if it's only going to care about some people's feelings; that just comes off as really thoughtless, self-centered and inconsiderate, the opposite of sensitivity.

Other people's feelings shouldn't be minimized, they also matter as customers and as people.

What I dislike the most is that this entire debate is centered around an imagined slight. Don't we have real grievances to fight, instead of focusing on made-up ones.

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.

No, that's your perception, please don't pass it off as a generality.

 

[username_3497665]

Sorry for the offtop (to get off with), but I must react

Some people forget that video games are made for interactive entertainment. This is not a place for sociological or political discussion. To OP: If you are gay, that's ok, but look for your rights somewhere else.
This thread is entirely off-topic and therefore it should be handled appropriately.

This is very inappropriate and hostile towards a person who's only expressing his concern. The fact that you feel uncomfortable with someone voicing an opinion you don't like isn't a reason for you to call for excluding them from a public place. So, to paraphrase you, if you don't like people 'looking for their rights' with relation to the game, go somewhere else.

. I'll add, if you are the average male, whether she's giving it to you because she wants to, or because she's rewarding you, or because a sparrow flew by the church's steeple on a Wednesday night in April when it rained at midnight on the 3rd quarter of the moon cycle, yoyu'd normally won't care about anything past the "she's giving it to you".

This is offtop as well on my part, but I can't refrain myself from pointing out I'd be seriously offended by those words if I were a man. Not being one, it just saddens me to see this line of thinking persists.
Btw. I'm not suggesting it's wrong for a player to choose to have sex with the elven girl (I did, even if it was out of curiosity mostly).

And somehow back on topic. I can't stress enough how the seriousness, range and depth of dealing with the real life issues and important social topics is TW2's best asset. It sure is entertainment (and brilliant at that), but the fact that it touches upon concerns we know from the very social reality, and the way it is handled with such complexity makes this game something more than mere entertainment. It is art - and as such is excellent food for thought and, for me at least, an intellectual and emotional experience that makes me try to examine myself and work out my beliefs and relationship with the world. That's what I love about the game.

Art is never independent from social conditions and pretty much anything that makes up what we call 'reality', even if it doesn't deal with particular problems directly. But that's an entirely different discussion I guess and it's down to some fundamentals, so we're not going to reach any agreement here. What I wanted to stress that in cases such as TW2 there's no point arguing 'but it's just a game, it's supposed to be just fun, it's a fantasy world etc.' when it clearly doesn't shy away from processing important social and moral issues (racism, the end justifying the means etc.) in made up settings.


And now regarding the whole idea of 'anyone can be offended by anything' - this is true to certain extent. The whole point of being sensitive and careful about certain topics is the scale and the balance of power in REAL world and real societies. So while there are people who might feel offended by things we cannot even imagine (the tentacle example is made up, right?), outside the game there is palpable discrimination, persectution and abuse that several minorities suffer from, which is deeply engrained in the culture and the way the society works. It is in the very nature of the system and little, seemingly unimportant things add up to supporting or undermining the system. (This isn't meant to sound 'revolutionary' or anything, I'm not using terms with meaning attributed by some particular philosphical/sociological/political schools, just intuitively trying to get accross why this can't be dismissed easily).
To put it bluntly, two actions that seem the same on an individual level have different reasons and consequences in the wider picture, because social context can often justify or minimalise acts of abuse on the 'weak' gropus.

So basically that's why we're making a big deal out of it and that's why I expect intelligent and respectful creators of excellent games to realise this, as I expect intelligent audience to realise no work of art resides in social vacuum.


And finally, so that I didn't look ungrateful or completely blind in public, I join those who hail KOP (but you already know that /> )

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

It's possible to imagine any scenario as "ambiguous" about anything, so it's really impossible to not offend someone.

I do not disagree.
Some offenses are not like others.

Moreover, something might seem as silly and unimportant to you, but it could matter the world to someone else, so it's unfair for us to decide what should and shouldn't policed in such a case- you're better off policing everything.

I am perfectly fine with saying that those who are offended by nudity are not on the same level as a persecuted oppressed minority fighting for its right to be treated as equals.

I think it's perfectly fair and to try to make it sound equal is ridiculous to me.

Those who are offended by nudity are warned of the presence of nudity and have only themselves to blame for buying the game.

EDIT: are people trying to make me blush?

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I do not disagree.
Some offenses are not like others.

I am perfectly fine with saying that those who are offended by nudity are not on the same level as a persecuted oppressed minority fighting for its right to be treated as equals.

I think it's perfectly fair and to try to make it sound equal is ridiculous to me.

Those who are offended by nudity are warned of the presence of nudity and have only themselves to blame for buying the game.

Well, that's how you feel, and that's fine, but that's not how someone else might feel, and their feelings matter as well- you're not any more important or valid than they are as a person.

In the case that there was explicit anti-gay agenda, I would be right with you, but in this case where there isn't, I just think it's absolutely unnecessary to make this an issue. This argument is basically designed on people's perceptions and assumptions of a scene, how is it rational to give it credence when there is nothing substantial to go on.

You can appeal to people's emotions by using words like "persecuted oppressed minority", but don't cloud the issue- what is being asked for here is a license to police art and thought crimes; how do you even do that, in a practical manner, without strict censorship? I mean, it really does seem true that progressives will make the best fascists of our century />

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Well, that's how you feel, and that's fine, but that's not someone else might feel, and their feelings matter as well- you're not any more important or valid than they are as a person.

No I am not. My arguments and position however are more legitimate and I do not have a problem saying it.

In the case that there was explicit anti-gay agenda, I would be right with you, but in this case where there isn't, I just think it's absolutely unnecessary to make this an issue.

It doesn't deserve an issue, it was made into it by people freaking out over "PC."

The solution is simple. If the ambiguity is unintended, the scene ought to have been structured or modified in such a way, without compromising the story, that would make it clear. It's really self-evident.

You can appeal to people's emotions by using words like "persecuted oppressed minority", but don't cloud the issue- what is being asked for here is a license to police art and thought crimes; how do you even do that, in a practical manner, without strict censorship? I mean, it really does seem true that progressives will make the best fascists of our century />/>/>/>

You can appeal to people's ignorance by using the words "fascist" and "thought crime" incorrectly, but that wouldn't stop me from supporting censorship when needed. If you think saying I support censorship fazes me, well I have never hidden that I am in support of it, whatever reductio ad-absurdum you want to throw out notwithstanding.

But this has never been about censorship so I am not clouding anything, I am not in a position to censor anything. Here, it is about criticism and requesting more consideration in the future. Which is not censorship.

 

[username_3497665]

You can appeal to people's emotions by using words like "persecuted oppressed minority", but don't cloud the issue- what is being asked for here is a license to police art and thought crimes; how do you even do that, in a practical manner, without strict censorship? I mean, it really does seem true that progressives will make the best fascists of our century />/>/>

It seems to me you're exaggerating and using the big words yourself. As far as I'm aware, nobody's stated that they're going to boycott the game or constantly demand including some particular elements in it to cater for individual sensitivites. Instead there are people who feel the execution of a certain point in the game was rather unfortunate, misleading and potentially hurtful. It's as simple as that.

And if you're asking what it should look like, I believe vivaxardas gave a valuable answer. (vivaxardas, I hope you don't mind me using this post as an argument?)

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?

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

No I am not. My arguments and position however are more legitimate and I do not have a problem saying it.

Well, you already stated that you're biased, so we can't expect your arguments and position to give credence to those by others.

It doesn't deserve an issue, it was made into it by people freaking out over "PC."

The solution is simple. If the ambiguity is unintended, the scene ought to have been structured or modified in such a way, without compromising the story, that would make it clear. It's really self-evident.

The past is past, there's no changing it. The issue now is about content in the next game, and we can't confidently say, that no matter what happens in it, some instance from it can't be misconstrued to be "ambiguous" or "problematic", that's the problem. Unless there are explicit instances of pandering and ego-stroking, a la Bioware games, then anything concerning this topic could be considered "ambiguous" and "problematic". For example, it's not enough for people that Phillipa is a great character, no she's obviously in the game to appeal to male sexuality />/>

In short, there's no pleasing someone who looks for trouble.

You can appeal to people's ignorance by using the words "fascist" and "thought crime" wrong, but that wouldn't stop me from supporting censorship when needed. If you think saying I support censorship phases me, well I have never hidden that I am in support of it, whatever reductio ad-absurdum you want to throw out notwithstanding.

But this has never been about censorship so I am not clouding anything, I am not in a position to censor anything. Here, it is about criticism and requesting more consideration in the future. Which is not censorship.

I'm sorry, but there's no right way to censor art, and the fact that you don't think the censorship of it doesn't amount to fascism or thought crime policing just means that we both differ on our understanding on the importance of it, which is fine.

But okay, you're not asking for censorship, but more consideration, which I think is appropriate. What I worry about though is the fact that anything can be misconstrued to be inconsiderate, just like this case has been, imo.

It seems to me you're exaggerating and using the big words yourself. As far as I'm aware, nobody's stated that they're going to boycott the game or constantly demand including some particular elements in it to cater for individual sensitivites. Instead there are people who feel the execution of a certain point in the game was rather unfortunate, misleading and potentially hurtful. It's as simple as that.

I don't understand what you're talking about, are you even responding to the right post? Where was there any mention of boycott? I understand the issue, I am just saying that there's no practical way to keep from offending people without censorship. It's as simple as that.

And if you're asking what it should look like, I believe vivaxardas gave a valuable answer. (vivaxardas, I hope you don't mind me using this post as an argument?)

It's impossible to predict how someone will perceive something, just like this case.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Well, you already stated that you're biased, so we can't expect your arguments and position to give credence to those by others.

Bias does not make a position any less valid, in a situation where everyone is biased.
Everyone being biased however does not make their positions equal.

The past is past, there's no changing it. The issue now is about content in the next game, and we can't confidently say, that no matter what happens in it, some instance from it can't be misconstrued to be "ambiguous" or "problematic", that's the problem.

They should do their best to minimize it, prioritizing issues that are sensitive in the real world, without compromising their vision. Goes back to basic intelligence that can differentiate the sensitive issues to the issues that people nit-pick over.

I trust writers who can write mature real-life themes, are qualified enough to know the difference.

I'm sorry, but there's no right way to censor art, and the fact that you don't think the censorship of it doesn't amount to fascism or thought crime policing just means that we both differ on our understanding on the importance of it, which is fine.

No, it means you do not understand what fascism really means. Supporting censorship does not make one a fascist. Fascism is an entire socio-political ideology and indeed a perception of human nature and history.

 

[Lurtz_Of_Orthanc]

Flet, that quote from Vivax is spot on. It's the staging that creates Unfortunate Implications - had we seen Dethmold with his 'friend' at the beginning of Chapter 3, instead of right before Roche busts in, there would have been less of a connection between his homosexuality and his execution - and it wouldn't have compromised the narrative.

As for KOP - keep fighting the good fight, dude. People calling KOP a fascist and throwing out terms like "thought police" need to stop reading 1984 into this. Censorship and sensitivity are two totally different things.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Bias does not make a position any less valid, in a situation where everyone is biased.
Everyone being biased however does not make their positions equal.

What you're not addressing is that your bias keeps you from thinking that someone else's perspective is equal to yours. If it's possible for you and others to make up something against which to be offended, then it's equally possible for someone else to do that too, and if we want a game which provides an "unoffensive" environment in some aspects, then it's unfair to neglect other perspectives which also take offense to something- they are also equally valid in asking for consideration.

They should do their best to minimize it, prioritizing issues that are sensitive in the real world, without compromising their vision. Goes back to basic intelligence that can differentiate the sensitive issues to the issues that people nit-pick over.

I trust writers who can write mature real-life themes, are qualified enough to know the difference.

No writer can write exactly the way one would want without explicit instructions, and in that case it's not that writer's work anymore.

The problem is exactly this- it's more likely for some people to nit-pick right now because they have social momentum, but it's also likely for anyone else to join in the nit-picking once they feel they have enough legitimacy.

I believe in fighting against moments of actual offense, not against those which we make up.

No, it means you do not understand what fascism really means. Supporting censorship does not make one a fascist. Fascism is an entire socio-political ideology and indeed a perception of human nature and history.

In what way did I indicate that I was referring to this concept in an academic sense? If you're not deliberately trying to be obtuse, then here, this is what I meant-

a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong dictatorial control

But even that in a loose sense /> Aren't smileys supposed to indicate a non-serious nature?

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

they are also equally valid in asking for consideration.

I did not claim they are not equal in asking for consideration. I am claiming that they are not equal in terms of real life sensitivity or social responsibility or decency.

I believe in fighting against moments of actual offense, not against those which we make up.

The ambiguity of a situation and it being possibly offensive is not made up. Clearly many have felt this way. People cannot be faulted for not knowing the intentions of the writers, when the situation is not clear.
Even I can't say with absolute certainty that CDPR didn't mean anything by it. All I can say is that I strongly believe they weren't.

So it's self-evident that they need to handle such scenes with more care in the future.

In what way did I indicate that I was referring to this concept in an academic sense? If you're not deliberately trying to be obtuse, then here, this is what I meant-

If you are going to accuse me of fascism then yes I expect you to know what it means (and you did not put any emoticons in that sentence). Otherwise, don't use the word.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I did not claim they are not equal in asking for consideration. I am claiming that they are not equal in terms of real life sensitivity or social responsibility or decency.

That's where someone would say that you're wrong- people have all sorts of legitimate reasons for feeling how they feel about something, and they would find it unfair that a game aiming to be unoffensive should only do it in some respects.

It doesn't matter what you think about their positions, or the legitimacy of such positions relative to that of yours.

The ambiguity of a situation and it being possibly offensive is not made up. Clearly many have felt this way. People cannot be faulted for not knowing the intentions of the writers, when the situation is not clear.
Even I can't say with absolute certainty that CDPR didn't mean anything by it. All I can say is that I strongly believe they weren't.

So it's self-evident that they need to handle such scenes with more care in the future.

We can make any sorts of requests here, which is fine. What doesn't make sense, however, is making an issue off of a made-up scenario. I'm sorry, but some people would not even find that scene offensive to homosexuals if it wasn't spelled out why they should be offended.

In that way, we can make it possible for people to take offense to anything, since everything is dependent on our imagination, as long as we pick a sensitive, real-life issue.

So again, as much I wouldn't like any explicit or implicit anti-gay agenda in any game, it's impossible to determine what someone might misconstrue as offensive, and in that case, the only way you can ensure being unoffensive is censorship.

If you are going to accuse me of fascism then yes I expect you to know what it means (and you did not put any emoticons in that sentence). Otherwise, don't use the word.

Or maybe you need to get your head out of the books and realize how people use such words in a colloquial fashion; if you grew up thus far without knowing so, then I can't help you.

To make it short: it's not about predicting (you're making it sound as if it was some blind guessing), it's about learning from mistakes to make the work even better. It's challenging, but there's nothing wrong about it.

I am making it about blind guessing because I am not just including offenses against gay people, I am talking about being considerate of everyone's feelings because why shouldn't you be like that if your art is about being unoffensive. Or if you explicitly say you only care about so and so's feelings, then prepare for the inevitable storm of people who are aggrieved by this self-centered stance.

There is nothing "challenging" about this, it's quite simple to not offend someone- all you have to do is nothing.

 

[username_3497665]

I don't understand what you're talking about, are you even responding to the right post? Where was there any mention of boycott? I understand the issue, I am just saying that there's no practical way to keep from offending people without censorship. It's as simple as that.

With this I don't think I can make myself clearer, so I'll leave it at that. As for boycott, true, nobody said anything about it, I just used it as an example of an extreme reaction which, according to my impression, you might've been expecting from us. Maybe not very fortunate or thought-out of me, I admit that, so let's leave that point out. It's just that heavy rhetorics that's made me think of extreme policies towards the game, that's all.

It's impossible to predict how someone will perceive something, just like this case.

Nobody's expecting the creators to predict everything! What we want from them is to receive feedback, listen to people's opinions and impressions, use their common sense to evaluate legitimate concerns and consider them in the future while making the game to avoid unintentional offense. I believe that artists who are open to suggestions and willing to learn will be sensitive and look critically at the new work. They don't have to know possible offences beforehand, they don't have to think about them all the time, but if they hear about concerns that might not have occurred to them earlier (due to different experiences, different perspective, and mostly - different focus) I expect them to give them some thought during the reevaluation process, read-through or whatever it is you do to check your work is satisfactory.
To make it short: it's not about predicting (you're making it sound as if it was some blind guessing), it's about learning from mistakes to make the work even better. It's challenging, but there's nothing wrong about it.

Right, I'm off now, good night/have a good day everybody!

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

That's where someone would say that you're wrong

And they would be wrong.

What doesn't make sense, however, is making an issue off of a made-up scenario.

If you don't want to make an issue out of it, why are you still here contributing to it being an issue?

The grievance and the solution was made clear. Only those who freak out over PC made a fuss about it.

So again, as much I wouldn't like any explicit or implicit anti-gay agenda in any game, it's impossible to determine what someone might misconstrue as offensive, and in that case, the only way you can ensure being unoffensive is censorship.

Again, not all offenses are equal and they are not obligated to worry about every single possible offense. They use their basic intelligence to minimize the offense they can cause when depicting sensitive real life issues.

You keep rehashing the same thing, so I am going to keep telling you the same thing.

Or maybe you need to get your head out of the books and realize how people use such words in a colloquial fashion; if you grew up thus far without knowing so, then I can't help you.

I am not obligated to cater to people's ignorance or simplicity, esp when they are accusing me using these words sorry. If they use words incorrectly, I will point it out.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

And they would be wrong.

Just like they would say about you, so really that takes us no where.

If you don't want to make an issue out of it, why are you still here contributing to it being an issue?

The grievance and the solution was made clear. Only those who freak out over PC made a fuss about it.

I don't think we should allow political arm-twisting to censor our art.

Again, not all offenses are equal and they are not obligated to worry about every single possible offense. They use their basic intelligence to minimize the offense they can cause when depicting sensitive real life issues.

You keep rehashing the same thing, so I am going to keep telling you the same thing.

I'm going to tell you the same thing again- it doesn't matter what you think about such and such not being equal, what matters is the sense of legitimacy with which such problems are brought to the table, just as in this case.

I am not obligated to cater to people's ignorance or simplicity, esp when they are accusing me using these words sorry. If they use words incorrectly, I will point it out.

I used that word exactly how I wanted to use it, and it's not my fault if people can't determine the context of words.

I am just going to stop now because I don't think this is going anywhere.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Just like they would say about you, so really that takes us no where.

I am sure they will. And I can refute their arguments.

I'm going to tell you the same thing again- it doesn't matter what you think about such and such not being equal, what matters is the sense of legitimacy with which such problems are brought to the table, just as in this case.

Not all complains have the same sense of legitimacy and common sense allows one to know the difference.

I used that word exactly how I wanted to use it, and it's not my fault if people can't determine the context of words.

You used it wrong and I corrected you.

 

[MarcAuron]

No, it's not. At all.

How could a game with such heavy and sensitive themes that we go through on a daily basis help you forget about the real world?

You are telling m that when you saw things happening in TW2, you didn't draw parallels with real life and history? I find that hard to believe, and even if you did manage it, no one is obligated to play that way at all. I couldn't care less how you played the game, I know how I played it and it's by drawing heavy parallels with real life. So your entire point is moot.

This is exactly what I claimed. If I'm going to draw a real world parallel the parallel will end in Medieval times, and only there.
There isn't even the slimmest chance that I'm going to project the year 2013 on the books or the games.

My entire point is not more moot then yours, simply because you assumed that Geralt hasn't seen a lot of killed, raped and castrated people on his travels in the books for example, so you are actually expecting that everyone plays their game by projecting 2013 on it.

Who said anyone wanted it any other way?
This clearly shows that you still do not know what we are arguing. No one is arguing against the presence of homophobia in the game's characters. We are arguing against an ambiguity that makes *the game* look like it's promoting or indulging itself in homophobia.

I am arguing against the forced exclusion of ambiguity, because some assume that things that are ambiguous to them, are ambiguous to everyone else.
The presence of homophobia would be ambiguous in it self, compared to say other mainstream titles.
I haven't seen it there, and the idea that a misconstruction of a act of violence leads to the perception that the games may be perceived by as "homophobic," doesn't bother me one bit.
Simply because it's a misconstruction and ambiguity. It's not a statement of the game.

The OP and no one claimed the game did everything wrong. That doesn't mean it didn't commit a mistake that would make people uncomfortable. Uncomfortable does not mean they hate the game or are unable to finish it.

As for the rest, we clearly reached an impasse. Your view on art is something I find completely undesirable and even absurd. But arguing over it will become a black hole tangent.

The amount of people that where maybe made uncomfortable by various other things is mind blowing. It only made a mistake for one side of these conversations, it made zero mistakes for the other. Ambiguity remember.
The absurdity of the views I have on art, is not less valid than the clear superiority that is your view on art.
It is very desirable in art, and very undesirable as a media/social expression.

Reflecting on times when art, was the only or almost only way of expressing propagandist views, and was the beginning of media.
These days there is no need for such things in art because there are other ways of expression.

 

[Helghan]

I must say after 25 Pages I still dont see any legitimate reason to get offended by the scene and start calling it and Roche homophobic.

There isnt a single thing in the scene which could be rationally considered homophobic. Roche goes straight for Dethmold, he doesnt even look around, not a single soul gives a shit about Dethmold's boytoy being in the room or what they've been doing beforehand. Half the Nilfgaardian army could have played orchestra while having sex in the background and Roche would have done the same thing.

The castration itself does not in any way suggests that its done because unlce Dethmold is gay/bisexual. Its not an additional punishment for his sexuality, its just simply the fastest and cruelest way to cause pain in addition for the broken arm before he dies. People were relatively frequently castrated in the Middle Ages and not because of their sexuality, usually because they were rapists or because it was used as part of torture and execution.

This is one of those situations where people look for something to get offended and because of their own bias, insist there is absolutely no way they are wrong.