Raikas said:
The game world is designed to be explored by the player though. So the player experience is the real social context - so I don't see the objection to that. And frankly, I think people wince at painful scenes as much as they grin at the triumphant ones, so I don't actually think that's a major distinction.
Not sure about that. There's the expectation from a game that calls itself "RPG" to deliver a consistent world, characters and stories - if those parts are developed with care and effort, separate social context can emerge. Obviously, it is not exclusive to "RPGs" and "Dungeon Master" is hardly a good example. Witcher, however, belongs in that group, in the worst case only thanks to earlier books. Reception can obviously differ between players, any idea presented in-game is filtered through our own background but only the perspective of your character is "reality". As long as game provides enough tools and does not insult common sense, it's down to every player to either acknowledge that "Geralt's PoV" or to simply ignore it for one of many reasons, personal idea of an entertainment being probably one of them
Thing with wincing at painful scenes is that it's pretty much the same as movies: you may relate, even pity, but you are not losing anything or "in anything". I imagine "dying" in-game can cause some wincing, but something tells me that after 45th death animation only a choice between "reload" or "quit" is left, unless you suggest people go "aww, poor witcher, eaten by Drowners... again ;( ". Then there's everything "mundane", that does not get its own cutscenes but is easy to identify using just a common sense - cold, dirt, stench, minor injuries... (Tomb Raider got slightly further, but still managed to mess it up). Just because we can get through the game ignoring it (like we can switch ME3 into Story Mode and walk into a rocket volley) doesn't mean we have the license to use such model to describe what is being presented in different areas than gameplay itself - like story, world, lore, etc. It doesn't matter whether it was "easy for me to kill that Harpy with few clicks", it was still a dangerous job for a lousy payment. As long as game can defend itself on that ground with enough consistency, treating it as a "male power fantasy" is a valid choice - but also *only* a choice. So again, back to players with that one
Raikas said:
Heh, I think it works in arguments because it's a completely valid point. I just don't think that's fully a negative - it's limiting, but that doesn't make it bad (like I said, that's part of why I thought it was entertaining).
Oh, agreed about that. Thing is, when we *change* the subject, we should also change the perspective. If we are talking about lore, world or characters etc, that inbalance between rewards and costs switches to "reality". Which means, again, blood, filth, cold and pain, not "clicking to get a sexy cutscene". It might have some merit with blank slate characters or Diablo "lore", but also misrepresents other, well-crafted examples.
If, however, we are talking why this game can be a nice power fantasy, then we are back outside, discussing what video games can offer in general an in specific cases - great feats without great costs, string of small prizes both in-game and in my head
But that also means we recognize the illusion, so the only problem about "offensive" content can be related to "affecting young minds". Well, instasolved too, game is not for kids, nor does it have "educational" purposes. Everything else is basically "looking for a reason to be offended".
