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.
There's a distinction between "The world of The Witcher is misogynist and racist" and "The game is misogynist and racist". I feel the reviewer acknowledges the former but then gets uncomfortably close to the latter and implicates the developers in reinforcing whatever problem-with-games is currently in vogue. I fully understand it's his opinion, and I personally think it's a silly one to have. It seems like the review is judging CDPR's creative decision to depict those things, but why? What's the core concern here? It reads less like an advisory warning of "Hey you might not like this content" and more of a scolding admonishment; especially when he details how we went out of his way to go searching for POC NPCs and then argues with Polish developers over Twitter about their own history.
I've stopped reading Polygon for a while now and was really only aware of this review due to the discussion around it. I'm just telling you why I disagree with those bits from the Polygon review. If there's one thing I take away from this feather-ruffling, it's that terms like "misogynist" have been thrown around with enough frequency these days that you're likely to see more of this irritated exasperation, even if its usage is arguably justified.
I guess I just didn't care for most of the particular problems the reviewer had with the game regarding misogyny, he came across to me as censorship oriented.
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.
Well certainly he didn't argue for censorship directly in his post, I don't mean to misconstrue that. But what I took away from his review was essentially that he felt the game would have been way better if it had been a lot more PC. He more or less does argue that the game would be better if it had discluded a dialogue option, female monsters, and reigned in villains. So while he might not be advocating censorship directly or as a broad policy, I felt like he essentially was saying this game would have been better if it had been censored. Which is a valid opinion, may even be true, but it still doesn't sit well with me.
So the corresponding blog post is up now, and it unfortunately doesn't clear up whether or not the strip is referring to the Polygon review specifically. In any case, I find this commentary on the review from Adrian Chmielarz, one of the leads behind The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, to be very insightful:
It does clear up it up, though. The strip isn't referencing the Polygon review at all. It's just Jerry being silly and coming up with never before seen sentences about wyverns, and Tycho the character being angry that yet another RPG fails to offer dragon sex.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
It does clear up it up, though. The strip isn't referencing the Polygon review at all. It's just Jerry being silly and coming up with never before seen sentences about wyverns, and Tycho the character being angry that yet another RPG fails to offer dragon sex.
I admit that it's getting to be an increasingly likely possibility to me the more I think about it. Makes it interesting, though, that we naturally look to see if there's any deeper meaning in a PA strip (as they sometimes have) beyond the "Tycho is into bestiality" running gag and coincidentally found a fitting suspect.
So the corresponding blog post is up now, and it unfortunately doesn't clear up whether or not the strip is referring to the Polygon review specifically. In any case, I find this commentary on the review from Adrian Chmielarz, one of the leads behind The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, to be very insightful:
"I consider Polygon’s review of The Witcher 3 poisonous to the industry: to gamers, to game developers, to game journalists" Wow. I sometimes exaggerate to make a point, but when I do I try not to go full herpa derp. Reading through that mess, there were hints at interesting points in there, but they were buried in a disorganized mess that seemed to have little to do with the actual review in a lot of spots (why call out Feminist Frequency?). I did find it funny though that he took the time to acknowledge that people can have other opinions, and then claiming that Gies's opinion was wrong and (somehow) industry poison.
Apparently the games industry is made of delicate glass that could shatter the moment someone raises an eyebrow in its general vicinity.
It does clear up it up, though. The strip isn't referencing the Polygon review at all. It's just Jerry being silly and coming up with never before seen sentences about wyverns, and Tycho the character being angry that yet another RPG fails to offer dragon sex.
I admit that it's getting to be an increasingly likely possibility to me the more I think about it. Makes it interesting, though, that we naturally look to see if there's any deeper meaning in a PA strip (as they sometimes have) beyond the "Tycho is into bestiality" running gag and coincidentally found a fitting suspect.
It's almost as if a critic could look for deeper meaning in a game and reflect on it within a review.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
There has been a weird trend, at least since Dying Light came out, of saying that developers have the same beliefs of the villain. You know, the bad guy of the story. Which, uh, doesn't make any sense.
There has been a weird trend, at least since Dying Light came out, of saying that developers have the same beliefs of the villain. You know, the bad guy of the story. Which, uh, doesn't make any sense.
Not much of a trend, then, considering Dying Light came out a short while ago. :-P
Besides which, a believable, realistic, and (dare I say) well-written villain WOULD have values and motivations that you can relate to, so sharing some values with a villain would not be a terrible thing if you were a great writer. I'm reminded of the recent Daredevil Netflix series on ways that you portray a villain that you can actually sympathize with and even share values with, even when you would disagree with their extreme methods of violence or other evil.
This misses the point in other ways, but that's a discussion for Debate and Discourse and not this thread.
There's a distinction between "The world of The Witcher is misogynist and racist" and "The game is misogynist and racist"
It's really, REALLY hard to get people to separate "portraying _____ism" and "endorsing _____ism." You can limit it to the villain (in which case it's one of those unsubtle nods to the audience that this is an unredeemable character unworthy of your sympathy and you're supposed to cheer when he dies horribly, like rape or killing a puppy), so it's something the hero is taking out of the world when he wins, or you can make shameless award bait (a thing indie games are just starting to figure out).
It always gets really sticky when you portray a world in which _____ism is just a thing, and its not within any of the characters to do anything except acknowledge it. When you do this, people have difficulty separating, say,
cartoons promoting Japanese internment during World War 2
and a movie set in WWII that portrays Japanese people being interred and characters who can do nothing except acknowledge that this is a thing they cannot change, or even ones who may not want to.
There's a distinction between "The world of The Witcher is misogynist and racist" and "The game is misogynist and racist"
It's really, REALLY hard to get people to separate "portraying _____ism" and "endorsing _____ism." You can limit it to the villain (in which case it's one of those unsubtle nods to the audience that this is an unredeemable character unworthy of your sympathy and you're supposed to cheer when he dies horribly, like rape or killing a puppy), so it's something the hero is taking out of the world when he wins, or you can make shameless award bait (a thing indie games are just starting to figure out).
It always gets really sticky when you portray a world in which _____ism is just a thing, and its not within any of the characters to do anything except acknowledge it. When you do this, people have difficulty separating, say,
cartoons promoting Japanese internment during World War 2
and a movie set in WWII that portrays Japanese people being interred and characters who can do nothing except acknowledge that this is a thing they cannot change, or even ones who may not want to.
The cynical in me says that this wouldn't be such an issue if we were talking about TV or movies instead of videogames. As a writer, the point is to tell a story, not a statement of "I endorse X". I mean, stories on medieval times usually portray, let's say, monarchies as just a thing, despite being an aborrent form of ruling a country. Does that mean that the author is a monarchist? No, because is just a story set on a time period with people that don't have the values developed with centuries, even millenia of political struggle.
I'll point something out that seems to get past a lot of people whenever Polygon reviews come up. The reviewer never picks the score at Polygon. The reviewer writes the review, then other members of the staff read it and agree on a score they think matches what the reviewer wrote.
So the corresponding blog post is up now, and it unfortunately doesn't clear up whether or not the strip is referring to the Polygon review specifically. In any case, I find this commentary on the review from Adrian Chmielarz, one of the leads behind The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, to be very insightful:
Loved that article. Creating a world that has misogyny is not an endorsement of misogyny. Nor is it comparable to literal propaganda from World War 2. Until we find out that the illuminati and the patriarchy teamed up to make video game propaganda, I think worrying about fictional women being fictionally killed is a bit of a waste.
So the corresponding blog post is up now, and it unfortunately doesn't clear up whether or not the strip is referring to the Polygon review specifically. In any case, I find this commentary on the review from Adrian Chmielarz, one of the leads behind The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, to be very insightful:
Loved that article. Creating a world that has misogyny is not an endorsement of misogyny. Nor is it comparable to literal propaganda from World War 2. Until we find out that the illuminati and the patriarchy teamed up to make video game propaganda, I think worrying about fictional women being fictionally killed is a bit of a waste.
I'm surprised that Adrian Chimielarz is unable to separate option A "World that has misogyny" vs option B "Game elements and design that are misogynistic".
Because Witcher 3 has both A (which is not really problematic in a specific game product and only as an overall trend) AND B (which is problematic. Always).
A game designer at that level should have the education necessary to recognize and differentiate between the two.
No. Adrian Chimielarz article is trash.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
For those talking about the Polygon review, I've read the thing myself, and it seems like the reviewer was mentioning it primarily as a content warning for those that don't like such content, like how reviewers might mention how graphic the new fatalities in "Mortal Kombat X" are. It doesn't necessarily mean that points were docked from the game's score for that reason.
Artists need to have the freedom to portray the bad as well as the good.
and people who play games have the freedom to critique hamfisted, sexist portrayals of women in art. this whole "freedom of speech" thing is a two-way street.
So many Penny Arcades lately are just Tycho and Gabe yelling back and forth at one another, often against a single-color background. This is a comic, not the newspost! Why not draw a wyvern? Yesterday they were on headsets talking about a raid (or whatever). Why not DRAW them as in-game characters doing the raid???
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.
Christ people are using words like misogyny waaay too fucking much. Who gives a shit, it's just a video game. If you don't like it move the fuck on.
Christ people are complaining about people using words like misogyny waaay too fucking much. Who gives a shit, it's just a discussion about a video game. If you don't like it move the fuck on.
The only people who whine more than people like me, who care about sexism, are gamers who don't give a flying fuck about sexism and want us all to know how much it's a waste of time to whine about sexism. Somehow all of you seem to be blind to the fact that your complaining, if anything, makes even less sense than our complaining. Either it's okay to complain about shit that pisses you off, or it isn't. If it is okay, then please just let us vent about sexism. If it isn't, then maybe shut the fuck up?
The Polygon reviewer's enthusiasm for GoT via his Twitter just highlights the click-bait nature of his review.
I don't begrudge his writing. In the context of click-bait and business models that are driven off free content for consumers, powered by ad-revenue, it's to be expected. Just like I don't begrudge a game developer for whatever creative decisions they make.
I think getting highly enraged in either situation is a silly choice, but to each their own. Also, I think almost everyone knows this isn't a comic strip about wyverns. Are the people claiming that trolling? Because, if not, that's kind of cute. Like puppy pictures on Instagram.
The Polygon reviewer's enthusiasm for GoT via his Twitter just highlights the click-bait nature of his review.
How so? The review itself says, without paraphrasing, that "The Witcher 3 is a great game" (presumably, he enjoyed it), but that he has reservations about the content containing an oppressively misogynistic world. You can enjoy media while critically recognizing aspects of the media that may offend your audience in a review. This is not hypocrisy... everyone appreciates different things about the media they consume. You might as well say "listening to death metal means that he's a murderer" or "he listens to gangster rap, therefore he's into criminal activities" or some other silly analogy like that. Game of Thrones is extraordinarily popular right now, and the worst you can possibly say is "Well, he likes something that is popular in the mainstream right now".
This is yet another reason why that article is full of crap. "I'm going to dig up dirt on the author on Twitter to discredit him" means that he's asking you to do to the reviewer the exact opposite expectation of what he is asking for the developers of the Witcher. He's saying "You can't separate the creator from the content... He has an agenda, and he's a hypocrite and a silly goose" while simultaneously saying "You can totally separate the Developers from the content in the Witcher, though". Double standards, woo.
The article would be much better if he could just address the points raised in the review without the dog-whistle words and the attempt at character assassination of the author. I believe it can be done... he just didn't do it because he's just that silly and petty.
Is applying a different standard to 2 pieces of media. So yes, it is hypocrisy.
He enjoys both of them ("The Witcher is a great game", as stated... the review is effusive with praise at what CD Projekt has accomplished with the game). And apparently, he loves Game of Thrones, according to the Totally-Out-Of-Context-Twitter-Farming done by a silly goose with a chip on his shoulder. What standard is this? Is this the standard where "Hey, I enjoy this media, and I enjoy this other media"?
He's not paid to critically review Game of Thrones, the HBO show. Are you privy to the thoughts in his mind, or are you just being presumptuous? He was, however, paid to review The Witcher 3. Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. Maybe if you send him an e-mail or something, you can ask him what he feels is problematic about Game of Thrones (if he does at all... no one knows!), and we can clarify the matter.
Or maybe, it's okay to apply different standards on a professional review than a personal hobby. That makes more sense, actually! Unless you lead a very strange personal life or professional life, most people apply different standards to what they do in their free time as opposed to what they do in their work time.
If someone were to ask me about Game of Thrones, I'd sure as hell tell them "Hey, there's a lot of nudity and sex and violence, and it's a crapsack world that is terrible to women." because this would be important information to tell them before they start watching it or reading the books (if they care about how women are treated in the media at all, of course). But hey, I'm not a reviewer of TV shows or books... oddly enough, neither was the original reviewer in question. Funny, that. (Or is he? I honestly don't know...)
I gotta say-of all the hyper-erotic, sex-crazed fuckbirds I know, only a few of them are Wyverns and afaik none of them are into ragged strips of manflesh. I don't even think any of them have ever gotten to fuck in a haunted caldera. I've heard some wicked room party stories that would curl your tail, though.
I can accept a Tolkien-esque world devoid of non-whites, because in my head I think the author has a right to write what he wants. The problem for me occurs when he (or his fans) tries to rationalize it by comparing his setting of - Fafaloo, governed by the Dragon Duchy - to, say, 15th century earth. Even if it's analogous, it's not earth, it's Fafaloo.
The minorities of your setting are not in Fafaloo because you don't want them to be, that's it. It's the same reason why some of the women are promiscuous, or showing amazing cleavage despite it being a difficult world for women. It's fiction, and the author controls every single facet of his universe.
For those talking about the Polygon review, I've read the thing myself, and it seems like the reviewer was mentioning it primarily as a content warning for those that don't like such content, like how reviewers might mention how graphic the new fatalities in "Mortal Kombat X" are. It doesn't necessarily mean that points were docked from the game's score for that reason.
Uh, he describes that content specifically as the "most disappointing aspect" of the game. Aside from complaints about the physical controls and camera. How can one reasonably deduce that the score wasn't affected by what the reviewer considered to be the greatest failing of the game???
Or maybe, it's okay to apply different standards on a professional review than a personal hobby. That makes more sense, actually! Unless you lead a very strange personal life or professional life, most people apply different standards to what they do in their free time as opposed to what they do in their work time.
So it's okay for the 'professional reviewer' to enjoy misogyny-laced fiction as part of a "personal hobby"? Why is it then so bad for all us gamers? Considering that videogames are a "personal hobby" for, say, 99.99% of us here (and generally). You might want to be careful with the rabbit hole you're jumping down through here...
And Jeez; the damn comic wasn't even about all this; but some people sure made sure all following discussion was.
Or maybe, it's okay to apply different standards on a professional review than a personal hobby. That makes more sense, actually! Unless you lead a very strange personal life or professional life, most people apply different standards to what they do in their free time as opposed to what they do in their work time.
So it's okay for the 'professional reviewer' to enjoy misogyny-laced fiction as part of a "personal hobby"? Why is it then so bad for all us gamers? Considering that videogames are a "personal hobby" for, say, 99.99% of us here (and generally). You might want to be careful with the rabbit hole you're jumping down through here...
I never said that it was bad for you to enjoy this particular video game, nor did the reviewer ever say that.* It's absolutely okay for a professional reviewer to enjoy a Television Show... what you like on a personal level is not very relevant to being a reviewer. It's not like he enjoys all misogyny-laced fiction in the world or anything... He enjoys Game of Thrones on HBO! Which a LOT of people do, regardless of their stance on feminism or even medieval fantasy literature.
This is a thin argument, at best. Especially since the reviewer never says "Hey, you shouldn't play this game. It is an affront to fun." (link to Metacritic Reviews on Motorbike, one of the worst games on PS3) There's a lot of praise of the game, even in the supposedly offensive sections about the misogynistic content.
Most people have different standards when it comes to their job versus their personal life. This is just part of being human. You will show deference to your bosses at work while simultaneously cursing them over beers at the local bar. You will use different language when writing business reports than when you are typing crap on the Internet (at least, I would hope so).
My point is that he is doing right by his audience by warning them of misogynist content in this game. It is no different than the ESRB or other content warnings that people use when purchasing video games. This is important information to know, for some people... maybe not for you, or me, or anyone who has their finger on the pulse of the video games industry, but for the general public (who is certainly NOT us). For you, or me, or other people familiar with The Witcher series, it's something we already know, but for a video game review, you have to assume that people other than gamers are going to read it. I don't know about you, but "SURPRISE! Here's a serial killer surrounded by corpses of prostitutes!" or "SURPRISE! Here's a fetus puncher!" would be a pretty ugly surprise for many people.
* There are widespread problems in aggregate in the video game industry, but this is a completely different discussion.
And Jeez; the damn comic wasn't even about all this; but some people sure made sure all following discussion was.
Welcome to the Internet? I'm not sure what to tell you, here. Useless tangents are the norm, especially on these forums.
It's absolutely okay for a professional reviewer to enjoy a Television Show... what you like on a personal level is not very relevant to being a reviewer. It's not like he enjoys all misogyny-laced fiction in the world or anything... He enjoys Game of Thrones on HBO! Which a LOT of people do, regardless of their stance on feminism or even medieval fantasy literature.
I'm not saying the guy can't/shouldn't like GoT. I'm just agreeing that it's (at least a little) inconsistent for him to call out one dark fantasy world for having misogyny as it's "most disappointing" aspect, while clearly being a fan of another, much more popular, dark fantasy world with absolutely the same "problems".
If he reviewed GoT, would he call it out just as fervently? You're right, we don't know, and under ideal circumstances, we should probably give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
Most people have different standards when it comes to their job versus their personal life. This is just part of being human. You will show deference to your bosses at work while simultaneously cursing them over beers at the local bar. You will use different language when writing business reports than when you are typing crap on the Internet (at least, I would hope so).
Yes and no. This guy's job is as an internet reporter/journalist of media products; so what he says on twitter, especially about media products, is not exactly ever fully "personal", because his internet presence is also intrinsically professional. There are many jobs like this, where any opinion you express publicly can, and will, be attributed to your professional life. It comes with the territory, and it does mean that, yes, you need to "manage" your personal public statements just as carefully as those intended to be professional. You might argue that's not fair, or it's a standard that doesn't necessarily apply to others, but it's still true.
My point is that he is doing right by his audience by warning them of misogynist content in this game. It is no different than the ESRB or other content warnings that people use when purchasing video games.
And here is where I totally disagree. ESRB ratings provide no value judgements. They are simple informative declarations that, "Hey, this content is in here, and you might not like it/think it's appropriate". The tone of this review was anything but. It did not state that some people might be offended, or find content uncomfortable, it straight up called out developmental choices and the inclusion of said content as "disappointing". It wasn't a warning, it is a chastisement.
Even then, the guy is perfectly in his rights to say so; it's a review, inherently subjective, after all. But it doesn't automatically make it a good review, or mean that there actually are problems with the game that need to be addressed. All it means is that, yes, there is potentially offensive content in the game, and surprise, you can find people who are offended by it (including professional reviewers).
I can understand tolerating some things in one medium and not in another.
I'm having a similar internal struggle right now. Terry Pratchett's book I Shall Wear Midnight has a scene early on which is basically the problem scene mentioned here - a young girl beaten so hard she miscarries. I think it's handled very well and is very powerful.
However.
I'm currently reading the series to my wife to keep us occupied on car journeys. I honestly don't think I'm going to be able to cope with reading that chapter aloud, because it feels like I'm, I don't know, complicit in the act even though the book treats it as in no way a good thing.
So yeah, I can see how the passive act of watching something can garner different reactions to the active act of guiding a character through something.
TL;DR: Censor everything because I am the arbiter of what is good. Thanks in advance.
Too many people with their undergarments in a twist, none of whom having corkscrewed said elastic over whether the pronunciation is "Why-vern", as I have lately been led to believe, or "Wiv-vern" as I basically have said aloud ever since first playing Dragon Warrior. Which is it, and why are none of you bickering over it?
Posts
There's a distinction between "The world of The Witcher is misogynist and racist" and "The game is misogynist and racist". I feel the reviewer acknowledges the former but then gets uncomfortably close to the latter and implicates the developers in reinforcing whatever problem-with-games is currently in vogue. I fully understand it's his opinion, and I personally think it's a silly one to have. It seems like the review is judging CDPR's creative decision to depict those things, but why? What's the core concern here? It reads less like an advisory warning of "Hey you might not like this content" and more of a scolding admonishment; especially when he details how we went out of his way to go searching for POC NPCs and then argues with Polish developers over Twitter about their own history.
I've stopped reading Polygon for a while now and was really only aware of this review due to the discussion around it. I'm just telling you why I disagree with those bits from the Polygon review. If there's one thing I take away from this feather-ruffling, it's that terms like "misogynist" have been thrown around with enough frequency these days that you're likely to see more of this irritated exasperation, even if its usage is arguably justified.
Well certainly he didn't argue for censorship directly in his post, I don't mean to misconstrue that. But what I took away from his review was essentially that he felt the game would have been way better if it had been a lot more PC. He more or less does argue that the game would be better if it had discluded a dialogue option, female monsters, and reigned in villains. So while he might not be advocating censorship directly or as a broad policy, I felt like he essentially was saying this game would have been better if it had been censored. Which is a valid opinion, may even be true, but it still doesn't sit well with me.
It does clear up it up, though. The strip isn't referencing the Polygon review at all. It's just Jerry being silly and coming up with never before seen sentences about wyverns, and Tycho the character being angry that yet another RPG fails to offer dragon sex.
I admit that it's getting to be an increasingly likely possibility to me the more I think about it. Makes it interesting, though, that we naturally look to see if there's any deeper meaning in a PA strip (as they sometimes have) beyond the "Tycho is into bestiality" running gag and coincidentally found a fitting suspect.
"I consider Polygon’s review of The Witcher 3 poisonous to the industry: to gamers, to game developers, to game journalists" Wow. I sometimes exaggerate to make a point, but when I do I try not to go full herpa derp. Reading through that mess, there were hints at interesting points in there, but they were buried in a disorganized mess that seemed to have little to do with the actual review in a lot of spots (why call out Feminist Frequency?). I did find it funny though that he took the time to acknowledge that people can have other opinions, and then claiming that Gies's opinion was wrong and (somehow) industry poison.
Apparently the games industry is made of delicate glass that could shatter the moment someone raises an eyebrow in its general vicinity.
It's almost as if a critic could look for deeper meaning in a game and reflect on it within a review.
It's criticisms and reviews all the way down!
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Besides which, a believable, realistic, and (dare I say) well-written villain WOULD have values and motivations that you can relate to, so sharing some values with a villain would not be a terrible thing if you were a great writer. I'm reminded of the recent Daredevil Netflix series on ways that you portray a villain that you can actually sympathize with and even share values with, even when you would disagree with their extreme methods of violence or other evil.
This misses the point in other ways, but that's a discussion for Debate and Discourse and not this thread.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
It's really, REALLY hard to get people to separate "portraying _____ism" and "endorsing _____ism." You can limit it to the villain (in which case it's one of those unsubtle nods to the audience that this is an unredeemable character unworthy of your sympathy and you're supposed to cheer when he dies horribly, like rape or killing a puppy), so it's something the hero is taking out of the world when he wins, or you can make shameless award bait (a thing indie games are just starting to figure out).
It always gets really sticky when you portray a world in which _____ism is just a thing, and its not within any of the characters to do anything except acknowledge it. When you do this, people have difficulty separating, say, and a movie set in WWII that portrays Japanese people being interred and characters who can do nothing except acknowledge that this is a thing they cannot change, or even ones who may not want to.
The cynical in me says that this wouldn't be such an issue if we were talking about TV or movies instead of videogames. As a writer, the point is to tell a story, not a statement of "I endorse X". I mean, stories on medieval times usually portray, let's say, monarchies as just a thing, despite being an aborrent form of ruling a country. Does that mean that the author is a monarchist? No, because is just a story set on a time period with people that don't have the values developed with centuries, even millenia of political struggle.
Loved that article. Creating a world that has misogyny is not an endorsement of misogyny. Nor is it comparable to literal propaganda from World War 2. Until we find out that the illuminati and the patriarchy teamed up to make video game propaganda, I think worrying about fictional women being fictionally killed is a bit of a waste.
I'm surprised that Adrian Chimielarz is unable to separate option A "World that has misogyny" vs option B "Game elements and design that are misogynistic".
Because Witcher 3 has both A (which is not really problematic in a specific game product and only as an overall trend) AND B (which is problematic. Always).
A game designer at that level should have the education necessary to recognize and differentiate between the two.
No. Adrian Chimielarz article is trash.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Absolutely
Christ people are complaining about people using words like misogyny waaay too fucking much. Who gives a shit, it's just a discussion about a video game. If you don't like it move the fuck on.
The only people who whine more than people like me, who care about sexism, are gamers who don't give a flying fuck about sexism and want us all to know how much it's a waste of time to whine about sexism. Somehow all of you seem to be blind to the fact that your complaining, if anything, makes even less sense than our complaining. Either it's okay to complain about shit that pisses you off, or it isn't. If it is okay, then please just let us vent about sexism. If it isn't, then maybe shut the fuck up?
I don't begrudge his writing. In the context of click-bait and business models that are driven off free content for consumers, powered by ad-revenue, it's to be expected. Just like I don't begrudge a game developer for whatever creative decisions they make.
I think getting highly enraged in either situation is a silly choice, but to each their own. Also, I think almost everyone knows this isn't a comic strip about wyverns. Are the people claiming that trolling? Because, if not, that's kind of cute. Like puppy pictures on Instagram.
This is yet another reason why that article is full of crap. "I'm going to dig up dirt on the author on Twitter to discredit him" means that he's asking you to do to the reviewer the exact opposite expectation of what he is asking for the developers of the Witcher. He's saying "You can't separate the creator from the content... He has an agenda, and he's a hypocrite and a silly goose" while simultaneously saying "You can totally separate the Developers from the content in the Witcher, though". Double standards, woo.
The article would be much better if he could just address the points raised in the review without the dog-whistle words and the attempt at character assassination of the author. I believe it can be done... he just didn't do it because he's just that silly and petty.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
Is applying a different standard to 2 pieces of media. So yes, it is hypocrisy.
He's not paid to critically review Game of Thrones, the HBO show. Are you privy to the thoughts in his mind, or are you just being presumptuous? He was, however, paid to review The Witcher 3. Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. Maybe if you send him an e-mail or something, you can ask him what he feels is problematic about Game of Thrones (if he does at all... no one knows!), and we can clarify the matter.
Or maybe, it's okay to apply different standards on a professional review than a personal hobby. That makes more sense, actually! Unless you lead a very strange personal life or professional life, most people apply different standards to what they do in their free time as opposed to what they do in their work time.
If someone were to ask me about Game of Thrones, I'd sure as hell tell them "Hey, there's a lot of nudity and sex and violence, and it's a crapsack world that is terrible to women." because this would be important information to tell them before they start watching it or reading the books (if they care about how women are treated in the media at all, of course). But hey, I'm not a reviewer of TV shows or books... oddly enough, neither was the original reviewer in question. Funny, that. (Or is he? I honestly don't know...)
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
The minorities of your setting are not in Fafaloo because you don't want them to be, that's it. It's the same reason why some of the women are promiscuous, or showing amazing cleavage despite it being a difficult world for women. It's fiction, and the author controls every single facet of his universe.
So it's okay for the 'professional reviewer' to enjoy misogyny-laced fiction as part of a "personal hobby"? Why is it then so bad for all us gamers? Considering that videogames are a "personal hobby" for, say, 99.99% of us here (and generally). You might want to be careful with the rabbit hole you're jumping down through here...
And Jeez; the damn comic wasn't even about all this; but some people sure made sure all following discussion was.
This is a thin argument, at best. Especially since the reviewer never says "Hey, you shouldn't play this game. It is an affront to fun." (link to Metacritic Reviews on Motorbike, one of the worst games on PS3) There's a lot of praise of the game, even in the supposedly offensive sections about the misogynistic content.
Most people have different standards when it comes to their job versus their personal life. This is just part of being human. You will show deference to your bosses at work while simultaneously cursing them over beers at the local bar. You will use different language when writing business reports than when you are typing crap on the Internet (at least, I would hope so).
My point is that he is doing right by his audience by warning them of misogynist content in this game. It is no different than the ESRB or other content warnings that people use when purchasing video games. This is important information to know, for some people... maybe not for you, or me, or anyone who has their finger on the pulse of the video games industry, but for the general public (who is certainly NOT us). For you, or me, or other people familiar with The Witcher series, it's something we already know, but for a video game review, you have to assume that people other than gamers are going to read it. I don't know about you, but "SURPRISE! Here's a serial killer surrounded by corpses of prostitutes!" or "SURPRISE! Here's a fetus puncher!" would be a pretty ugly surprise for many people.
* There are widespread problems in aggregate in the video game industry, but this is a completely different discussion.
Welcome to the Internet? I'm not sure what to tell you, here. Useless tangents are the norm, especially on these forums.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
How dare you.
If he reviewed GoT, would he call it out just as fervently? You're right, we don't know, and under ideal circumstances, we should probably give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
Yes and no. This guy's job is as an internet reporter/journalist of media products; so what he says on twitter, especially about media products, is not exactly ever fully "personal", because his internet presence is also intrinsically professional. There are many jobs like this, where any opinion you express publicly can, and will, be attributed to your professional life. It comes with the territory, and it does mean that, yes, you need to "manage" your personal public statements just as carefully as those intended to be professional. You might argue that's not fair, or it's a standard that doesn't necessarily apply to others, but it's still true.
And here is where I totally disagree. ESRB ratings provide no value judgements. They are simple informative declarations that, "Hey, this content is in here, and you might not like it/think it's appropriate". The tone of this review was anything but. It did not state that some people might be offended, or find content uncomfortable, it straight up called out developmental choices and the inclusion of said content as "disappointing". It wasn't a warning, it is a chastisement.
Even then, the guy is perfectly in his rights to say so; it's a review, inherently subjective, after all. But it doesn't automatically make it a good review, or mean that there actually are problems with the game that need to be addressed. All it means is that, yes, there is potentially offensive content in the game, and surprise, you can find people who are offended by it (including professional reviewers).
I'm having a similar internal struggle right now. Terry Pratchett's book I Shall Wear Midnight has a scene early on which is basically the problem scene mentioned here - a young girl beaten so hard she miscarries. I think it's handled very well and is very powerful.
However.
I'm currently reading the series to my wife to keep us occupied on car journeys. I honestly don't think I'm going to be able to cope with reading that chapter aloud, because it feels like I'm, I don't know, complicit in the act even though the book treats it as in no way a good thing.
So yeah, I can see how the passive act of watching something can garner different reactions to the active act of guiding a character through something.
TL;DR: Censor everything because I am the arbiter of what is good. Thanks in advance.