Then I'll wait for a few more weeks.By the way, do you agree with what I've said, below what was written for you in my previous post?SimonBrooke said:
Absolutely, Kharax! I didn't think I needed to comment.kharax said:
I agree with Simon, though I think the term 'morally' is wrong.. it's way less traumatic to kill the entire village, rather than just half, but after killing half the village morals don't really apply anymore...It's kind of like people being shocked at me for not caring one iota when there's news of an earthquake or tsunami killing thousands on the news... "I don't know them, why should I care?!" (heck, 911 left me cold.. sue me) That doesn't mean I have no morals... Morals are a scale of grey and therefore mostly useless..If 40 villagers (you don't know) were about to burn your child alive at the stake for some superstition, would you just watch by, or given no alternative kill them all to rescue that child?!Sly..
Have to disagree in that regard of EARNING a living. For a Witcher killing is part of parcel to their existence. The FUNCTION of a Witcher is to KILL monsters, and it often ends up that those of the human variety have to be dealt with as well. Sex in the Witcher's world is as sex in the real world, you'll find an opinion different in every person. As to the depiction, yes it's tame. The simple fact is that this is a commercial product, and it's patently obvious that The Witcher game will not be the one that bridges the gap between "adult" entertainment and a realistic depiction of sex. It's a step. And you won't be seeing the kind of game your thinking of for a LONG time. The sex in shows like "Diary of a Call Girl" and "The Tudors" is rather tame, compared to x-rated material, and that's about as far as you get in "critical/mature" erotica.Games are about the same level as films were in the 1920s which is to say you're going to see rather little mixing between sex games and something that reaches the critical praise of Mass Effect/Witcher, two games which features sex being depicted.Would I rather see mature and considered approaches to the subject? Yes.Is it going to happen in The Witcher?nope.Sex is how we survive as a race, therefore it's always going to be considered "magical" by some, and something that powerful is ALWAYS going to bring controversy and therefore speakers for every available tact and thought (In addition to nutjobs who simply get off on bucking the system), but in this little corner of the universe I sincerely doubt you're going to see the level of sex depicted in the books actually depicted in the game, because whether right or wrong, whether truthful depiction or blatant pandering to a certain demographic, in the current zeitgeist and market it's commercial suicide and posts on a website will in no way change ANY of that.People like their sex in private.
I find it interesting that you chose to write this statement in bold -- this must seem very important to you, but I'm not sure I understand why. It almost seems as if it makes you angry that people would discuss these issues, given that the discussion is only "posts on a website" that "will in no way change ANY of that." *shrug* Maybe it won't change what actually appears in the game -- CDPR does have to consider the commercial implications of whatever they actually do -- but one of the ways in which the zeitgeist changes is through discussions about the issues, and that's what we're doing here. If you think the discussion is futile, that's your privilege; if you think this discussion is pointless, well, no one is making you participate -- you can leave us to our futility with no harm to yourself.Xhan said:
Many people do, yes -- it's the norm in modern Western societies, though not universal even there*. On the other hand, there are societies in which privacy is not considered necessary for sex, and throughout most of human history, when several generations lived in a single room, privacy was simply not obtainable.*One of my dearest friends, J, and his girlfriend, M, are both exhibitionists. They go to sex parties where they have sex while their friends are on the next mattress over, also having sex. J and M are middle-class, well-educated, tax-paying citizens, and if you saw them on the street, you wouldn't look at them twice -- they aren't unusual in any way, except for liking their sex not in private. You never know what your neighbor is doing. Or whom.Xhan said:
I'd say that fact you used letters instead of full names pretty much covers it.it's not important to me inasmuch as it's important to Red, they are in the business of making profits by releasing games. They've already gained controversy and both the positives and negatives that go with it.They've read the source material, same as everyone else. They chose to accede to Atari's US policies, and in the unedited versions, they chose a specific level of clarity on the subject in question.Those choices weren't accidental.
Let's agree that all you say here is true. We didn't, however, achieve an open society with civic freedoms and personal liberty by 'acceding to... policies'. Pushing boundaries isn't necessarily a sensible thing for a commercial organisation to do, and I'm not criticising CDPR for not pushing boundaries further. But if creators of cultural artefacts (and The Witcher is most assuredly a cultural artefact) 'accede to the policies' of timid publishers and demagogic politicians, then we'll eventually get to the situation where women going out in the street without burkas on will be stoned, and where the morality police stop you in the street to look down your trousers to check whether you've shaved your pubic hair[1].When Penguin Books published Lady Chatterly's Lover, the directors of the company knew they could go to jail. They still had the courage to publish. It's because they - and Grove Press in the US - had the courage to publish, that we now live in a society in which it is even possible to discuss sexuality in a work of fiction. Atari don't have the same courage - they don't have the same moral fibre. If everyone was brave, courage wouldn't be something we look up to.There is a permanent tension in human society between freedom and conservatism. Cultural production is the battleground on which that tension is fought out. Every time we turn aside from the fight we cede a little ground to the other side. It isn't CDPR's job to stand on the side of increasing freedom - they can, or not, as they choose. And you yourself may be a social conservative and believe that there is too much liberality in society - I don't know. But personally I want to see more freedom, so I'm on the side of people who push the boundaries in that direction.[1] Yes, this really happened in Afghanistan under the Taleban.Xhan said:
I'd say that since you don't read minds, you can't know why I used initials unless you ask me. The reason is that I don't feel as if I have the right to make choices for my friends about what details of their lives they wish to share. If my friends were on this forum, I think the chances are roughly 80% that they would choose to share, but that right belongs to them and not to me.Being in favor of greater sexual freedom is not the same as having no morals, you see.Xhan said:
Yes, it is a business, and I want CDPR to be successful -- wildly successful, if possible. Simon mentioned the publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover as an example of institutional courage, and he's right about that, of course, but I also wonder what the sales figures for the book were. It wouldn't surprise me if hordes of people felt that they had to read a book that was the subject of such controversy and decide for themselves if it had redeeming literary merit.In 1939, Gone With the Wind was released in the US, and its famous line "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" was the first use of a swear word in the movies after the censoring Production Code went into effect. This was highly controversial at the time, and it paved the way for the fuller use of language that we see in films today. Of course the movie sank without a trace and no one went to see it, right? Right?Xhan said:
It's not clear to me that inciting controversy is necessarily a bad business move, though, as Simon says, it takes gobs of courage.Description of the world http://www.thewitcher.com/community/en/game/description.htmlPortraits the world of the game, the serious problems, mentions the friction and injustice between the races and other problems that frightens everyone: monsters… and vague individual hint that – if you dare – it's payment involved – earning for a living. Sure, everyone (irrespective of race and gender) needs recreation like drinking, playing dice and sex but it's not mentioned there. Why? Maybe it's a minor part in the description of the witcherworld?features of the game http://www.thewitcher.com/community/en/game/features.htmlHighlights certain things of the gameplay, which are the real time combat – the pyhsical capabilities of the Witcher. We know that Geralt has a very active sexual life but this capability is not mentioned there? Why? Even his chance to become a poker legend isn't mentioned. Why? Maybe it's not important?character developement – finishes with the conclusion it's up to the player to decide whether Geralt becomes an unchallenged swordsman, an arcane battle mage, a potent alchemist in skirmishes, or any combination of the three... And how about a gifted lover? A sturdy drinker? (he manges to benefit from being drunk) And once again no dice (he beats the king of Temeria!). What's the reason of this negligence? Maybe it's minor part of the game?Non-linear Decisions and Consequences – indeed a highlight of the game. Hence it got an extra chapter of the features. We are told about the great variety of decisions we have to make regarding the plot of the story and side actions. Which are (among others) Geralt's decision between Shani and Triss (and some minor decisions whether beds this or that women or none of them). It's not mentioned, it just says: a vast set of choices, each with it own, unique impact on the entire fate of the fantasy world hmmm....Valiance and Character – describes more details of the characater and his personal life. And indeed here we find .... as well as that innate ability to spark desire in women... finally we have sex! But it says spark not burst which probably provides us with strong sex in a pornographic way [O-ton].Well this negligence of more detailed sex in the game could be a stain. But we will have the Enhanced Edition next month. The devs promised to expunge all glitches and they improve those things that received heavy complaints from the community. But I don't see any improvement of sexual content http://www.thewitcher.com/community/en/www/ee_description.html Why? Because there are more serious issues which need to be revamped?Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not against nudity and sex at all. I don't mind if poeple have sex in the public or talk about it without restriction. I don't mind if Britney Spears wears no slip. I don't mind seeing a naked butt in countless music videos etc. And I agree with all those who complain about the censored version of The Witcher of the Americans. The odds are that the EE will be censored as well, which is ridiculous because there is not much sex in the game, just a couple of times nipples on the erotic cards. But this game isn't supposed to expose more sex according to the above mentioned descriptions why insist on it? Okay, I admit there are a few implausible scenes in this regard, especially when they depart after sex. And moreover as a desired lover it's a bit poor that sex with Geralt is already over within 30 minutes... sometimes less. Women on some cards look quite exhausted but Geralt's endurance level is always up to max when they depart... after less then half an hour of having sex.