Do you think The Witcher series is "mature?"

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

I'm not 'trying' to see it. And to be honest if you think monsters and elves are perfectly acceptable but physically capable or otherwise dominant females will break your suspense of disbelief then I don't really know what to say to you.

Skyrim has this and it does no damage to the game whatsoever. I find it kind of disturbing that society being dismissive towards women is part of the male power fantasy.

Skyrim also was light on story, characterization and atmosphere. It was a giant playground filled with dungeons that were filled with draugr. I can't recall a single character's name in that game. Whereas I can recite the cast of many of the Witcher and Witcher 2's tertiary characters. And yet I played Skyrim far more than I played either of the Witcher games.

If a series isn't for you, that's fine. But to compare it to something that isn't even comparable on a basic level looks pretty foolish. (Edit: This was in response to comparing it to Lesure Suit Larry)

And yet having capable female characters has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Unless you are arguing that having such characters causes a game to somehow lose depth...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

And yet having capable female characters has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Unless you are arguing that having such characters causes a game to somehow lose depth...

Which game has the incapable female characters? So we can establish what the hell we're talking about?

 

[Frostbite3789]

And yet having capable female characters has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Unless you are arguing that having such characters causes a game to somehow lose depth...

Except that's twisting my words in the worst way and not at all what I said. In fact I'd say The Witcher 2 has more capable female characters because they're memorable. They're actual characters, rather than just some NPC. I got way into the Dark Brotherhood quest, and I can't even remember the name of the head of the Skyrim chapter. I do remember she ended up

Spoiler

getting killed for daring to have new ideas and trying to be strong.

which I wouldn't call having a capable female character at all.

There are multiple points in both Witcher games where you only survive because of the involvement of a female character.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip.

I didn't mean for Triss to have a game all to herself just that you could either play as Geralt or Triss. Like playing as Angel or Buffy. I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination.

None of those things were levelled towards the second game, sorry if it seemed that way. Also I never portrayed you as a 'champion of sexism'...what? Just that I find it strange that everyone seems defensive of a stupid trope that only seeks to extend sexism.

It would be nice to have a game we could all enjoy but since the book its based on seems like a male version of a cheap romance novel then I guess we can't.

Why they can't just portray women as equal is beyond me.

 

[Vegosiux]

Okay I'm a little exasperated by now, reading through this.

I mean, tunnel-visioning a discussion into how it HAS to be about "tropes vs. women" is one way to effectively kill it. And all of the "cooler and edgier than thou" types notwithstanding, it's hard to discuss anything meaningfully when it gets turned into a back and forth over one particular detail.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Okay I'm a little exasperated by now, reading through this.

I mean, tunnel-visioning a discussion into how it HAS to be about "tropes vs. women" is one way to effectively kill it. And all of the "cooler and edgier than thou" types notwithstanding, it's hard to discuss anything meaningfully when it gets turned into a back and forth over one particular detail.

Sorry that I want decent female characters that I can relate too....I guess it's super hard.

 

[xorinite]

I didn't mean for Triss to have a game all to herself just that you could either play as Geralt or Triss. Like playing as Angel or Buffy. I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination.

Triss has powers and abilities ranging from relatively mundane in scope to godlike, she also doesn't spend her time fighting against monsters building up levels, collecting equipment and so on, she spends her time involved in political intrigue and manipulating rulers.

Plopping Triss into Geralts shoes, or vice versa would serve to gut the character in question of anything that made them important.

 

[Zombie Sodomy]

I'd hardly call the naughty postcards mature, but then again why should they be? The rest of the game is so dark, with all the racism, that you need a little immaturity to offset it. What better way to relax after a hard day of monster fighting and politics is there than bedding a dryad, getting drunk, and beating the shit out of some guy in a bar. It's a fucking game after all!

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I'll generally agree with this, with the caveat that it is my experience with low fantasy that it tends to (not universally, but tends to) tackle more "adult" themes and plot elements than high fantasy, which seems to routinely fall into the honey trap of plucky heroes vs ultimate evil. It's very rare to find high fantasy that doesn't aggressively ape Tolkien, as well, making it a highly incestuous sub genre.
The problem with "mature" is that it's something of a value judgment, and thus highly subjective.

Exactly. Which is why saying any genre is more mature than another is a bad idea - because, while one work may be more mature than another, a genre never is because individual works will always break the mold.

Also, the definition of what is "mature" is also highly subjective. Usually when people say that, they mean that it contains "blood and titties" - but many other people look at the addition of pointless blood and titties as a sign of immaturity.

Low Fantasy is a perfectly good genre. I quite enjoy the Game of Thrones - it has some good characters and interesting story lines. I prefer the TV series to the book because the books drag sometimes and occasionally pick really bad choices for the POV characters.

High Fantasy is a perfectly good genre as well.

That said, both high and low fantasy have shitty books.

Oh, and since you mentioned Tolkien, his books aren't High Fantasy - they're Middle Fantasy. The levels of magic and magical creatures vs gritty realism is actually right in the middle on his books - High Fantasy tends to be higher (more like D&D) and Low fantasy tends to be lower (like GoT). And Low Fantasy is not immune to ripping off Tolkien. After all, Tolkien also wrote the Hobbit, the third section of which is massively political.

By aping Tolkien, I assume you mean using the standard races or standard magical McGuffin plots. But Tolkien established a lot more than that. One could say that Game of Thrones apes Tolkien by using an Expy of Europe for its setting.

Anyway, my point is this: Hack writers are hack writers no matter what genre they write in. There are terrible books in both genre (in all genres actually).

And, of course, there are also great books - great works of art that everyone should read - in both genres (again, in all genres actually).

That's why I follow authors rather than genres. Because a good author is far more consistent than a genre.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I didn't mean for Triss to have a game all to herself just that you could either play as Geralt or Triss. Like playing as Angel or Buffy. I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination.

Triss has powers and abilities ranging from relatively mundane in scope to godlike, she also doesn't spend her time fighting against monsters building up levels, collecting equipment and so on, she spends her time involved in political intrigue and manipulating rulers.

Plopping Triss into Geralts shoes, or vice versa would serve to gut the character in question of anything that made them important.

Oh right so it's totally impossible that they could approach things in different ways. Because there has never been games like that...gotcha.

Something tells me you would just feel all grouchy if we could play as Triss. It's meant to be YOUR game after all.

 

[xorinite]

Oh right so it's totally impossible that they could approach things in different ways. Because there has never been games like that...gotcha.

You just said you didn't want them to approach things in different ways, you wanted basically Geralt or Triss to be interchangable. Which would gut them of anything that made them special

Something tells me you would just feel all grouchy if we could play as Triss.

I'd be grouchy if they gutted Triss as a character simply to shoehorn her into an interchangeable position with Geralt.

I'd have a different opinion about a game about Triss in which we actually do play that character, however you have already stated you are against such a game.

I don't know why you think Triss is undeserving of her own game. Do you care about the characters actually having their own development as characters, or is it just about having a female avatar to you?

I think it would be amazing (although hard to pull off) to play a game about manipulating rulers, casting massively powerful (although non-modular) spells and altering the fate of an entire nation.

Edited addition:

With their emphasis on consequences we could have Triss put into a situation where she can engage in a ritual with other magic users to turn the tide in a war, and imagine the fallout from that. If she says no, she abandons her friends to some fate, if she says yes then the ritual works and kills a lot of people, and then there's a renewed surge of attacks against magic users.

Not only that but Triss, prior to the dissolution of the sorceresses lodge, is part of an overtly sexist organization, which gives us the ability to explore that part of the game world; is it the case that male magic users are inherently dangerous aggressive and unstable, or is this a product of the society in which they are raised, or just propaganda? Should the lodge continue to advocate for males being prohibited from practicing magic, or is their position immoral?

It also gives us the ability to look into the older magical events in more detail like the convocation of the spheres, the origin of humanity in this world. Was it as the Elves claim that humanity came along with the other monsters from another world?

Addition ends.

It's meant to be YOUR game after all.

Why is this to be my game?

You do not need to assert things about me, including my intent, I am sitting right here and you have the capacity to ask me. It's usually a better thing to ask and then judge than make judgement prior to asking.

Edit: clarification and decrease of heat.

Edit: further speculation on how much fun a Triss game could be.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Oh right so it's totally impossible that they could approach things in different ways. Because there has never been games like that...gotcha.

Something tells me you would just feel all grouchy if we could play as Triss. It's meant to be YOUR game after all.

I can only speak for myself, but I'd play a Triss game in a red hot second. I'd prefer her as a protagonist to Geralt. Who, despite my affection for the second game, I still find faintly ridiculous.

It would be a very different game, though, due to their respective abilities.

Snip

All good points, well said.

By aping Tolkien, I assume you mean using the standard races or standard magical McGuffin plots.

That was indeed my conjecture, yes. I am greatly tired of Ultimate Evils and the Magical Artifacts that are the key to their defeat. By all means though, if you can recommend some high quality high or medium fantasy I'd appreciate it. I'm in a bit of a rut with the low fantasy, and I think I've already read all the high watermarks of the genre.

 

[Vegosiux]

Also, the definition of what is "mature" is also highly subjective. Usually when people say that, they mean that it contains "blood and titties" - but many other people look at the addition of pointless blood and titties as a sign of immaturity.

Indeed, which is what brings me to the first thing I said in this thread, that "mature" is not the same thing as "rated M". I don't mind blood, I don't mind tits, and as someone in the thread already mentioned, as far as their maturity value goes, it's pretty much neutral, so they don't make a work any more and less mature just by being there.

But the work going "By the way, have you noticed the blood and tits you just walked past? Let me shove them in your face again, just in case" isn't incredibly mature.

Light entertainment catering to the basic human instincts (sex and violence) can't be incredibly deep if that's all it's concerned with, and both blood and tits are the same thing regardless of what angle you take a picture of them from.

Now snipping the parts of your post I don't have anything useful to reply on rather than "Yup, you got that right"...

Anyway, my point is this: Hack writers are hack writers no matter what genre they write in. There are terrible books in both genre (in all genres actually).

And, of course, there are also great books - great works of art that everyone should read - in both genres (again, in all genres actually).

That's why I follow authors rather than genres. Because a good author is far more consistent than a genre.

This is a rather good point, but I'm going to say that I'm not too big on "brand loyalty". There of course are authors I trust a whole lot more than others, but I try to keep a critical eye and even my favorite artists often catch my (respectful) flak for weaving their stories into a direction I personally find unfitting - but it's their story, so I'm just stating an opinion, it's not my place to tell the what they should write, after all.

An interesting thing, however, is when an author tries themselves outside their "comfort zone" genre, and those are the works I generally to try out, if only to see how they turn out.

 

[Thoric485]

No. Its content is clearly targeted at 13-year olds. Convoluted political plots, uncertain relationships, suffocating moral ambiguity, they're crazy for that shit. It's right behind Bieber fever.

But gathering archetypical companions to defeat an ancient evil? Choosing blue for good response and red for bad response? That's the sophisticated mature entertainment only adults can appreciate.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No. Its content is clearly targeted at 13-year olds. Convoluted political plots, uncertain relationships, suffocating moral ambiguity, they're crazy for that shit.

TIL "The Wire" is clearly targeted at 13 year olds.

I remember when I was 13, and I thought morality was ambiguous. Then I got older and realized it was actually Black and White!

 

[Maeshone]

I didn't mean for Triss to have a game all to herself just that you could either play as Geralt or Triss. Like playing as Angel or Buffy. I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination.

Triss has powers and abilities ranging from relatively mundane in scope to godlike, she also doesn't spend her time fighting against monsters building up levels, collecting equipment and so on, she spends her time involved in political intrigue and manipulating rulers.

Plopping Triss into Geralts shoes, or vice versa would serve to gut the character in question of anything that made them important.

Oh right so it's totally impossible that they could approach things in different ways. Because there has never been games like that...gotcha.

Something tells me you would just feel all grouchy if we could play as Triss. It's meant to be YOUR game after all.

Primary reason that playing as Triss would be dumb: The Witcher is Geralts story. Triss isn't going to be there constantly, especially if Geralt has all his memories back by the third game.

Second reason: You don't think that playing as a character that can potentially eradicate entire armies in a game that tries to make you be tactical and not just swing your swords recklessly would be kind of... boring? Not to mention the fact that magic has some pretty harsh limits on what you can do before you need to rest in the Witcher-verse.

 

[Neonit]

If anything, witcher showed us how "sex-centered" a lot of people/gamers are.
Sex is such a small part of the story, and yet its the part that is most talked about.
Yes, the card bit in the first game was stupid. Yes, that part was immature.
But there were more parts than this one.

I consider witcher to be mature because it tackles issues that most games wouldnt dare, or at least - would try to sugarcoat them.
I consider witcher to be mature because most of the characters are more fleshed out than in most games (arguably, this could be because of the story/lore before the game was even made, but still)
I consider witcher to be mature because choices arent based on the "ye olde morality wheel" where top is good, middle is neutral and bottom is evil EVERY-SINGLE-TIME.

So yeah, imho - a lot of people just shout "OMG its immature because boobs and cards!" and frankly, concentrating on that one point and ignoring all others seem immature to me.

But thats just my opinion.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

I didn't mean for Triss to have a game all to herself just that you could either play as Geralt or Triss. Like playing as Angel or Buffy. I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination.

Setting aside the fact that it's an adaptation of a novel series that is broadly about Geralt and shouldn't really be expected to feature anyone but Geralt as playable characters...Triss and Geralt are two very different beasts.

First, just to make it clear; Witcher gameplay revolves around swordplay, a handful of simple and clearly defined spells, and alchemy (potions, traps, bombs). That trifecta is pretty well entrenched into the game.

The series lore establishes that only witchers can use potions; they're poisonous for anyone else. That means any sections with Triss don't have potions. There's little reason for her to use traps and bombs, either, and she obviously doesn't use a sword. She's a sorceress; she's protrayed as very powerful, but specifically in magic.

So for Triss to be playable, and for it to be actually meaningful isntead of a token scripted sequence, they would have to completely redesign the three-limbed combat system to focus on spell use rather than an even mix of spells, swordplay and alchemy. Triss would basically have to get her own combat system totally distinct from Geralt's. It's a lot of extra work, and CD Projekt would really be questioning why it's necessary - this is a game about Geralt, after all, and they're not required to make Triss playable.

If they did, it'd probably come out looking like the Catwoman sequences in Arkham City - and those were totally not sexist! [http://www.nostalgiarush.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Arkham-City-Catwoman-Dat-Ass.jpg] Nup, nuh-uh!

tl;dr Triss-playable sections would require a lot of work on CD Projekt's part, and aren't guaranteed to not be sexist anyway.

What's interesting, though, is that the next game in the series (Wild Hunt) is rumoured to include Ciri, a female witcher from the novels, as a side character. It would be much, much easier for CD Projekt to make Ciri playable - she's a witcher, so the gameplay would be identical - and it's actually a great idea because she's a fan favourite from the book series as well. I don't think it's likely they'll actually do something like that, because it's still just extra work (VA, animations) for no reward but it's a great idea for a DLC pack or something for the enhanced edition.

Just that I find it strange that everyone seems defensive of a stupid trope that only seeks to extend sexism.

If the trope you're talking about is "the Middle Ages were sexist," I'm not sure how that extends sexism. If anything, it's condemnatory - sexists in fantasy settings like this are almost always portrayed negatively, in order to clearly hammer home the fact that sexism is bad.

Putting that side, however, what's interesting on this matter is that the most distinctive element about the Witcher novel series - apart from its deconstruction of fairy tales - is its anachronistic appropriation of modern-day concepts (such as genetic engineering, climate change, wildlife conservation, drug use, terrorism, racism, and sexism) into a low-fantasy medieval climate. Having a mage sit down in an inn and talk to Geralt about genetic engineering created an eerie disjunct between the apparently primitive trappings of the setting and the very modern nature of the concepts they were discussing.

When Sapkowski was first getting popular, one of the things his Polish fanbase used to argue about was this jarring disrespect for "historical accuracy." Sapkowski's response, naturally, was that he wasn't writing a history book, and the reason why genetic engineering was a thing in the Witcher setting was because they'd happened to formulate genetic theory around the same time they discovered fireballs. In Sapkowski's opinion, he could put as much genetic engineering and racism in his novel as he wanted, thank you very much.

So the criticism - "Why is there so much sexism in this supposedly medieval fantasy setting? Surely, if you can accept elves, you can accept a less sexist society" - is misguided. The sexism is there because Sapkowski wants to send a message about sexism. His antagonists are politically incorrect because he wants you to hate them. CD Projekt, when adapting the games, chose not to whitewash them because, like Sapkowski, they saw the value in having a setting that is sexist - it allows you to criticise sexism. You're using the trappings of fantasy to comment on real-world issues.

I don't see why that's a bad thing. How are we supposed to teach people that sexism is bad if our fictional worlds are sanitised in the name of political correctness? Sure, King Henselt (from the Witcher 2) is a sexist pig. He rapes a female character in the course of the story. He's portrayed as an arrogant, megalomaniacal, bloodthirsty douchenozzle. You get to kill him. They do that to tell you that sexism is bad. "Look at King Henselt! He's sexist, and he's also a raging cockboffin! You don't want to be like King Henselt, do you?"

Why they can't just portray women as equal is beyond me.

This is one of those "you really should play the game" responses, but in all seriousness - the Witcher video game series has a very good track record for portraying its female cast as competent, self-sufficient, independent, and broadly equal to men. I say "broadly equal" because, on the whole, there are a lot more stupid men in the Witcher games than stupid women.

So to answer your question; the games do portray women as equal. I made a list on the top of page 4, so you should just refer to that if you're curious.

 

[Therumancer]

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?

It's trolling. It's common throughout geekdom nowadays to "diss" a mature rating, especially on something you don't like, by trying to point out how all of the things that warrent that rating actually make it immature. Over the top blood, sexuality, etc... since really mature people have "overcome such base things".

Anyone with half a brain knows that the "M" ratibng basically means a product that the immature, ie kids, should not be exposed to. It makes no distinction of how that material is used, purely working on the subject of content.

As far as ratings go, I'm not paticularly sure that either "The Witcher" or "Dragon Age" deserve an "M" designation going by the intent of the label. Simply because very little that either of them do is beyond a PG-13 level, and would thus fall into a "T" rating. Some might remember old "self aware" jokes in movies like Scream where Sydney's boyfriend climbs into her window to get it on, but she says "no, but I can give you the PG-13 version" before flashing her tits. When it comes to death and violence PG-13 movies also have a great amount of latitude in going there, as far as people just being shot or stabbed, and a bit of blood, that's no big thing. I mean heck they show historical documentaries and such where people get beheaded (such as videos on The French Revolution) and even have the heads lopped off, falling into buckets, and perhaps notations on death masks and how we know what a lot of the victims look like due to in some cases having had their corpses used to create moulds for wax figures and so on.

Generally speaking Geralt wanders around bedding everything female he can get his hands on, but really the sex scenes don't show a whole lot, at most you might see some bare breasts. Even the nymph/dryad in the first game has her hair strategically placed to cover her lower goods. In Dragon Age the sex scenes were lacking entirely, and I don't even think it had any breast nudity. As far as fight scenes go, both involve some scenes of people getting run through with swords or whatever, sometimes "brutally" in slow motion, but that's kind of "meh" overall.

At the end of the day nobody is going to claim either fantasy title is exactly the deepest thing out there plotwise, and even in terms of raw content, neither really deserves an "M" rating, making such discussions silly on any conceivable level.

I'll also go so far as to say that I feel misuse of the ratings system is a huge problem with games in paticular right now. If a game has anything remotely touchy in it, it seems game companies are willing to concede to an "M" rating too easily when it doesn't fit. Likewise a "T" rating tends to be so sterilized in most cases that it probably doesn't deserve even that rating. Today there are a lot of stories about how "well, if we did this, it would warrent an AO rating" when really it wouldn't, it would just hit a properly used "M".

This is in part what I think causes so many problems, gaming companies surrender so often and label things "M" that shouldn't be there, that parents rapidly begin to think the "M" label is meaningless because there generally isn't anything that offensive or damaging in the game. It makes it so when something does come along that warrents the rating (specially if the parents bought it for Jr.) it's shocking, and people jump all over the ratings for "not doing their job", albiet they ultimatly failed in doing their job in a way differant from the accusations.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

snip.

I didn't mean for Triss to have a game all to herself just that you could either play as Geralt or Triss. Like playing as Angel or Buffy. I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination.

None of those things were levelled towards the second game, sorry if it seemed that way. Also I never portrayed you as a 'champion of sexism'...what? Just that I find it strange that everyone seems defensive of a stupid trope that only seeks to extend sexism.

It would be nice to have a game we could all enjoy but since the book its based on seems like a male version of a cheap romance novel then I guess we can't.

Why they can't just portray women as equal is beyond me.

so for you every single game that doesn't have a female protagonist is sexist ?
I think YOU are the sexist.