Support NeoGAF

[Emperor_Uriel]

don't openly discuss story stuff that are in the novels without spoiler tags. that wasn't even a general spoiler at all. i don't care about context. people like me are still in the middle of reading the novels. i am at the part where ciri was still a kid i.e. the third book so why the fuck are you discussing specific back stories in the review thread? and you still haven't put spoiler tags on it. i don't care if it's nothing significant. you don't get to decide which ones are significant enough to be left out.

Haha Okay, fine. Sorry, you're right. I just see a picture of an old man's head next to a slew of expletives and get openly defiant on instinct. You'd think the moratorium on novels 10+ years old (in a thread dedicated to games that all serve as sequels to those novels) would be up by now.

This isn't necessarily true at all.

Spoiler

There's a vast spectrum of how people deal with sexual trauma in childhood, and hypersexuality is actually a very common one.

True, but that's not really a logical response. Like I said, a logical Ciri would be much more cautious about her appearance. Of course, Ciri isn't logical.

Spoiler

Or sane, arguably.

 

[taco543]

You didn't read the last 5 pages didn't you??

I'll be honest I just F5'd the first page and didn't see it added lol

 

[Jay Shadow]

Have you guys ever heard Geis on Rebel FM?

Stopped listening to the show when every time a game discussed used the Unreal Engine (which is pretty often) his main critique was a "ugh, it uses Unreal". Unless he liked the game then his contribution was "It uses Unreal, but they must have done something to it."

Still, without me reading the specifics of the review, his 8 for Wild Hunt is higher than his 7 for the Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition, so it still made a better impression on him than their previous work..

 

[EmptySpace]

for anyone interested Polygon posted their review: http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/13/8533059/the-witcher-3-review-wild-hunt-PC-PS4-Xbox-one

Score:

Spoiler

8

that last part was just painful.

yes, it is part of the world. ever saw the rockstar-style trailer? "even racism". these accusations of "well the message is unsettling" are just trying to stir some controversy. the witcher does not endorse nor promote sexism against women. that's like saying 12 years a slave is promoting slavery and racism. those themes are part of the world, of the society in which the stories and characters are set. this is very akin to that god of war ascension bullcrap where media peeps were losing their shit over a trophy.

there is a difference between active encouragement/endorsement/propaganda and presenting a world which has its own sets of laws/rules/customs/traditions/culture/etc.

it is both a trope of literature in medieval fantasy, and at the same time was something that actually happened to women until recent history. any media set in past times would most likely reflect the values and issues present in those times. you don't see most people in medieval fantasy to be secular, forward-thinking. you don't see geeks, or savvy capitalists. you see slaves, poor people being less intelligent, the rich thinking they're gods, the art of combat and war told by men, religious figures as beacons of hope and goodwill, etc. yes these are the same old themes but then again period pieces reflect the societies they are trying to emulate.

 

[The Inventor]

Between "what's on ___ store" and the game simply being titled "Witcher" it looks like the front page was laid out by a dog with a computer.

The green text comes up as voice commands when when your activate the kinect. I was commenting on the fact that all you have to say is witcher instead of having to say like "tomb raider definitive edition" or something so yeah.

Exactly. "What's on" and "Store" are different tabs also. A pretty smart dog I'd say

 

[Corpekata]

that last part was just painful.

yes, it is part of the world. ever saw the rockstar-style trailer? "even racism". these accusations of "well the message is unsettling" are just trying to stir some controversy. the witcher does not endorse nor promote sexism against women. that's like saying 12 years a slave is promoting slavery and racism. those themes are part of the world, of the society in which the stories and characters are set. this is very akin to that god of war ascension bullcrap where media peeps were losing their shit over a trophy.

there is a difference between active encouragement/endorsement/propaganda and presenting a world which has its own sets of laws/rules/customs/traditions/culture/etc.

it is both a trope of literature in medieval fantasy, and at the same time was something that actually happened to women until recent history. any media set in past times would most likely reflect the values and issues present in those times. you don't see most people in medieval fantasy to be secular, forward-thinking. you don't see geeks, or savvy capitalists. you see slaves, poor people being less intelligent, the rich thinking they're gods, the art of combat and war told by men, religious figures as beacons of hope and goodwill, etc. yes these are the same old themes but then again period pieces reflect the societies they are trying to emulate.

What period society is the series trying to emulate with Playboy shoots and sex cards?

It's being incredibly disingenuous to try and handwave away any criticism of the series' depiction of women as the story being true to a period of time. It's like with Game of Thrones. Yeah, a big part of it is the shitty way women are treated. But it also manages to have derisively earned HBO a joke that it has a CEO of Tits making sure a lot of the exposition scenes take place in Littlefinger's brothel. You can have themes of injustice and cruelty while still being pretty grody.

 

[meanspartan]

Diversity and representation are not BS reasons. Even if you're not gonna look at it that way, entertainment is gonna get stale (it kinda already is) if you're gonna feature the same stories (white or otherwise) over and over again. Besides, art has an inherent social, cultural, and/or socio-cultural value.

I don't know about you, guys, but I really appreciate the Polygon review. I've been asking about the Witcher games' writing since yesterday but didn't get a satisfying or at least informative answer. Judging from the articles and reviews I've been reading and videos I've been analyzing, CDPR succeeds in its world-building and storytelling and I'm sure it's true (those creature designs, for instance, are really creative and the politics, it seems, are engaging). Polygon's review just fleshed that out more for me than any other review and I'm thankful for that.

Not trying to cause a scene. Just my two cents.

Diversity is great.

Trying to pressure an Eastern European dev making a story based on Eastern European myths to include people not from Eastern Europe into THEIR GAME to satisfy some politically correct racial balance quota, well that is not great.

 

[RDreamer]

More like everyone sexualized her. Mistle was a

Spoiler

pedophile who prevented her from being molested just so she could molest Ciri herself. Even Geralt was really skeeved out by her.

Then she had a crush on that middle-aged messenger guy who

Spoiler

lied on top of her groped her as he died during an ambush.

And she didn't really have any fondness for Auberon, whose

Spoiler

impotence prevented him from having barely consensual sex with him multiple times at the behest of Eredin.

She's had a total of two decent relationships, the one with that twelve-year-old boy who jumped rocks and with whom

Spoiler

she experimented with kissing in private,

and Galahad, who rubbed her feet once and seemed nice enough

Spoiler

(and whose fate is ambiguous).

Spoiler

A logical woman with Ciri's traumatic sexual past would be wearing a burkha rather than showing off her cleavage. Or a full suit of armor. With spikes on it.

You have a point. I'm not quite finished with the books yet. About halfway through Tower of the Swallows

 

[Teeth]

that last part was just painful.

yes, it is part of the world. ever saw the rockstar-style trailer? "even racism". these accusations of "well the message is unsettling" are just trying to stir some controversy. the witcher does not endorse nor promote sexism against women. that's like saying 12 years a slave is promoting slavery and racism. those themes are part of the world, of the society in which the stories and characters are set. this is very akin to that god of war ascension bullcrap where media peeps were losing their shit over a trophy.

there is a difference between active encouragement/endorsement/propaganda and presenting a world which has its own sets of laws/rules/customs/traditions/culture/etc.

it is both a trope of literature in medieval fantasy, and at the same time was something that actually happened to women until recent history. any media set in past times would most likely reflect the values and issues present in those times. you don't see most people in medieval fantasy to be secular, forward-thinking. you don't see geeks, or savvy capitalists. you see slaves, poor people being less intelligent, the rich thinking they're gods, the art of combat and war told by men, religious figures as beacons of hope and goodwill, etc. yes these are the same old themes but then again period pieces reflect the societies they are trying to emulate.

Did you read the whole thing? He makes a pretty decent case for how the game wants to have its cake and eat it too.

In one sense, yeah, times were bad for women and they expressly present it as such. But then in the other, they tart up all the women, unnecessarily so, especially for their occupations and environmental conditions.

You're saying it's a trope to have all of the women victimized in fantasy fiction and that's exactly what's being expressed here; it's tropey. It's the video game constant. It tries to push forward one way, but stumbles when it's completely tone deaf in another.

Diversity is great.

Trying to pressure an Eastern European dev making a story based on Eastern European myths to include people not from Eastern Europe into THEIR GAME to satisfy some politically correct racial balance quota, well that is not great.

Yes and no.

The problem is, historically, Europe wasn't that white washed at the time in reality either.

The all-white Europe with shiny knights is a myth.

 

[JeffG]

So when will xbox one pre loading start?

2 weeks ago

 

[EmptySpace]

What period society is is trying to emulate with Playboy shoots and sex cards?

It's being incredibly disingenuous to try and handwave away any criticism of the series' depiction of women as the story being true to a period of time. It's like with Game of Thrones. Yeah, a big part of it is the shitty way women are treated. But it also manages to have derisively earned HBO a joke that it has a CEO of Tits making sure a lot of the exposition scenes take place in Littlefinger's brothel.

oh i don't know, anything before the 1940s?

seriously, going by technology (as we often relate the time periods to), this was way before da vinci's time and we all know there was no gender equality in the 1400s.

why is it being disingenuous? it isn't like gender inequality is only the "problem" present in the witcher world. in fact, humans vs elves is a far bigger "problem" but no one gives a shit about that because it either doesn't fit into their narrative, has no real-world connection, or both, when it is a bigger "problem" in the world than gender inequality. what's disingenuous is painting this one "problem" when the world itself has a lot of them yet the other "problems" are simply being ignored "oh because it's fiction and elves aren't really real". what about the income disparity of the poor and the rich in witcher 3? you see why i said that last part of the review was painful to read now?

You didn't read the last 5 pages didn't you??

just saw it. am i going to get banned?

 

[Teeth]

oh i don't know, anything before the 1940s?

seriously, going by technology (as we often relate the time periods to), this was way before da vinci's time and we all know there was no gender equality in the 1400s.

why is it being disingenuous? it isn't like gender inequality is only the "problem" present in the witcher world. in fact, humans vs elves is a far bigger "problem" but no one gives a shit about that because it either doesn't fit into their narrative, has no real-world connection, or both, when it is a bigger "problem" in the world than gender inequality. what's disingenuous is painting this one "problem" when the world itself has a lot of them yet the other "problems" are simply being ignored "oh because it's fiction and elves aren't really real". what about the income disparity of the poor and the rich in witcher 3? you see why i said that last part of the review was painful to read now?

But why are all the female leads portrayed as sexy times?

 

[Varna]

ima pass on this game.

I did not enjoy Witcher one nor two. I just could not get over how much I disliked the combat in both games and this game seem to have a similar combat style.

This is were I am at. It's really unfortunate because I really like the characters and story. Playing these games is an absolute chore and it looks like this game uses the same basic combat as TW2.

 

[Corpekata]

oh i don't know, anything before the 1940s?

seriously, going by technology (as we often relate the time periods to), this was way before da vinci's time and we all know there was no gender equality in the 1400s.

why is it being disingenuous? it isn't like gender inequality is only the "problem" present in the witcher world. in fact, humans vs elves is a far bigger "problem" but no one gives a shit about that because it either doesn't fit into their narrative, has no real-world connection, or both, when it is a bigger "problem" in the world than gender inequality. what's disingenuous is painting this one "problem" when the world itself has a lot of them yet the other "problems" are simply being ignored "oh because it's fiction and elves aren't really real". what about the income disparity of the poor and the rich in witcher 3? you see why i said that last part of the review was painful to read now?



just saw it. am i going to get banned?

Are you suggesting they're using playboy and sex cards to evoke feelings of gender inequality in the players? Weird I thought they were just wanting to show us titties.

 

[Bloodworth]

From my experience, even if there's still quite a bit skin shown, the sexual encounters have been far toned down from past games. There is a brothel where I assume people can partake if they choose, but otherwise, the opportunities seem to all come with women Geralt actually has meaningful relationships with. I never came across one of those awkward situations where sex felt like a reward offered for rescuing someone.

Otherwise, there are a number of strong women, some of whom certainly don't seem to have any potential as love interests. Shieldmaidens are a common site in the towns of Skellige, and there are a variety of age / body types among other women such as innkeeps etc.

I think it is worth a healthy debate, but probably best saved for after people have actually played this game, rather than making assumptions on the past two.

 

[EmptySpace]

But why are all the female leads portrayed as sexy times?

they're not. there are plenty of women in witcher 3 that have buttoned up shirts.

not every woman or man is going to be covered up. period. it's like showing more than a collar bone is instantly sexist or objectification.

article mentions ciri's shirt having one too many buttons open apparently, which automatically led to "oh right sexism". i mean i just can't...this is clearly just looking to make a controversy. it's like there' so much stigma around this topic that anything other than a buttoned up shirt is considered sexist nowadays. do all women in the witcher dress like that? no. to those that do, is that considered objectification? n-o. it's just the way they're dressed. a character shows a cleavage, big deal and take out the pitchforks. i see more cleavage on the bus and it's not a big deal. ciri and whoever that other woman is aren't there to act like dead-or-alive-esque at geralt or the player. it isn't like mass effect's miranda's butt on the screen.

 

[publicpwnerer]

I love the idea that minorities can only be expressed by the colourings of black and brown skin.

The Witcher does a great job of shedding light on minorities through the various fantasy races of Elves and Dwarves etc that are considered lower than Humans, often kept as slaves, and are frequently segregated from humans. Doesn't that sound vaguely familiar to human history?

Also, I abhor the notion that games have to conform to some blogger or twitter mobs worldview. If a developer, writer or film maker wants to create a game that potentially panders to a demographic, or is risque, they should be free to do so...just like the other mediums. It's because gaming is so young that it's being overly politicised.

In the way The Witcher 3 is being accused of pandering, the Polygon review is equally pandering to a certain modern demographic.

 

[Daverid]

Something I personally didn't see mentioned in reviews, but I observed it on the IGN Stream and have ended up highly disappointed.

It seems that liberating areas always activates a cutscene, and people just instantly, magically move in. I was hoping for something a little more organic.
Wild and outrageous thoughts considered maybe you'd come back a day later and see the NPC's hauling monster corpses out and setting their stuff up. However knowing that to be expecting way too much, I was at the very least hoping that you'd clear a village, no one would move in immediately, but if you came back X in-game days later then people would occupy the village, and there might be a little more activity on the nearby roads.

However it seems like they've gone for just the typical Far Cry base liberation style bullshit, ugh.

 

[Chariot]

I love the idea that minorities can only be expressed by the colourings of black and brown skin.

This.
I think US-americans have trouble to understand that in europe a lot of ethnic minorities exist and existed that are all white or can be white to a reasonable amount. Racial opression isn't restricted to color of skin.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Diversity is great.

Trying to pressure an Eastern European dev making a story based on Eastern European myths to include people not from Eastern Europe into THEIR GAME to satisfy some politically correct racial balance quota, well that is not great.

Not that I want to advocate anyone getting a "pass" on diversity, but I do think it's fair to argue that the existence of The Witcher 3 does far more for the cause of diversity than it hurts it by not including enough minority characters. Western European myths, aesthetics and stylings dominate everything. Nearly every game with a "white" protagonist is some kind of American-Western European person (usually with very "Western" values and such). Nearly every game set in a medieval fantasy is based on a very Western European "knights and castles" type of lore. And The Witcher is based on none of those. Anyone who has experience with Upton Sinclair and The Jungle knows how poorly Eastern Europeans were once treated (and often still are). If we're going to critique the game for diversity flaws, it would be silly to not also acknowledge how amazing it is to have a game from Eastern Europe, based on Eastern European lore. In fact, it does smack somewhat of historical unawareness to not acknowledge it. If you were to look at film, books and games, I'd say we really have a dearth of Eastern European stuff to consume. I'd love some more please!

This.
I think US-americans have trouble to understand that in europe a lot of ethnic minorities exist and existed that are all white or can be white to a reasonable amount. Racial opression isn't restricted to color of skin.

It's interesting that Americans might forget this, because Anericans once racially oppressed Eastern Europeans! Eastern Europeans were once a very vilified minority in America.

 

[Teeth]

they're not. there are plenty of women in witcher 3 that have buttoned up shirts.

not every woman or man is going to be covered up. period. it's like showing more than a collar bone is instantly sexist or objectification.

article mentions ciri's shirt having one too many buttons open apparently, which automatically led to "oh right sexism". i mean i just can't...this is clearly just looking to make a controversy. it's like there' so much stigma around this topic that anything other than a buttoned up shirt is considered sexist nowadays. do all women in the witcher dress like that? no. to those that do, is that considered objectification? n-o. it's just the way they're dressed. a character shows a cleavage, big deal and take out the pitchforks. i see more cleavage on the bus and it's not a big deal. ciri and whoever that other woman is aren't there to act like dead-or-alive-esque at geralt or the player. it isn't like mass effect's miranda's butt on the screen.

Like, Ciri is literally the female Gerelt. The Lady Witcher. Why isn't she armored? Why, when it's cold out, she gets a fur collar, but still lots of cleave?

I mean, I'm not going to fight this to the ends of the earth, cuz I don't really have a horse in this race. But i can totally see the reviewer's point. And CDPR has a really bad track record for this type of thing in the Witcher games, so i can't really give them the benefit of the doubt. Even Saskia, in full armor in Witcher 2 had a plunging neck line.

When it's so consistent, you realize they are costumed a certain way for a reason.

 

[publicpwnerer]

Something I personally didn't see mentioned in reviews, but I observed it on the IGN Stream and have ended up highly disappointed.

It seems that liberating areas always activates a cutscene, and people just instantly, magically move in. I was hoping for something a little more organic.
Wild and outrageous thoughts considered maybe you'd come back a day later and see the NPC's hauling monster corpses out and setting their stuff up. However knowing that to be expecting way too much, I was at the very least hoping that you'd clear a village, no one would move in immediately, but if you came back X in-game days later then people would occupy the village, and there might be a little more activity on the nearby roads.

However it seems like they've gone for just the typical Far Cry base liberation style bullshit, ugh.

For some reason I was under the impression that's how the liberation worked (people moving in organically), as they frequently mentioned that your actions shaped the human habitat ..villages becoming deserted, or people returning etc. Rather disappointing.

I would've preferred a greater focus on that aspect, rather than absurdly large areas.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

why is it being disingenuous? it isn't like gender inequality is only the "problem" present in the witcher world. in fact, humans vs elves is a far bigger "problem" but no one gives a shit about that because it either doesn't fit into their narrative, has no real-world connection, or both, when it is a bigger "problem" in the world than gender inequality. what's disingenuous is painting this one "problem" when the world itself has a lot of them yet the other "problems" are simply being ignored "oh because it's fiction and elves aren't really real". what about the income disparity of the poor and the rich in witcher 3? you see why i said that last part of the review was painful to read now?

I think anybody who praises the game's moral ambiguity regards the treatment of the elves as a very big deal. It factors very heavily into many of the more consequential choices Geralt has to make in both the Witcher 1 and 2. But conceding that they've tackled one form of discrimination in the form of humans vs. elves doesn't automatically mean that the game has the diversity concerns covered.

Further, I'll note that regarding this as an accurate period piece just seems downright silly in a world of monsters and mutants and dragons and... do I need to go on? I don't even side with Gies in this discussion, but I feel like the mistake many make is in trying to discredit and undermine what he argues when the far more effective path to take is to simply ignore it. He feels one way and I feel another. That's ok.

I never really understand why people are so eager to really delve in to these reviews that they so vehemently disagree with. I mean, I could understand if the review was gaining traction and that became some sort of prevailing sentiment and you thought that the populace wasn't giving the game a fair shake. But anytime anybody links to something on Polygon here at least half the responses are just disparaging the site. You don't really need to roll up your sleeves and get crackin' on an academic rebuttal when a "LOL Polygon" would probably be just as effective to our readers (though I wouldn't advise that either). Gies got a lot of flack for his Bayonetta review and I thought that was unnecessary as well.

Witcher 3 is getting overwhelmingly positive reviews. I think we can let this one go. The game's honor isn't at stake when one lone reviewer raises concern about the treatment of women and minorities in the game, particularly when that reviewer is already unpopular. Just let it be.

 

[EmptySpace]

Something I personally didn't see mentioned in reviews, but I observed it on the IGN Stream and have ended up highly disappointed.

It seems that liberating areas always activates a cutscene, and people just instantly, magically move in. I was hoping for something a little more organic.
Wild and outrageous thoughts considered maybe you'd come back a day later and see the NPC's hauling monster corpses out and setting their stuff up. However knowing that to be expecting way too much, I was at the very least hoping that you'd clear a village, no one would move in immediately, but if you came back X in-game days later then people would occupy the village, and there might be a little more activity on the nearby roads.

However it seems like they've gone for just the typical Far Cry base liberation style bullshit, ugh.

that would be logistically impossible to track given that it is a dynamic world.

 

[AntiFacebook]

for anyone interested Polygon posted their review: http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/13/8533059/the-witcher-3-review-wild-hunt-PC-PS4-Xbox-one

Score:

Spoiler

8

So their main issue with this game is not about the game itself, but about what it represents?

They are doing their job wrong

 

[Steve Youngblood]

So their main issue with this game is not about the game itself, but about what it represents?

They are doing their job wrong

Ugh... stop. Let's just stop this right now. Before more bans ensue.

 

[Bloodworth]

This.
I think US-americans have trouble to understand that in europe a lot of ethnic minorities exist and existed that are all white or can be white to a reasonable amount. Racial opression isn't restricted to color of skin.

Yeah actually this is a fair point as well. I do think they did a really good job making the Nilfgaardians and Skelligans feel culturally distinct from those living in the Northern Kingdoms through accents, dress, and facial features. And again - there are folks in multiple areas who are skeptical and sometimes hostile towards outsiders. Clashing cultures are probably more emphasized this time than the familiar non-human racism.

 

[Daverid]

that would be logistically impossible to track given that it is a dynamic world.

The "wild and outrageous" version, most likely. However I don't see how the other option would be all that difficult to track, even for a "dynamic" world.
You liberate a village, and then there's just some kind of internal countdown where after X many in-game days have passed, the area now has people in it.

 

[erawsd]

From my experience, even if there's still quite a bit skin shown, the sexual encounters have been far toned down from past games. There is a brothel where I assume people can partake if they choose, but otherwise, the opportunities seem to all come with women Geralt actually has meaningful relationships with. I never came across one of those awkward situations where sex felt like a reward offered for rescuing someone.

Otherwise, there are a number of strong women, some of whom certainly don't seem to have any potential as love interests. Shieldmaidens are a common site in the towns of Skellige, and there are a variety of age / body types among other women such as innkeeps etc.

I think it is worth a healthy debate, but probably best saved for after people have actually played this game, rather than making assumptions on the past two.

Well said. This seems like a debate that no one here is really equipped to have without actual experience with the characterizations and the situations that are on display. Just arguing on hearsay is not going to get us anywhere.

Something I personally didn't see mentioned in reviews, but I observed it on the IGN Stream and have ended up highly disappointed.

It seems that liberating areas always activates a cutscene, and people just instantly, magically move in. I was hoping for something a little more organic.
Wild and outrageous thoughts considered maybe you'd come back a day later and see the NPC's hauling monster corpses out and setting their stuff up. However knowing that to be expecting way too much, I was at the very least hoping that you'd clear a village, no one would move in immediately, but if you came back X in-game days later then people would occupy the village, and there might be a little more activity on the nearby roads.

However it seems like they've gone for just the typical Far Cry base liberation style bullshit, ugh.

Hmm.. Maybe its just me but when they announced it in the Gameplay trailer and I saw the cutscene of people walking into the village I figured it would work exactly as it does.

 

[Teeth]

The "wild and outrageous" version, most likely. However I don't see how the other option would be all that difficult to track, even for a "dynamic" world.
You liberate a village, and then there's just some kind of internal countdown where after X many in-game days have passed, the area now has people in it.

I 100% guarantee this was brought up during development and thrown out (along with dozens of other ideas) for good reasons.

Like...how long should that number of days be? Would the bodies move in independently? Where would they source from? Would the player have to leave the area before they show up? What would happen if you left the game on while standing in one spot for days? What would happen if you meditated at the spot for days? Would the people only move in after you broke line of sight? So you could go out of site on day 5 at midnight, turn around at 12:01 and they would just have populated the area immediately?

The problem with trying to blend things in in a "realistic" non-gamey way is that the player will always try to break the system to see what happens. The more you try to make it natural, the more it sticks out when the sim breaks down. Whereas when you make it completely "gamey" and present it as a reward, the player usually understands that it's representative rather than poorly simulated.

 

[drgambit]

for anyone interested Polygon posted their review: http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/13/8533059/the-witcher-3-review-wild-hunt-PC-PS4-Xbox-one

Score:

Spoiler

8

Boy the polygon review makes me want to buy the game even more now...

 

[HeelPower]

Witcher 1 and 2 pretty much made every female character of note bangable(unless she's an "enemy" but that's not a rule either).The placement of these soft core scenes/cards serves as gratification for the player and not much else.

The only three characters that had some measure of self respect were Philippa ,Sile and Saskia.Even then Philippa is portrayed in an

Spoiler

S&M Lesbian scene

,and Sile shoots Geralt down when he attempts to hit on her.

I like this series ,but it is pretty garbage about Objectifying women and it is part of the gameplay that the devs designed ,and its part of Geralt as a character.

Its not about the medieval era or whatever.Sexual scenes meant solely for cheap entertainment ARE part of the series and are designed as such.

I think this is something one can definitely find to be worthy of criticism,depending on one's life views.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I'm fine with the Polygon score. Some things bother people more than others. I don't think it will affect my enjoyment of it that much, though.

 

[Artorias]

God, that Polygon review is such a joke. It's not even a review of the game. You had one job ffs.

I mean, if the entire thing was so upsetting for the reviewer, why did it get such a high score?

 

[EatChildren]

Reviews on creative mediums are not science, and substance is in the language and analysis. If in describing a game a reviewer covers topics and themes that are of no interest to you, or disagreeable, then it's an indicator that this reviewer does not review content aligned with your interests and thus not really worth investing much attention in. Irrespective of his Wild Hunt review that's how I've felt about Geis among others for some time; he does not cover or discuss games in the way I want, so I ceased consuming his written content. I haven't read his Wild Hunt review and I won't, because I don't care.

That doesn't dismiss his insight even if I disagree with his stance, as his insight might be valuable to others, even if I disagree with those people too. Ultimately though reviews really aren't about scores or controversy or whatever else, it's about finding people who share similar interests and perspective, or offer perspectives you at the very least appreciate and find interesting, and using these people as the most reliable metric for quality analysis.

In short: if it's obvious to you that Geis talks shit about things you don't agree with, then stop torturing yourself by reading his stuff.

 

[AntiFacebook]

Ugh... stop. Let's just stop this right now. Before more bans ensue.

Isn't the purpose of this thread to discuss the reviews of this game?
I don't mind the relatively low score(though i believe the 9+ scores are probably closer to what I'll think of the game myself), it's just that i find their logic flawed.

 

[Daverid]

Hmm.. Maybe its just me but when they announced it in the Gameplay trailer and I saw the cutscene of people walking into the village I figured it would work exactly as it does.

That's what I originally thought, but then a developer posted on the forums that the cutscene was only there during the Prologue (White Orchard) because they were introducing the mechanic.
So naturally I assumed it wouldn't occur out in the rest of the world, but clearly it does. So I'm just a bit disappointed in that.

I 100% guarantee this was brought up during development and thrown out (along with dozens of other ideas) for good reasons.

Like...how long should that number of days be? Would the bodies move in independently? Where would they source from? Would the player have to leave the area before they show up? What would happen if you left the game on while standing in one spot for days? What would happen if you meditated at the spot for days? Would the people only move in after you broke line of sight? So you could go out of site on day 5 at midnight, turn around at 12:01 and they would just have populated the area immediately?

The problem with trying to blend things in in a "realistic" non-gamey way is that the player will always try to break the system to see what happens. The more you try to make it natural, the more it sticks out when the sim breaks down. Whereas when you make it completely "gamey" and present it as a reward, the player usually understands that it's representative rather than poorly simulated.

Understandable, but I still don't think it needs to be that complex. Even if some people (And I think it would be rare) tried to "break" the system, because it had a more "dirty" implementation, it would still be far superior to just having NPC's instantly, magically turn up with a cutscene and occupy the area, instantly keen to do business and quests. There's no realism in that version whatsoever, no matter what you do and you can't change that, at least another solution could have some sense of realism provided the player doesn't try to break its system.

 

[antonz]

Reviews on creative mediums are not science, and substance is in the language and analysis. If in describing a game a reviewer covers topics and themes that are of no interest to you, or disagreeable, then it's an indicator that this reviewer does not review content aligned with your interests and thus not really worth investing much attention in. Irrespective of his Wild Hunt review that's how I've felt about Geis among others for some time; he does not cover or discuss games in the way I want, so I ceased consuming his written content. I haven't read his Wild Hunt review and I won't, because I don't care.

That doesn't dismiss his insight even if I disagree with his stance, as his insight might be valuable to others, even if I disagree with those people too. Ultimately though reviews really aren't about scores or controversy or whatever else, it's about finding people who share similar interests and perspective, or offer perspectives you at the very least appreciate and find interesting, and using these people as the most reliable metric for quality analysis.

In short: if it's obvious to you that Geis talks shit about things you don't agree with, then stop torturing yourself by reading his stuff.

Well said.

My only complaint is Amazon has failed me. Apparently they aren't release day delivering the Collectors Editions

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Isn't the purpose of this thread to discuss the reviews of this game?
I don't mind the relatively low score(though i believe the 9+ scores are probably closer to what I'll think of the game myself), it's just that i find their logic flawed.

If you want to discuss the review in good faith, feel free to do so. Your post was lazy and dismissive though. Frankly, my advice would just be to read EatChildren's post and see the wisdom in it. It's a great post.

 

[bbd23]

how spoilery are the video reviews?

 

[RoboPlato]

Reviews on creative mediums are not science, and substance is in the language and analysis. If in describing a game a reviewer covers topics and themes that are of no interest to you, or disagreeable, then it's an indicator that this reviewer does not review content aligned with your interests and thus not really worth investing much attention in. Irrespective of his Wild Hunt review that's how I've felt about Geis among others for some time; he does not cover or discuss games in the way I want, so I ceased consuming his written content. I haven't read his Wild Hunt review and I won't, because I don't care.

That doesn't dismiss his insight even if I disagree with his stance, as his insight might be valuable to others, even if I disagree with those people too. Ultimately though reviews really aren't about scores or controversy or whatever else, it's about finding people who share similar interests and perspective, or offer perspectives you at the very least appreciate and find interesting, and using these people as the most reliable metric for quality analysis.

In short: if it's obvious to you that Geis talks shit about things you don't agree with, then stop torturing yourself by reading his stuff.

I realized I shouldn't read Gies reviews any more when I was reading a review he wrote of a game we both loved and I couldn't agree with his justification for the score.

 

[viveks86]

Reviews on creative mediums are not science, and substance is in the language and analysis. If in describing a game a reviewer covers topics and themes that are of no interest to you, or disagreeable, then it's an indicator that this reviewer does not review content aligned with your interests and thus not really worth investing much attention in. Irrespective of his Wild Hunt review that's how I've felt about Geis among others for some time; he does not cover or discuss games in the way I want, so I ceased consuming his written content. I haven't read his Wild Hunt review and I won't, because I don't care.

That doesn't dismiss his insight even if I disagree with his stance, as his insight might be valuable to others, even if I disagree with those people too. Ultimately though reviews really aren't about scores or controversy or whatever else, it's about finding people who share similar interests and perspective, or offer perspectives you at the very least appreciate and find interesting, and using these people as the most reliable metric for quality analysis.

In short: if it's obvious to you that Geis talks shit about things you don't agree with, then stop torturing yourself by reading his stuff.

Well said. However, talking about things one doesn't like, for better or for worse, is an integral part of one's internet habit. A lot of people, myself included, find it cathartic. It's one of the reasons we are tempted to contribute to a thread only when we see a post that we disagree with. Gies is our punching bag. Let us punch so that we remain good citizens in real life. Our humanity depends on it.

 

[mujun]

I never really understand why people are so eager to really delve in to these reviews that they so vehemently disagree with.

Everyone needs to take up pitchfork and torch!

 

[Teeth]

Understandable, but I still don't think it needs to be that complex. Even if some people (And I think it would be rare) tried to "break" the system, because it had a more "dirty" implementation, it would still be far superior to just having NPC's instantly, magically turn up with a cutscene and occupy the area, instantly keen to do business and quests. There's no realism in that version whatsoever, no matter what you do and you can't change that, at least another solution could have some sense of realism provided the player doesn't try to break its system.

Well, it's more than that.

It's balancing production with budget vs. payoff, along with technological limitations.

Technologically, you'd have to keep track of:
1) Individual moving units for multiple use cases of different outposts against time of day and chonology
2) Pathing, including running into the player
3) Transition animations from walking into going about their steady state animation
4) Moving any additional set dressing that wasn't there to be there (how does this carriage and box of apples get there?)
5) Would you have the characters that are indoors move through the doors? Would they just appear inside? Do you need to create transitional animations for going through doors then getting to their steady state animation?
6) Watching out for units jamming up and other bugs
7) Bugs bugs bugs bugs
8) Bugs
9) Bugs and the player trying to mess with the units

All of this (and more) would be weighed against eliminating some other aspect of the game so that you had the time/budget to do this horeshit so that it seemed less "gamey". This would be multiplied over the course of however many outposts or whatever there would be.

So which part would you like to be removed so that this could be implemented?

Also, I imagine the cutscene transition of the "success" state is meant to imply that time has passed and Gerelt has stuck around to ensure safety or whatever. Not that they teleported in. It also solves the issue of not having to wait for new quest givers to come in, since the game doesn't really have a prolific fast travel system. You'll likely want to start picking up quests right after completing the outpost. Not wait around for "real life simulator" to happen.

 

[michaelius]

I realized I shouldn't read Gies reviews any more when I was reading a review he wrote of a game we both loved and I couldn't agree with his justification for the score.

Yes - remember that reading it gives them clicks and they think they are doing something right when they see high statistics for article like this.

 

[Dr.Acula]

I watched the GT, IGN, and GameSpot video reviews, and beyond the universal high scores, what really impressed me was that each reviewer said they spent 100+ hours with the game. A lot of open world games are incredible for 10 hours, and sometimes I see reviews and have to wonder how far they've gotten in the game. Glad to see reviewers go the extra mile on this release, and that the game holds up for a serious length playthrough.

Having said that, I may have to backlog this for my next PC

how spoilery are the video reviews?

Depends how you define "spoiler." If you're one of those people that that don't want to see a monster or something then you should stay away, but I watched GT, IGN, and GameSpot and they didn't even mention the plot at all. They mentioned characters that will appear, but you know all of them from the first two games aside from a couple of the very heavily previewed characters debuting in TW3.

 

[Corpekata]

I watched the GT, IGN, and GameSpot video reviews, and beyond the universal high scores, what really impressed me was that each reviewer said they spent 100+ hours with the game. A lot of open world games are incredible for 10 hours, and sometimes I see reviews and have to wonder how far they've gotten in the game. Glad to see reviewers go the extra mile on this release, and that the game holds up for a serious length playthrough.

Having said that, I may have to backlog this for my next PC

Probably doesn't hurt that Witcher is releasing at a good time for reviewers with releases trickling down for summer so they probably didn't have much pressure to head to other games. Probably a boon for sales too. Nothing else huge besides like Batman in a month and a half so it's going to dominate conversations for a while.

 

[Vlaphor]

Everyone needs to take up pitchfork and torch!

I've been thinking about this a bit and that is the best reason I could come up with as well. Personally, I don't agree with this review...but I don't go to Polygon for their reviews. Their thoughts on gaming don't coincide with mine, so their reviews serve little purpose to me. The worst thing that could happen here is that it affects the metacritic, and therefore affecting any potential bonuses (if the publisher does that). However, if that were the case, then the problem would lie with the publisher putting too much stock into metacritic and not with the critics themselves. As Mr. Gerstmann once mentioned, a critic that worries how their review will affect metacritic and thus potential pay for developers is a critic that isn't doing their job properly.

In the end, I say,"Polygon gonna Polygon" and move on.

 

[Momentary]

I feel like everyone is playing this game except me... and it's just sitting in SSD waiting for me to go ham on it. I have 43 days of vacation in the books. I might have to take some

 

[justgames7604]

Nice reviews.

290x don't fail me.