As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[PA Comic] Friday, May 15, 2015 - Universals
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
[PA Comic] Friday, May 15, 2015 - Universals
Unknown User on
+10
Posts
One of my favourite in a long long time. Laughed way too hard.
this comic seems a little tone deaf. Maybe the setting for Monday's comic will be an awkward "Diversity Lounge". :P
Pins!
I think the conversation can flow something like...
"It's terrible that CD Projekt Red made women one dimensional, sex fiends."
"Yeah, I wonder if they did it to anything else and we just don't notice."
"Like Wyverns? Like they portray Wyverns as sex fiends?"
"No no, the problem is they DON"T portray Wyverns as sex crazed! Imagine if there was some group of Wyvern fans out there that were really mad about their portrayal."
In other words, they can 100% agree with the poor representation of women in the game, and still make a joke about it.
I really think you might be reaching here.
It's more likely that Polygon's review was absolutely ridiculous and they're mocking the fuck out of it.
you are mega reading into this man
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/04/01
If you were to write a comic complaining about how dumb it is that Mario jumps on Goombas all the time, I want to see Mario dumbly jumping on Goombas, not Gabe and Tycho yelling at each other with NES controllers in their hands.
Well, we'll see from the newspost most likely.
But...I don't think it's a huge reach when there's been criticism of the game for its depiction of women, and the joke in the comic seems pretty on-the-nose. The first two balloons could have been straight from a forum post complaining about the Witcher 3, just with the word "women" replaced with Wyvern.
I'm not saying that they can't do comics that make fun of this sort of criticism, and I would probably find it funny if the joke was a bit less hamfistedly delivered, but it's still a bit tone deaf.
Because as we all know, since the great purge no other outlet is permitted to publish reviews. Not like the old days when different sites with different staffs and different priorities could offer diverging opinions. Gaming now withers under the weight of social justice orthodoxy.
Yes
The polygon review seemed sane to me.
The world of The Witcher is insanely misogynistic, which is maybe not a problem, but in many cases so is the gameplay (which is a problem) and the games stylistics (which is also a problem).
Now you can enjoy a game anyway (I enjoyed both of the earlier iterations of The Witcher), but it would be a glaring oversight from a reviewer to not adress the fact.
The score was an 8/10 (and there were a few other issues that detracted) so it's not like they went "oh, 10/10, but 8/10 due to misogyny", but they gave a pretty fair and balanced review where the misogyny was stated but had a pretty minor impact on the score.
Now other sites are ripping up Polygons review due to the statement about misogyny (a statement which is IMHO justified) and a one paragraph that everyone in the game is white.
The real scandal IMHO isn't Polygons review, it's the fact that such a review is considered a scandal by some other reviewers as well as some of the people in the industry.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I don't think most people have a problem with the score.
It's the ham-fisted injection of social issues into a review for no fucking reason.
"Gee, this medieval fantasy world made by polish developers, based on polish books, which are infused with polish folklore, doesn't have enough Africans in it!"
I mean, come the fuck on.
And don't even get me started on Leisure Suit Larry.
In a world that tells us to be tolerant of others, we point fingers at others who digress from the popular opinion and, ourselves, become intolerant. :hydra:
Yelling at butts will never NOT be funny. Thanks, Psy!
Also, Abby is awesome. Keep up with TLH because it's the tits!
I love League of Legends, but seriously...screw you, Teemo.
That was like...one paragraph. And justified. There have been several appearances of non-white characters in The Witcher series. They have all been adversaries or sexual conquests. Sometimes both.
That's a problem.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Like who? I can only think of Azar Javed, but admittedly it's been awhile since I played through the first two games.
Actually I would say that GI's review was overly positive, while Polygon's trended more negative, yet they both still gave good scores.
I expect, people are just picking a fight; because that seems to be what we do now.
Don't get me wrong video games still have a long way to go with the general depiction of female characters, but if it makes sense within the setting, as it seems to here, I don't see the problem.
Artists need to have the freedom to portray the bad as well as the good.
Are you aware that what you describe (and disdain) covers most of the early / "classic" PA strips?
Azar Javed, Morenn, Lady of the Lake and a few more.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
As for there being no reason for the injection of social issues into a review...huh? If it affected the reviewer's enjoyment, why wouldn't it be appropriate for the review? And it's not like books and movies get a pass on this, so why are games special? This is pretty standard fare for literary critiques.
Maybe you could do Polygon a solid, and list topics that are appropriate for someone else to cover in their written opinion of the game. Or may, I don't know, realize that social issues might affect someone else more than you, and that's okay? Game reviews don't just have to be a reflection of your own opinions.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Haha, what the fuck? Morenn and the Lady of the Lake are both fantasy creatures, which fit right in with the theme of The Witcher. So really, you're talking about one guy, from the first game.
Nice argument.
I'm going to write a review about Mario and then talk about how ableist it is. I mean, where is the representation of handicapped people in that universe? What shitlords. Ruined my experience.
Sure? If you're talking about your experience, I wouldn't be particularly upset if you described Mario as an "ableist". I probably wouldn't base my purchasing decision on that, but luckily there's more than that one review out there if I want something that reflects my likely experience with the game a little better. I probably would't write in the comments that the reviewer should stick to the list of approved areas to comment on.
If Arthur Gies wants writes a review, and says that rape and woman being used as props in a game bothered him, I'm okay with him having an opinion. The structure of his review made it easy to skip over that part if you're bothered by it, or you could pop over to Kotaku (or any number of places really) where you get an opinion more to your liking.
Now, maybe it is CDPR's failure. Nothing wrong with people wanting to make that argument. I would just hope it would be one that's actually substantial if you're going to bother making that charge to begin with, otherwise it's just silly concern posturing.
Ideally, it should be ignored; really, nobody should be paying much heed to Polygon's nonsense. But I'll allow PA to comment on a very obvious trend in games media.
Contrary to what a great deal of people say, I don't think it's the responsibility of the entertainment/art industry to rectify social issues because unfortunately when they attempt to address these elements they often fuck it up and either embarrass themselves or just piss people off even more. Furthermore, I think it's appreciable when a game accomplishes a mature sense of social awareness without making a big show of it. In fact, I think it's less cringe-worthy when a game just does what it's going to do within its own narrative without concerning itself with socio-political climates which extend outside of the relevant material than forcefully injecting the issues as though they drew them in with a sharpie marker after the fact. Why is my Paladin rocking a breastplate with NOH8 etched into the sternum? (Don't get me wrong; I know games aren't this hamfisted--generally speaking--about their "open-mindedness" but some extensions of their "good will" can come off as patronizing which, to the aware, is more offensive. Being pandered to like a petulant child rather than respected for my opinions is what should really piss people off, to be frank.)
Effortlessly representing the player-base in an inclusive and meaningful way is where victory lies. Giving you the option to be a gay Iranian bare-knuckle boxer from a mixed ethnic heritage with breast cancer and two adopted sons with autism who celebrate some obscure pagan traditions isn't being open-minded... it's insulting my intelligence. "We're socially aware!" *wink* No. Just no. Because I know the conversation in that board meeting wasn't "How do we improve our game?" It was "How do we keep these idiots from bitching about our game while we laugh all the way to the bank?"
I could be wrong, I suppose. And that's fine. But I don't expect the be delivered from social evils by sources of fiction. Misogyny and bigotry and racism are huge issues. My dragons and magic and swords game shouldn't have to worry about whether or not it's ruining the real world when its fictional world is beset by demons and angry gods.
I know a lot of people don't agree with me on this, and perhaps it's the short-sighted optimism of someone who is already open-minded and accepting and doesn't feel the need to be told how to tie his own shoes, but I think it's valid to assume that fiction and reality need not reflect one another in any meaningful way. They certainly can if the creators so choose, but it's not a prerequisite.
He criticizes a point in the game where you have a dialogue option that allows you to sympathize with a guy who beats his wife. It's not OK to role-play a character who could be a misogynist, but you can attack civilians or guards, or play entirely motivated by greed. Greed has led to many of the most tragic and terrible crimes committed by powerful people in modern times, serial killing is definitely not OK, yet the very idea of the witcher being allowed to sympathize with a wife beater (it's one of several dialogue options), that's out of bounds? Now I'll grant you the game insta-kills you if you murder enough guards, but the game doesn't railroad you from doing it, why should the game's dialogue railroad you into being a politically correct witcher? Isn't he supposed to be a morally grey character to some extent anyway?
He also criticizes the presence of female specific monsters. I don't understand this much either. All monsters must be male or androgynous? You can't have female tormented undead, no banshees allowed. They are murderous monsters, who rend the life from the living. The fact that what made them monsters was being wronged is disturbing, but the other fact is regardless of what or who you are if your sole existence is the destruction of all life you need to be stopped. That is what the witcher does, he destroys monsters. For a living I might add, does he really have the luxury of saying "If I can't find a way to put these female undead to rest in a pacifistic way, I guess I just won't eat this week and they can keep relentlessly murdering your townsfolk." Except the player does have the luxury, it's an open world game so you literally could just refuse to do it if it makes you too heartsick.
The reviewer even has a problem with villains committing acts of violence against women on screen or off. They are villains, their purpose is to upset you in any manner of evil ways to encourage you to stop them. They are letting you live the fantasy of killing misogynists. If they were portrayed as heroic or virtuous for their deeds, then we would have a problem. For me, this is the part of the game I find the most enjoyable. If the game only talked about misogyny and women having it hard but never let you fight misogynists or used it as a tool to color people evil I would find it far more bothersome. The imagery is still disturbing, definitely. Being able to fight these villains is good though, this is where you can get a message from the developers that doesn't just leave you with misogyny being all over the place as if it were just a neutral backdrop. No, it's wrong and here, go ahead and stop this guy.
Geralt obviously lives in a very misogynistic world and that sucks. It is definitely worth mentioning in the review, it is meant to be disturbing and certainly is. I'm just not sure that that is a big black mark on the game, when it's not portrayed as a good thing. Also, yes the game does sex up women beyond Dead or Alive Volleyball. Honestly the difficulty women have covering up bothers me a whole lot more than bad guys doing bad things. I can kill the bad guys, but I will never be able to tailor for all these women.
It's for people like my girlfriend, who would be very concerned about how women are treated in the fantasy world of The Witcher. The game was never a "must buy" for her (despite the fact that she like open world RPGs, too), but I don't think she would enjoy the game seeing women being posed only as either sex objects (even the powerful ones) or victims. You're either sexy or a victim (or both) when you're a woman in that world. This is something that I've noticed in the Witcher 1 and 2, and not indicative of what I know of the Witcher 3, of course. I'm pretty sure I can list exceptions, but it's an overwhelming theme that's hard to ignore... the important part is that she would probably not enjoy the game because of this. Not all women who are gamers would feel alienated because of this, but SHE probably would be, given what I know of her reactions to various media.
I appreciate reviews that mention this, because it helps me pitch a game to my girlfriend. It's really obvious from the box art that something like "Mortal Kombat" is not for her... it's not so obvious for something like The Witcher 3, which mechanically looks and feels like Dragon Age or Skyrim.
Having not played the game, I don't know if either of us can say that the misogyny (or the argument? I may be misreading your post here) is or isn't "substantial" (whatever that means for an opinion piece), and presumably Arthur only brought it up because it affected him or he thought it was worth bringing up. If he thinks that misogyny is a bad thing (weirdo), then it's appropriate for him to describe it as a failure of the developers, who ultimately had creative control. Even couched in that way, it's still only his opinion, and should be understood as such.
I feel like some of the criticism of Polygon comes off as people hovering next to their fainting couches, clutching their pearls and waling, "This just isn't how reviews are done!" The Internet is an ocean, and not every review has to be for every customer. To me, commenting on misogyny made the review more interesting, and didn't seem like an "odious turd", but if it's not for you then there are hundreds of other outlets.
I'm going to snip out most of your post because it was articulate and I don't want to argue that your opinion was wrong. The above though, struck me as odd. It's not censorship to call out something you don't like or think is "wrong". At no point did the review suggest a boycott (also not censorship), or that laws should ban media that doesn't treat women and men as entirely interchangeable. Much of the review was glowing, and the score reflected a "buy" recommendation. Seems odd if the point of the review was to censor.
https://medium.com/@adrianchm/the-boy-who-cried-white-wolf-on-polygon-s-the-witcher-3-review-f7ac8d7f0a5
This is a smear piece, and not really that insightful.