Do you think The Witcher series is "mature?"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Moonlight Butterfly:

As for the 'Geralt is oppressed' theme I never got that when I played the witcher. I got more of an impression that he was a Gary Stu. An overpowered male fantasy figure who could get all the ladies. Maybe I missed the point...

The gameplay would be a lot more tedious if Geralt collapsed from potion use as he does in the books. Being a witcher he is faster and stronger than normal, he can see in the dark, ... so we could say he is overpowered in game, because there are no downsides.

People tolerate witchers only when they need their services. People in cities say things like : 'Look out, a witcher is in town. Hide your kids.' The game portrayal is a bit more standard RPG, but you can see it everywhere.

I should hope I am not the first to point out the hypocrisy of those supporting the dragon age series calling anyone immature. Honestly while it might be rated M and all.... Outside of the sex, Dragon age is about as mature as most narrative fiction developed for teens and tweens. Its about as complex as most anime. Remove all the sex from Dragon age and you have something that could likely pass for Teen rated game. Swears and "sex" do not a mature game make. Dealing with more adult issues and concepts does, which is what the Witcher does, In spades compared to Dragon Age.

Edit: Dont get me wrong, I loved the original DA, and honestly tolerated DA2 for its story and will play 3 without hesitation, but come on, its really not all that complex on the maturity scale and such an accusation is the pot calling the kettle black.

When it comes to the friendships, themes and politics? Yes

When it comes to romance?

NO!

The Witcher series seems just a bit to happy to shove tits in my face at times...aren't we supposed to be loyal to Triss? I mean, I get that the rules of hoity toity weren't quite the same but still, you can bone half the god damn female cast through the game.

BrotherRool:

freaper:

I always imagined that the reason you get the shitty jokes and remarks is because the people uttering them are backward, racist peasants. So, good character design?

If so it's a fail in voice acting, because it doesn't sound like they're joking.

In fact they're probably not joking, since they're actually racist and sexist.

The-Traveling-Bard:

BrotherRool:
There is no sensible world where people (a woman at that) would talk so casually about an abusive relationship.

Besides during medieval times man would beat their wives,

It was worse than just a casual acceptance of domestic violence, as well as beating his wife a man could appeal to what passed as the authorities and have his wife classed as a scold. She would then have a metal mask with a built in gag strapped onto her head and dragged through the streets to be mocked and have things thrown at her.

Even back talking by sticking up for herself was enough to warrant treatment like that. The casual description of domestic violence in the Witcher doesn't even have a patch on real Medieval life.

The idea The Witcher is mature is so laughable I don't know where to begin.

The characters are all shallow stock archetypes so anything they do falls flat and empty, while trying to maintain an embarrassing veneer of grandeur.

Swearing and tits, a deep and mature experience, they do not make.

Those are a 10 yr old's impression of maturity, a mindset people who made and play this game should've grown out of a long time ago.

Moonlight Butterfly:

Like I said before if I was saying gamers were sexist I'd be including myself in that since I've been gaming for over 25 years.

Not "gamers." Male gamers specifically get very defensive when it's implied that a game they like is "sexist." If you're male, under 30 and grew up in the first world, you were probably raised to think that all prejudice is unjustifiable, men and women are equal, and that "sexist" is an awful thing to be. So when someone else says they think a game is sexist, regardless of whether they're right or not, male fans of the game get defensive, because they've been conditioned to think of sexism as abhorrent.

I was putting that forward as an alternative explanation for why people react so defensively when you ask stuff like "Why does the Witcher's medieval fantasy setting have to include institutionalised discrimination against women?" Because your chosen explanation was "Because they enjoy seeing women oppressed," and I thought that was perhaps...not totally accurate.

I'm kind of puzzled as to why you 'enjoy' seeing women oppressed though, yes.

I'm really confused now because I don't remember saying that. Or anyone saying that, for that matter.

If you mean "enjoy" in a cathartic sense - the same way I might enjoy watching Schindler's List even though it's literally about genocide - then you shouldn't be puzzled. That's how virtually all tragedy and most drama works.

As for the 'Geralt is oppressed' theme I never got that when I played the witcher. I got more of an impression that he was a Gary Stu. An overpowered male fantasy figure who could get all the ladies. Maybe I missed the point...

Geralt is discriminated against in-universe. The fact that he's an ideal power fantasy for a contemporary, real-life male is distinct from the fact that in the context of the story, he's considered an abhorrent mutant and has to live on the fringes of society.

It's like how the X-Men are a useful metaphor for - depending on the writer - victims of racial or homophobic discrimination, despite the fact that the attributes they're discriminated against for having are literally superpowers. Poor Wolverine, with his invulnerable adamantium claws and ability to regenerate any injury - such a pariah!

The idea is that the in-universe discrimination against the character serves as a metaphor for real-world discrimination, and whether or not the character's attributes are desirable in the real world isn't relevant. The fact that Geralt is every nerd's wet dream actually highlights the point - racism is stupid, and has stupid motivations. It's so stupid that people will discriminate against a superhero who wanders around the world killing deadly monsters for low pay because he has corpse-pale skin and creepy eyes.

Saviordd1:
The Witcher series seems just a bit to happy to shove tits in my face at times...aren't we supposed to be loyal to Triss? I mean, I get that the rules of hoity toity weren't quite the same but still, you can bone half the god damn female cast through the game.

Technically, Geralt has been cheating on his one-true-love Yennefer with Triss for the past two games. I don't think he can cheat on Triss if he's already cheating on Yennefer with Triss. That's like...double adultery.

Say what you want about Geralt - he is not a faithful boyfriend. That's something I'm interesting in seeing in the third game, actually, is Yennefer's reaction to his philandering when they are eventually reunited.

neur0mans3r:
People tolerate witchers only when they need their services. People in cities say things like : 'Look out, a witcher is in town. Hide your kids.' The game portrayal is a bit more standard RPG, but you can see it everywhere.

This is actually something really interesting about the game - a lot of the ambient dialogue is people gossiping about you behind your back. Stuff like telling their children to go inside when you walk past, asking "what do witchers really eat?", "Is that a witcher? I thought they had horns!" and stuff like that. It's a really good oppression simulator. That's to say that it creates an atmosphere where you get the feeling that nobody in the town likes you, and that you stand out like a sore thumb.

It would be like if you were playing Mass Effect, and instead of everyone going "There's Shepard, off to save the universe!" they go "goddamn humans...neighbourhood's gone to shit since they got on the Council." Or if they whispered "dyke" behind Femshep's back as she was walking around the Presidium with Liara.

Dark wolverine:
The idea The Witcher is mature is so laughable I don't know where to begin.

The characters are all shallow stock archetypes so anything they do falls flat and empty, while trying to maintain an embarrassing veneer of grandeur.

Swearing and tits, a deep and mature experience, they do not make.

Those are a 10 yr old's impression of maturity, a mindset people who made and play this game should've grown out of a long time ago.

Right. Please explain how Geralt, Triss and Dandelion are shallow stock archetypes and I'll take you seriously. Or maybe Iorveth, Roche and Ves? It shouldn't be a problem for you since all the characters are shallow stock archetypes right?

Also, nobody has claimed that the swearing and tits are what makes The Witcher mature. What people have been saying makes The Witcher mature is the plot that focuses on politics, terrorism, racism, and one mans struggle to survive in a world that treats him as an outcast because he is different.

Moonlight Butterfly:
And I'm pretty sure people agree with me about the card business.

I think The Witcher is an excellent if flawed game and I often find myself defending it.

But I won't defend the cards exactly because of this kind of thing. If Moonlight feels marginalised because of her gender in relation to gameplay content, then I think it's safe to assume that she may not be the only one uncomfortable with the current state of affairs. And it's a shame because The Witcher is otherwise such an interesting and creative game, with a complex grasp of morality and discussion thereof. The sex cards might seem like a "little thing", but even I remember thinking about how absolutely male The Witcher was. For what it's worth, though, I played The Witcher 2 first and didn't get the same impression.

We all have our hang ups and I think the gender discrimination one is one of the more legitimate out there. But here's my (comparatively minor) example: I'm not a medieval person, but I am a medieval swordsman, if you get my meaning. I don't do reenactments -- I study the martial arts of medieval Europe as part of an ongoing reconstruction effort so we can understand how fighting was actually done back then. In most RPGs, if I want to play a warrior character, then the only way to be mechanically efficient is to be an unskilled lughead with only basic access to the gameplay mechanics of the game. That's not how medieval close combat was at all, and it's really grating to see such a lack of understanding and grasp of the factors that go into swordsmanship across this industry. Video games would be the perfect outlet for implementing the more cerebral aspects of skilled swordsmanship, too.

Of course, that example isn't on the level of things like gender, race and sexuality discrimination, but it helps me understand where others are coming from when they bring things up. Because in all these cases, even my own minor example, they're based on assumptions and presumptions without taking into account a wider array of perspectives and information. And so often, games are dragged down because of it rather than opening up to broader concepts -- be those concepts social, mechanical, narrative or what-have-you.

My opinion with the witcher was only formed from the first game. In that game I found it quite mysogonistic that treated women as just sex objects within the first couple of hours. If it got better after that then it was to late for me to care and that same experience has caused me to pass on witcher 2 and probably witcher 3 and beyond too.

So that experience would make me call witcher mature in its content with sex, blood, and I assume gore present in the game. However I think its immature with how it handles sex

Windcaler:
My opinion with the witcher was only formed from the first game. In that game I found it quite mysogonistic that treated women as just sex objects within the first couple of hours. If it got better after that then it was to late for me to care and that same experience has caused me to pass on witcher 2 and probably witcher 3 and beyond too.

So that experience would make me call witcher mature in its content with sex, blood, and I assume gore present in the game. However I think its immature with how it handles sex

You should probably read the rest of the thread.

Well the Witcher games are somewhat immature due to Geralt just so happening to run into comely women that want to bone him. I mean he is a pale weird looking guy but somehow he runs into all these lusty girls. On topic, the books themselves are rather intelligent and mature. The games however are just as intelligent and only slightly less mature due to the sex being at least double that of the books.

TL:DR The games are slightly less mature but still fairly mature and thoughtful all things considered.

bastardofmelbourne:

JoesshittyOs:
I recently bought the Witcher 2, and I have to say... I wouldn't call it a mature game.

I kinda set it down because it really wasn't holding my attention and was terribly written. Whoever wrote some of the dialogue options I feel really has never actually had a conversation with a woman before. It was a tad bit misogynistic.

Bwuh?

I think I summarised my response adequately and now I'm just trying to avoid a low content warning, but seriously - I'm interested in hearing what specifically put you off. The Witcher games are a bit sex-obsessed, but I'd never go so far as to call it misogynistic.

I put the game down pretty quick so I didn't get much farther than the beginning, and I really can't recall the exact lines of it. But I just remember that nearly every time you talked to Triss in the first non-hostile town, there was some rather off putting dialogue exchanges between the two of them. I've been trying to find it on YouTube, but can't find the scenes in question.

Just along the lines of "no, you stay back. Let the strong man handle it", and she retorts with something along the lines of "might as well". If I can find it I'll link it.

Saviordd1:
aren't we supposed to be loyal to Triss?

No.

bastardofmelbourne:

Saviordd1:
The Witcher series seems just a bit to happy to shove tits in my face at times...aren't we supposed to be loyal to Triss? I mean, I get that the rules of hoity toity weren't quite the same but still, you can bone half the god damn female cast through the game.

Technically, Geralt has been cheating on his one-true-love Yennefer with Triss for the past two games. I don't think he can cheat on Triss if he's already cheating on Yennefer with Triss. That's like...double adultery.

Say what you want about Geralt - he is not a faithful boyfriend. That's something I'm interesting in seeing in the third game, actually, is Yennefer's reaction to his philandering when they are eventually reunited.

neur0mans3r:
People tolerate witchers only when they need their services. People in cities say things like : 'Look out, a witcher is in town. Hide your kids.' The game portrayal is a bit more standard RPG, but you can see it everywhere.

This is actually something really interesting about the game - a lot of the ambient dialogue is people gossiping about you behind your back. Stuff like telling their children to go inside when you walk past, asking "what do witchers really eat?", "Is that a witcher? I thought they had horns!" and stuff like that. It's a really good oppression simulator. That's to say that it creates an atmosphere where you get the feeling that nobody in the town likes you, and that you stand out like a sore thumb.

It would be like if you were playing Mass Effect, and instead of everyone going "There's Shepard, off to save the universe!" they go "goddamn humans...neighbourhood's gone to shit since they got on the Council." Or if they whispered "dyke" behind Femshep's back as she was walking around the Presidium with Liara.

Geralt and triss's relationship as well as yennefer and geralt are both best described as complicated. Geralt cares for triss and loves her but hes not in love with her. she knows this and so they are actually just "lovers" even though triss would have it different. Its two friends making the best of what they have. in this sense the witcher is way more mature and complex than the I love/dont love her that you get in bioware games.

Yennefer for geralt is the poisonous love. He loves her deeply and vice versa but they are bad for each other. So they go back and forth in a vicious cycle that neither can seem to figure out.

so geralt isnt actually cheating per se. also amnesia.

alexwbyrd:
Well the Witcher games are somewhat immature due to Geralt just so happening to run into comely women that want to bone him. I mean he is a pale weird looking guy but somehow he runs into all these lusty girls. On topic, the books themselves are rather intelligent and mature. The games however are just as intelligent and only slightly less mature due to the sex being at least double that of the books.

TL:DR The games are slightly less mature but still fairly mature and thoughtful all things considered.

The women who find geralt attractive relate to him. They are in one way or another estranged from society as he and thus find a common bond. For triss its the being treated as a freak. Sorceresses are treated with mistrust and disdain by society JUST LIKE GERALT. There was one lady whos a member of roches sword swinging special forces. its only here that shes recognized for her skill. everywhere else shes just a woman not fit for mans work. In the game you theres a tourney in which you both fight. if you win shes happy that you didnt take it easy on her for being a woman and so decides to sleep with you. this is sex on the basis of mutual respect between equals and due to them both experienceing prejudice they too share a bond and thus choose to sleep together.

I believe her words were that she has desires like every woman too. Actually it reminds me of some of the women ive been with.

Trollhoffer:

Moonlight Butterfly:
And I'm pretty sure people agree with me about the card business.

I think The Witcher is an excellent if flawed game and I often find myself defending it.

But I won't defend the cards exactly because of this kind of thing. If Moonlight feels marginalised because of her gender in relation to gameplay content, then I think it's safe to assume that she may not be the only one uncomfortable with the current state of affairs. And it's a shame because The Witcher is otherwise such an interesting and creative game, with a complex grasp of morality and discussion thereof. The sex cards might seem like a "little thing", but even I remember thinking about how absolutely male The Witcher was. For what it's worth, though, I played The Witcher 2 first and didn't get the same impression.

We all have our hang ups and I think the gender discrimination one is one of the more legitimate out there. But here's my (comparatively minor) example: I'm not a medieval person, but I am a medieval swordsman, if you get my meaning. I don't do reenactments -- I study the martial arts of medieval Europe as part of an ongoing reconstruction effort so we can understand how fighting was actually done back then. In most RPGs, if I want to play a warrior character, then the only way to be mechanically efficient is to be an unskilled lughead with only basic access to the gameplay mechanics of the game. That's not how medieval close combat was at all, and it's really grating to see such a lack of understanding and grasp of the factors that go into swordsmanship across this industry. Video games would be the perfect outlet for implementing the more cerebral aspects of skilled swordsmanship, too.

Of course, that example isn't on the level of things like gender, race and sexuality discrimination, but it helps me understand where others are coming from when they bring things up. Because in all these cases, even my own minor example, they're based on assumptions and presumptions without taking into account a wider array of perspectives and information. And so often, games are dragged down because of it rather than opening up to broader concepts -- be those concepts social, mechanical, narrative or what-have-you.

Its important to consider the culture that cd project comes from. There not as prudish over there so women wouldnt bat an eye at such as thing where as here we think that such a thing says something about what the developer thinks on women. We mistake prudishness for respect. if you asked a woman over there what she thought of the sex cards shed prolly shrug. its just not a thing there. Its also important to consider that feminism in america didnt have issue with alot of the sexual mores of society so empowerment was viewed through this prudish context. In some nations for example its considered liberating to be free about sexuality, here its considered exploitation. We also have an exploitative society in general.

To simply say that more clothes equals respect for men and women is to be intellectually dishonest. Id vote that more male protagonists should have less clothes in our more fantastical games before id have all our womens covered up under false pretense.

First, let me be clear and say I'm not exactly sure what people mean when they say something or other is "Mature". If by "Mature" you mean realistic, then I don't see the big deal. If we're using "Mature" as short hand for complex, that makes more sense, but why not just say "Complex"?

I've heard some people say that a "Mature" game was one that didn't hold your hand, but that doesn't make sense. Every game (Most every well designed game at least) holds your hand to some degree, better games just know how to do it in an unintrusive way.

A game that doesn't treat like an idiot and takes itself mildly seriously isn't a mark of greatness, it's just competence.

So I'm gonna go with complexity, because that's at least positive. (Spoilers may follow, and this won't make any sense unless you've played the games anyway)

The Witcher games have been a series I liked but never quite loved. It's true they're highly above average, but they've always skirted the edge of greatness for me.

The stories are well written but I've never found them particularly profound or evocative, all I can say is that they're good, but I've never made any kind of personal connection to the characters or themes (And I'll get to those later)

The use of choice is inspiring, especially in the second game, I'd really like to see more games make use of these techniques. But like I said, the story itself never really got to me.

For example; in Mass Effect, my choices have less impact on the story, but a more meaningful impact on me personally, this is because when Mass Effect gives you a choice it's not about what makes sense, it's asking you an emotional or philosophical question.

In The Witcher, your choices affect the plot more, but never caused me to question what my goal was, I always knew what I wanted, the question was just how to get it, which only proved difficult once or twice. The Witcher has a lot of characters and situations that are morally grey, but not always to a positive effect; most of the time I found myself not struggling between which choice was less despicable, and instead just not giving a fuck either way because there was no real preference to be had; each of the conflicting organizations were equally reprehensible, neither choice would lead to anything resembling a desirable outcome, so I just don't give a fuck, I hope they kill each other and rot in hell.

This problem might have been mitigated if I connected the characters personally, but I never did, to this day I couldn't tell you anything personal about Garelts friends beyond where they stand in the conflict of interests; either they aren't complex enough to get invested in or they never share their motivations with Garelt. The closest I ever got was Iorveth, who I found walked an interesting balance between being despicable and sympathetic; it's clear he's an extremist, but I understand why, and he thus helps to understand why people take up extreme stances. But I still never really got to know him personally, and most of the plot doesn't have much to do with him.

I also found Letho interesting, and as it turns out he's the character I most identified with, because, like me, he was just concerned with survival. The way he talks about his actions makes him sound totally blameless and I love that, because it illustrates how dysfunctional Tameria is, and it was hard to blame him for just moving things along in the direction they were going anyway to ensure his well being. Unfortunately you don't really get to know him until the last 5 minutes of the game. (Here's hoping we see Letho and Iorveth in Wild Hunt)

The gameplay in The Witcher 1 was between boring and decent; The combat was rather clumsy, but visually pleasing, but the whole hunting thing was needlessly tedious. You're telling me I have to find a book so that Garelt can cut out a fucking tongue?

The Witcher 2 was better; the combat was pretty good at higher levels, if a bit too easy, (Sometimes) but at the beginning of the game you basically had to play hit and run with everything on the face of the earth, even while everybody keeps telling you what an all powerful and mighty slayer of men you are; despite all this you can barely fucking block and you spend your fights circling your enemies Painkiller style.

The monster hunting was better in that you could research your prey by, you know, killing it, but there were still those fucking quests that expected you to know a specific recipe for a bomb (That they don't tell you you need) before you could just blow something up. It's not like you have control over the primal forces of the universe that you use to break down brick walls or anything.

In terms of complexity, I would hold that games like Dragon Age and Red Dead: Redemption are more thought provoking than The Witcher, because while The Witcher games are darker, what is the purpose of them being dark?

What is The Witcher fundamentally about? What sort of questions is it asking? What point is it trying to make? What The Witcher is lacking, I think, is depth.

A lot of people compare The Witcher to A Song of Ice and Fire, but the defining factor of ASoIaF is that it get's you invested in it's characters despite them being, at best, mildly admirable, and it does this by making the central characters directly involved with the conflict. In The Witcher, Garelt is an outsider, he has no reason to be invested in politics or war or social well being, because the game purposely set's him apart from all of it's conflicts. Not only does he have amnesia, but nobody seems to trust or respect Witchers, so nobody commands respect or investment.

At the end of Assassins of Kings, when I heard that the realm was basically going up in flames, all I could think was "Good riddance".

I might call The Witcher cynical, but I wouldn't say it's any more "Mature" than other games of similar or better caliber.

rbstewart7263:
Its important to consider the culture that cd project comes from. There not as prudish over there so women wouldnt bat an eye at such as thing where as here we think that such a thing says something about what the developer thinks on women. We mistake prudishness for respect. if you asked a woman over there what she thought of the sex cards shed prolly shrug. its just not a thing there. Its also important to consider that feminism in america didnt have issue with alot of the sexual mores of society so empowerment was viewed through this prudish context. In some nations for example its considered liberating to be free about sexuality, here its considered exploitation. We also have an exploitative society in general.

To simply say that more clothes equals respect for men and women is to be intellectually dishonest. Id vote that more male protagonists should have less clothes in our more fantastical games before id have all our womens covered up under false pretense.

Emphasis mine; those words put words in my mouth.

In any case, the issue isn't the nudity or the sexuality. It's that you collect pictures of the women you have sex with in the game -- the main word here being "collect", as in "collection". It's a pretty objectifying thing. And disappointing, too, since one of the major themes of The Witcher is discrimination, and the game otherwise explores that avenue extremely well.

BoTTeNBReKeR:
I cannot quite grasp why you guys are soo obsessed with having strong female characters and claiming the game is mysoginistic. Ofcourse it's mysoginistic. It's supposed to be! It's clearly based on central/western Europe during the late medieval period. Guess what? Women were nobodies back then but breeding machines or nuns. Yet you guys can't seem to grasp the fact this game does not want to have equality between genders cause it would not fit the setting.

Do you know what's the really annoying thing ? That no matter what kind of women a game has,someone will complain about it.
If there is a woman represented too powerful and muscular then some people will go "you made women like that to look attractive to men,so you objectify them and you are misogynistic". If the game though has a woman that is low profile and weak then they will go "you made women look weak so you think they are weak so the game is misogynistic".
Not matter what the game does,some people will always grab on from something in order to whine about a game.

freaper:

BrotherRool:

freaper:

I always imagined that the reason you get the shitty jokes and remarks is because the people uttering them are backward, racist peasants. So, good character design?

If so it's a fail in voice acting, because it doesn't sound like they're joking.

In fact they're probably not joking, since they're actually racist and sexist.

The racist is fair game, I've said they handle it well. But sexist people don't talk like that, no-one talks like that apart from young people who're trying to shock adults. There are foulmouthed sexist people, but they've got a completely different tone

Trollhoffer:

rbstewart7263:
Its important to consider the culture that cd project comes from. There not as prudish over there so women wouldnt bat an eye at such as thing where as here we think that such a thing says something about what the developer thinks on women. We mistake prudishness for respect. if you asked a woman over there what she thought of the sex cards shed prolly shrug. its just not a thing there. Its also important to consider that feminism in america didnt have issue with alot of the sexual mores of society so empowerment was viewed through this prudish context. In some nations for example its considered liberating to be free about sexuality, here its considered exploitation. We also have an exploitative society in general.

To simply say that more clothes equals respect for men and women is to be intellectually dishonest. Id vote that more male protagonists should have less clothes in our more fantastical games before id have all our womens covered up under false pretense.

Emphasis mine; those words put words in my mouth.

In any case, the issue isn't the nudity or the sexuality. It's that you collect pictures of the women you have sex with in the game -- the main word here being "collect", as in "collection". It's a pretty objectifying thing. And disappointing, too, since one of the major themes of The Witcher is discrimination, and the game otherwise explores that avenue extremely well.

sorry bout that it certainly is my opinion shared by some not so by others. I dont have a problem with it because for me a perfect world isnt one where we stop telling racist jokes or where the witcher games take out the card thing. Its a world where we all tell racist jokes and know that there just jokes. Black guys make fun of me, I make fun of black guys and were all mature for it. Likewise Women are more open and able to be open about, male objectification. If there were a game that had the inverse id support it no matter how outlandish because thats my equality which I am aware differs from many others idea of what equality is.

rbstewart7263:
sorry bout that it certainly is my opinion shared by some not so by others. I dont have a problem with it because for me a perfect world isnt one where we stop telling racist jokes or where the witcher games take out the card thing. Its a world where we all tell racist jokes and know that there just jokes. Black guys make fun of me, I make fun of black guys and were all mature for it. Likewise Women are more open and able to be open about, male objectification. If there were a game that had the inverse id support it no matter how outlandish because thats my equality which I am aware differs from many others idea of what equality is.

I used the hold the same opinion about equality, but I eventually found that it was shortsighted because it didn't require me to take into account the feelings of other kinds of people. I wanted the freedom to use words like "nigger" because, hey, I'm not a bad guy -- I would never oppress people, that would be totally uncool and wrong. But eventually it occurred to me that a white person using that word casually and without respect to its history and the way others felt about it was contributing to oppression in its own right.

One of the things that tends to get ignored in debates about equality is the concept of social comfort. While things like the economic positions of ethnic groups are also very important, what ultimately matters most is whether a minority group is comfortable and happy interacting with the majority group on an equal-to-equal basis. So I wouldn't tell a joke about race around just any person of colour, because it's only right to take into account that they might be rightly offended. But perhaps I would tell the same joke in the presence of a coloured friend, because they know that I don't mean it and I expect them to fire back. The social context in either of these cases is very different, though, and I suspect the friend would be displeased with me telling the same in a different social context.

While the ideal world where racial discrimination is a thing of the past and slurs can be used without offense to any person is a noble idea, the fact of the matter is that we're nowhere near close enough to actual equality for that to be in any way realistic at the moment. Consider the long tensions between different cultural groups of the British Isles and the jokes they tell -- you know, an Englishman, an Irishman and a Welshman walk into a bar. Many people still found those jokes offensive towards the beginning of the 20th century because there was still bad blood between cultural groups there, such as the freshly-remembered discrimination against the Irish. Today, no-one gives a damn, and that's fantastic. But as a white guy, I have to wait for women and people of colour to come forward with that kind of humour themselves, because it's not my place to impose that on them if they find its content disconcerting.

And really, that's not much to ask. I respect their point of view and I think I've grown as a person for it. I'm still learning, of course, and it's not as though there's just one "coloured person" view or just one "female" view, but it's surprisingly easy once one stops taking it from the perspective of defending their own point of view and begins taking it as a process of open learning. Mind you, I don't agree with all aspects of all branches of feminism (which would be contradictory and impossible), nor do I agree on all matters of ethnic grievance with those people of colour. Nothing in this process of learning prevented me from having my own opinion, but I've been lucky enough to be opened to a variety of diverse perspectives as well.

Am I the ONLY person who has actually played the games?!

Yeah I mean a game focussing on dialogue like this isn't mature at all because it shows boobs!

Vegosiux:
Well, there's this deal, "mature" and "rated M" are not the same thing. As far as Witcher goes, yeah, it's dark, it doesn't sugarcoat stuff, but at times it just seems as if it's trying too hard to be "mature" and comes across as pretentious. Let's just say that considering my taste in gaming, by all criteira, I should have liked the Witcher series, but I just couldn't enjoy the games.

I thought the pretentiousness in some parts was part of its humor.
I enjoyed the first witcher game, and still need to play the second, though.

Akratus:
Am I the ONLY person who has actually played the games?!

Yeah I mean a game focussing on dialogue like this isn't mature at all because it shows boobs!

That's actually REALLY plonky dialogue. Nothing against the Witcher, really, I thought #2 had some strong dialogue and writing in places, but that was painful. People don't talk like that.

I think that while The Witcher deals with mature stories, collecting sex cards is one of the most immature things I've ever done in a game. Rewarding sex with collectibles seems like a bad idea to me.

"Mature" in game marketing and to a similar extent in the marketing of other Western media is a code word for sex in particular and/or brutal violence.

The irony is that casual sex (what most sex amounts to in games) and (most) brutal violence are highly immature acts, so we have the label "mature" applied to immaturity.

True maturity is sophisticated, deep, thematic games. Journey is a mature game, but of course the label marketers use is not about an honest description of the game but rather plays on the immaturity of Western youth themselves who think casual sex and violence in a game is super cool. The degrading effect of this celebrated immaturity on their souls is usually treated as comedy in media, such as in the movie The Hangover.

A truly mature game does not appeal to children, not due to any fault of the child but because immature people don't want to play mature games.

If people say that more clothes on female= strong independent women, shouldn't they be all over this kind of clothes:
image

As they are wearing as so much clothes as possible, they are at the front for womens right! I declare that every strong women in gaming should go around like that.

BloatedGuppy:

Akratus:
Am I the ONLY person who has actually played the games?!

Yeah I mean a game focussing on dialogue like this isn't mature at all because it shows boobs!

That's actually REALLY plonky dialogue. Nothing against the Witcher, really, I thought #2 had some strong dialogue and writing in places, but that was painful. People don't talk like that.

Sure the acting is bad, but I was refering to the writing.

Akratus:
Sure the acting is bad, but I was refering to the writing.

As was I.

Dialogue is difficult to write well. It's not enough to type up a big exposition monologue and then have a character vomit it out, that sounds terrible. You want to capture the cadence and pace of how people actually talk.

Not only is that little speech by Geralt incredibly stiff, it's also completely out of character for a guy who spends the vast majority of both games delivering short lines in a monosyllabic deadpan.

So, is it a terribly written piece of text? No. Is it "good dialogue"? Dear god, no.

I personally LOVE the Witcher 2 and think its a great game? But is it Mature? Who knows? Why is it that gaming is the only entertainment medium obsessed with whether or not something is "mature". Ive never gone to a movie or listened to a long and thought "Wow this is really mature". If you define mature it means (at least as an adjective)

1. complete in natural growth or development, as plant and animal forms: a mature rose bush.
2. ripe, as fruit, or fully aged, as cheese or wine.
3. fully developed in body or mind, as a person: a mature woman.
4. pertaining to or characteristic of full development: a mature appearance; fruit with a mature softness.
5. completed, perfected, or elaborated in full by the mind: mature plans.

None of these help to describe an entertainment medium, and shouldn't be used to describe one either. I think its use in the ESRB was a mistake and wether or not you think a game is actually mature depends on your own definition of mature....since you aren't using it verbatim more as a poetic license, and thus will have a different answer from person to person.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Saviordd1:
aren't we supposed to be loyal to Triss?

No.

I dunno, my entire Witcher 2 play-through could basically be described as a Triss Rescue Mission, as I really let down a certain character in Chapter 3 to rescue Triss (a really good test of where your loyalties lie I found).

And to the "loyal to Triss" question... it's all about player choice in the end, you can perceive the relationship between Geralt and Triss however you'd like and act on that whether it's purely sexual, romantic, antagonistic... whatever.

Haven't quite managed to make it very far in The Witcher 1 (horrible combat, just horrible) so I'm not entirely sure how the misogyny feels in that one but in Witcher 2 I got the feeling that it's a Misogynistic Universe but you, as the player, have the option to act against it if you so wish, and the misogyny is depicted as pretty much horrid throughout the entire game so I'm a little more forgiving there.

endtherapture:
Been lurking on the Dragon Age Bioware forums today and come across an incredible hatred of The Witcher 2:

Also, calling Witcher series "mature" is like calling XBox Live a civilized discussion platform.

A lot of people appear to have this problem with TW series. Are they just Dragon Age fanboys or is it a legitimate argument?

I found the game pretty mature. It dealt with a mature high politics plot as well as a personal one with realistic and complicated romances, friendships and working relationships. This was across a backdrop of a pseudo realistic medieval fantasy storyline, filled with rape, mysogeny, racism etc. It's no less mature than Game of Thrones, which isn't called out as being immature. Sure it has tits but that's no less mature than the characters in Dragon Age having sex in their underwear?

Your opinions?

The Witcher is mature strictly by a 13 year old's opinion on what "mature" is.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked