Support NeoGAF

[Roubjon]

1. I love The Witcher. I've loved these games since the first one (which I bought and played at launch), and I'm currently playing through The Witcher 3 and savoring every moment. It's fantastic.

2. I think the world The Witcher depicts is a deeply patriarchal and misogynistic one, which accords with what we know about both medieval and modern society. This is okay. Depiction of patriarchal and misogynistic societies is not only (mostly, I guess; it's complicated) unproblematic, it's kind of the norm. The Witcher does cast a critical eye — at times — over some of these problematic aspects, and it certainly makes it clear that the world of The Witcher is a very, very bad place to be a woman.

3. Beyond what it depicts as its milieu, yes, The Witcher is a sexist game. It has an extremely and aggressively male gaze. It is beyond obvious that the people making it are heterosexual, cisgender men who are largely unthinking about the blinkers of their (majority) perspective. For example, it features consequence-free, uncritical and deliberately titillating prostitution that has no gameplay or plot value, and which does almost nothing to examine the status and conditions of medieval prostitutes (which were abysmal). Many, many women in the game are presented salaciously for reasons that have nothing to do with plot, characterization or gameplay. We're talking about game developers that turned (largely consequence-free, uncritical) sexual encounters into collectible cards in the first game. Yes, they've moved past that, but the game is still jam-packed with subtle sexism that many players won't even notice or consider, so inured are they to sexism and their sexist perspective.

4. The marketing of The Witcher games has consistently leaned on sexist, male-gaze tropes to draw in its (overwhelmingly heterosexual, cisgender, male) audience. Looks like Cyberpunk will, too! This isn't necessarily CDProjekt's fault, but it is tacky and lame.

5. All of this is pretty standard for the games industry and for the world we live in in 2016. I don't think The Witcher 3 is much worse in these respects than most games or other popular art. And it's actually smarter and more nuanced about women and gender and sex than many other videogames — and its own source material. Admittedly, that is a very, very low bar to clear. It still sort of sucks at those things. We're making progress, though.

Great post. The majority of people are blind to this stuff and are more concerned about being accused of playing a sexist game than to actually evaluate the game itself. I mean, look how hostile some of the posters are.

 

[Kinsei]

Yes, The Witcher 3 is better than a lot of games when it comes to female characters but that's not a very high bar. There's still a ton of sexist shit in it too.

Come on guys, it is sexist. It doesn't mean the game will not be good and I love The Witcher 3 but let's face it, there's a lot of male gaze in these games. And I know, we see Geralt naked too but it's not the same, Yen and Triss are well-written but a part of their personality revolve around their sex-appeal. Don't be so defensive about this.

We don't really see Geralt naked since he's basically a Ken doll. The designers were too scared to show full frontal and as a result Geralt has no dick. It makes those sex scenes highly amusing in hindsight.

 

[hemo memo]

What's the point of this accusation in a random tweet? What kind of decent discussion can be brought with this?



Well... that's what said in every GAF thread that discusses japanese games with girls that show some skin. But we're seing a pretty different reaction here. Funny.

Exactly.

Funny how you see way way worse in the movie industry and actually get postive feedback becuase it fits the movie but videogames?? No no no.

 

[Kinyou]

So why are we here, 14 pages into a thread?

Because people are mad at the chinese room and not because the Chinese room made a profound observation.

 

[Sorcerer]

I am currently playing Machine for Pigs and there is a lot of sexist imagery in the paintings throughout the house.

How can Chinese Room point a finger at anybody regarding this issue?

 

[Zolo]

The problem with that scene in DA2 was that Anders would always hit on the player and every single dialogue option apart from one would cause his approval rating to fall dawn significantly. The other would lead to romance. The execution was really bad and Bioware was rightfully criticised for that.

That just means you gained rivalry. You should anyway since Anders is horrible.

Spoiler

Also, that happens sometimes. I think you always get rivalry from Fenris if you're a mage as well.

Because people are mad at the chinese room and not because the Chinese room made a profound observation.

Yep.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Because people are mad at the chinese room and not because the Chinese room made a profound observation.

But it wasn't a profound observation. It was a off hand comment about a image taken out of context, no more then 3 years old at this point.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Because people are mad at the chinese room and not because the Chinese room made a profound observation.

I edited my previous response after you quoted. But the comment was meant to serve as a primer, or at least highlight another prevalent example of an issue in the industry. And it succeeded as several people are here discussing it despite the attempts of a certain subset trying to shut it down.

I am currently playing Machine for Pigs and there is a lot of sexist imagery in the paintings throughout the house.

How can Chinese Room point a finger at anybody regarding this issue?

Try asking them? You're seriously the first person I've ever heard make that statement. So maybe it's not something anyone before you realized.

 

[dramatis]

To be frank I'm pretty tired of seeing female character designs/concepts like the one in the OP. Would be nice if a major game could be completely devoid of that, with creativity in costume and character design, but obviously that's not going to happen.

I never cared for that promotional picture myself, but CDPR has never come across as sexist to me.

Their depiction of women in the Witcher games has always been clearly historically accurate to the times they're influenced by (Midevil, Dark Ages etc).

They also have great female characters.

Lol I'm pretty sure women didn't dress like they do in The Witcher during medieval times/dark ages. They're not historically accurate.

 

[Audioboxer]

Almost every post in this thread has had more effort put into it than the twitter post that it was made about.

Hence the problem, or lack of effort and dignity in a one liner tweet.

"It's not sexist, it's just business" is never a valid argument.



So what? The Eye of Sauron was a proverbial sphere of influence in the original novels and not some massive fiery eye-tower thing the way it was depicted in the films. I seriously doubt the original Witcher went into great detail on how many jaggies filled the forests and how he had to keep cycling through his inventory to find something. Content has to change if it's going to survive in a different medium. Time is just as much a medium as any other, and works need to be adapted accordingly.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? That wasn't my quote at all. I told you to go look at sales for video games as in the business of said video games no game ever sells to 90%+ of the audience regardless of its content and diversity. Gaming is diverse because in gaming everyone likes different things.

I'm beginning to worry far more about what some in here would try and do to the gaming industry if in a place of power than this stupid one liner tweet from TCR.

 

[CHC]

(list)

These are all great points, I really appreciate your level-headed perspective on this and you highlighted a couple things that I didn't even think about (which is part of your point).

Reposting from the last page:

I've seen as much ITT, and I appreciate the inclusion of those characters. My problem's more with people who think that including minorities is "forcing" them or pushing an agenda, and that they're only there to fulfill a quota so that once you reach a certain amount of black people in RPGs that They™ aren't allowed to complain about diversity in gaming. Like, a lot of people in here seem to think that diversity will eventually be "completed", which isn't how it works. At all. Which is why it's disheartening to see things like "X, Y and Z already have characters A, B, and C, what more could you ask for?" meanwhile that poster's respective demographics have millions and millions of examples in games compared to maybe thousands if not less of other types.

I don't necessarily think like this but at the end of the day what other metric is there other than if such characters are or are not included in the games? Seems like you're just setting up a damned if you do / damned if you don't situation here, because if you can't use a specific character's presence as a counterpoint, than what exactly are you looking for?

 

[Alpha Phoenix]

Because people are mad at the chinese room and not because the Chinese room made a profound observation.

Please explain how it is a 'profound observation'.

 

[User 73706]

Yeah no.

What i mean by natural is that we don't get shit like in Deus EX, were we have a jive talking black female character and a few other examples of people "Throwing" shit in. For representation sake.

That particular example isn't "forcing" a woman of color into the game - she wasn't put there for a quota, and she wasn't put there as part of a larger diversity initiative. She just happened to be a character of color whose execution went way wrong, just like plenty of straight, cis white male characters have done in the past. There's no such thing as a "forced" minority character.

I am currently playing Machine for Pigs and there is a lot of sexist imagery in the paintings throughout the house.

How can Chinese room point a finger?

They're not trying to magically absolve themselves by pointing it out in other games - the whole point is awareness, and here we are 8 pages into a thread. It's working.

 

[Kinyou]

I edited my previous response after you quoted. But the comment was meant to serve as a primer, or at least highlight another prevalent example of an issue in the industry. And it succeeded as several people are here discussing it despite the attempts of a certain subset trying to shut it down.

That's what it perhaps became, but I'm not sure that was their intention. It seems more like random venting considering how they make zero argumentative points.

But it wasn't a profound observation. It was a off hand comment about a image taken out of context, no more then 3 years old at this point.

Please explain how it is a 'profound observation'.

I meant that it is not a profound observation

 

[twopenny]

So what if it's sexist? Are you offended that easily? What is wrong with being offended?

I mean, I'm not offended so much as disappointed that a large, intelligent group of people might engage in something so repulsive. Like, we're so exposed to casual sexism that experiencing it in the wild isn't shocking to me; rather, i'll be vocal about what i see as the concerted effort to ignore and downplay society's engagement with it, or at the very least the general lack of empathy when confronted with the notion that someone finds something objectionable/hurtful. I don't think it's enough to simply say that the other person in question is "too easily offended" sight unseen.

Finally, I think a great many people might want to consider the notion that criticism and reaction are part of any artistic enterprise, and any trend that hopes to move away from critical engagement is inherently anti-intellectual.

 

[Zolo]

GOG.com to remove all 'Chinese Room' games confirmed. /jk

 

[Cabbagehead]

That particular example isn't "forcing" a woman of color into the game - she wasn't put there for a quota, and she wasn't put there as part of a larger diversity initiative. She just happened to be a character of color whose execution went way wrong, just like plenty of straight, cis white male characters have done in the past. There's no such thing as a "forced" minority character.



They're not trying to magically absolve themselves by pointing it out in other games - the whole point is awareness, and here we are 8 pages into a thread. It's working.

That couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Caelus]

1. I love The Witcher. I've loved these games since the first one (which I bought and played at launch), and I'm currently playing through The Witcher 3 and savoring every moment. It's fantastic.

2. I think the world The Witcher depicts is a deeply patriarchal and misogynistic one, which accords with what we know about both medieval and modern society. This is okay. Depiction of patriarchal and misogynistic societies is not only (mostly, I guess; it's complicated) unproblematic, it's kind of the norm. The Witcher does cast a critical eye — at times — over some of these problematic aspects, and it certainly makes it clear that the world of The Witcher is a very, very bad place to be a woman.

3. Beyond what it depicts as its milieu, yes, The Witcher is a sexist game. It has an extremely and aggressively male gaze. It is beyond obvious that the people making it are heterosexual, cisgender men who are largely unthinking about the blinkers of their (majority) perspective. For example, it features consequence-free, uncritical and deliberately titillating prostitution that has no gameplay or plot value, and which does almost nothing to examine the status and conditions of medieval prostitutes (which were abysmal). Many, many women in the game are presented salaciously for reasons that have nothing to do with plot, characterization or gameplay. We're talking about game developers that turned (largely consequence-free, uncritical) sexual encounters into collectible cards in the first game. Yes, they've moved past that, but the game is still jam-packed with subtle sexism that many players won't even notice or consider, so inured are they to sexism and their sexist perspective.

4. The marketing of The Witcher games has consistently leaned on sexist, male-gaze tropes to draw in its (overwhelmingly heterosexual, cisgender, male) audience. Looks like Cyberpunk will, too! This isn't necessarily CDProjekt's fault, but it is tacky and lame.

5. All of this is pretty standard for the games industry and for the world we live in in 2016. I don't think The Witcher 3 is much worse in these respects than most games or other popular art. And it's actually smarter and more nuanced about women and gender and sex than many other videogames — and its own source material. Admittedly, that is a very, very low bar to clear. It still sort of sucks at those things. We're making progress, though.

Thank you for this post, it well articulates my thoughts on this issue.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Jessica Curry isn't exactly the best PR person in the world. You don't get far attacking the publisher who funded your game, and now random other developers.

So speaking honestly about game development is now "attacking the publisher"? And you think Jessica Curry is just some psycho who's going on a bender against other devs?

w t f

 

[Audioboxer]

I mean, I'm not offended so much as disappointed that a large, intelligent group of people might engage in something so repulsive. Like, we're so exposed to casual sexism that experiencing it in the wild isn't shocking to me; rather, i'll be vocal about what i see as the concerted effort to ignore and downplay society's engagement with it, or at the very least the general lack of empathy when confronted with the notion that someone finds something objectionable/hurtful. I don't think it's enough to simply say that the other person in question is "too easily offended" sight unseen.

Finally, I think a great many people might want to consider the notion that criticism and reaction are part of any artistic enterprise, and any trend that hopes to move away from critical engagement is inherently anti-intellectual.

Wait, please explain what you mean by that. Repulsive is a word that gets me alarmed at someones view on sexual content, if I'm understanding you right. More so from the point of view I've seen and worked with the devastating effects sexual shaming and repression can have on individuals. Some of that admittedly coming through religious background issues (which I'm already guessing might be at play for some in here).

 

[User 73706]

I'm beginning to worry far more about what some in here would try and do to the gaming industry if in a place of power than this stupid one liner tweet from TCR.

This is exactly what I'm talking about!

"i want natural diversity, not forced diversity"
"so you don't want the diversity to be evident?"
"no no that's not what i'm saying at all, how did you get that from it?"
"ok well then appealing to a wider audience is a good thing then right?"
"whoa whoa let's not go that far, jeez, it's like you want to turn gaming into 1984 or something"

I don't necessarily think like this but at the end of the day what other metric is there other than if such characters are or are not included in the games? Seems like you're just setting up a damned if you do / damned if you don't situation here, because if you can't use a specific character's presence as a counterpoint, than what exactly are you looking for?

I'm saying ideally the situation will eventually become "character X (who happens to be Y) is pretty cool, but ultimately i feel like their emotional arc wasn't as well-resolved as character Z (who also happens to be Y)" as opposed to "there are plenty of horribly-done white characters in games, so why do you have a problem with all black characters in gaming being caricatures?"

That couldn't be more wrong.

Give me some examples of forced minority characters and explain why they're forced, then.

 

[Kinyou]

So speaking honestly about game development is now "attacking the publisher"? And you think Jessica Curry is just some psycho who's going on a bender against other devs?

w t f

Minus the psycho that seems to be what they were doing here.

 

[Maiar_m]

Sexy ≠ sexism, sure, but "women have a right to be sexy" isn't an argument against the fact that writers using sexy women as a plot device can lead to sexism.

Sexism is prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of sex. It's the exploitation of a gender for profit. TW3's women (sorceresses mostly) use their magically enhanced looks to gain power through "the men's" lack of discernment when confronted by hot women, using their prejudices and stereotyping against them. In universe, they use sexism for their own profit. They are eye candies because they know being eye candies will be useful to them because of all of their other qualities. It however doesn't exonerate TW3 from being a game where women's looks are used to appeal to a certain audience to some extent, it'd be hypocritical to say there is no ricochet effect of that plot device just so the male gaze can be satisfied there will be tight dresses and generous bosoms to watch in between stellar storytelling.

The thing is, that's fine as long as it's not the defining element. TW3's world is a mature one, where sex has its place, and where women of power use sex as a means to gather more power - why not? There is sexism in the game, it doesn't make the game (or the studio) sexist. It's only so if you're buying the game to reinforce your own stereotypical, discriminating and prejudiced view of women (and you'd be disappointed to find they play you like a fiddle because you're weaker and dumber than most of them).

The point - and that is one Anita Sarkeesian uses often - isn't that sexy women are a bad thing, it is that when it become the predominant way for women to exist in any media, it becomes problematic. I personally don't think that's the case for The Witcher.

1. I love The Witcher. I've loved these games since the first one (which I bought and played at launch), and I'm currently playing through The Witcher 3 and savoring every moment. It's fantastic.

2. I think the world The Witcher depicts is a deeply patriarchal and misogynistic one, which accords with what we know about both medieval and modern society. This is okay. Depiction of patriarchal and misogynistic societies is not only (mostly, I guess; it's complicated) unproblematic, it's kind of the norm. The Witcher does cast a critical eye — at times — over some of these problematic aspects, and it certainly makes it clear that the world of The Witcher is a very, very bad place to be a woman.

3. Beyond what it depicts as its milieu, yes, The Witcher is a sexist game. It has an extremely and aggressively male gaze. It is beyond obvious that the people making it are heterosexual, cisgender men who are largely unthinking about the blinkers of their (majority) perspective. For example, it features consequence-free, uncritical and deliberately titillating prostitution that has no gameplay or plot value, and which does almost nothing to examine the status and conditions of medieval prostitutes (which were abysmal). Many, many women in the game are presented salaciously for reasons that have nothing to do with plot, characterization or gameplay. We're talking about game developers that turned (largely consequence-free, uncritical) sexual encounters into collectible cards in the first game. Yes, they've moved past that, but the game is still jam-packed with subtle sexism that many players won't even notice or consider, so inured are they to sexism and their sexist perspective.

3. is probably true, although it would have been kind of a stretch not to include blatant exploitation of the misery of women in the form of open prostitution in a game that aimed to depict a realistic, medieval world that's oppressive to outcasts. Yes, it ends up catering to the male gaze (and that's also to be contrasted with the fact that you're free as a male to find it appalling and revolting) but it benefits immersion and realism. I'm not saying it is worth it, but I have trouble tracing the line in the sand between where the characterization, universe building and realism should stop and the current-day social awareness should start. It was my impression that TW3 taught your very clearly that women were not a commodity, though exiting a brother pants-less in shame of your exploitation of their misery wasn't the most blatant lesson ever taught.

4. The marketing of The Witcher games has consistently leaned on sexist, male-gaze tropes to draw in its (overwhelmingly heterosexual, cisgender, male) audience. Looks like Cyberpunk will, too! This isn't necessarily CDProjekt's fault, but it is tacky and lame.

And I'd agree that it's not elegant nor very socially responsible, but when you're doing marketing, I'm pretty sure being socially aware isn't your first concern. Marketing outfits cater to what they think is the most economically appealing target. Sadly.

5. All of this is pretty standard for the games industry and for the world we live in in 2016. I don't think The Witcher 3 is much worse in these respects than most games or other popular art. And it's actually smarter and more nuanced about women and gender and sex than many other videogames — and its own source material. Admittedly, that is a very, very low bar to clear. It still sort of sucks at those things. We're making progress, though.

I'd say making progress is already an achievement in an economy where risk is frowned upon.

 

[Roni]

The logical comeback is that they did say on every front, including sexism.

But I guess that's not good PR.

 

[Falchion]

They should tell them to jog on, but The Chinese Room can only walk everywhere.

 

[Zolo]

Sexy ≠ sexism, sure, but "women have a right to be sexy" isn't an argument against the fact that writers using sexy women as a plot device can lead to sexism.

Sexism is prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of sex. It's the exploitation of a gender for profit. TW3's women (sorceresses mostly) use their magically enhanced looks to gain power through "the men's" lack of discernment when confronted by hot women, using their prejudices and stereotyping against them. In universe, they use sexism for their own profit. They are eye candies because they know being eyes candies will be useful to them because of all of their other qualities. It however doesn't exonerate TW3 from being a game where women's looks are used to appeal to a certain audience to some extent, it'd be hypocritical to say there is no ricochet effect of that plot device just so the male gaze can be satisfied there will be tight dresses and generous bosoms to watch in between stellar storytelling.

The thing is, that's fine as long as it's not the defining element. TW3's world is a mature one, where sex has its place, and where women of power use sex as a means to gather more power - why not? There is sexism in the game, it doesn't make the game (or the studio) sexist. It's only so if you're buying the game to reinforce your own stereotypical, discriminating and prejudiced view of women (and you'd be disappointed to find they play you like a fiddle because you're weaker and dumber than most of them).

The point - and that is one Anita Sarkeesian uses often - isn't that sexy women are a bad thing, it is that when it become the predominant way for women to exist in any media, it becomes problematic. I personally don't think that's the case for The Witcher.

Well done post. Now if you could only fit that in a twitter post. XP

 

[Woetyler]

I agree, Witcher 3's environment is sexist, but honestly, it seems like the time-frame that is. And i'm sure CDPR was fully aware when making it. TCR is just trying to start unnecessary drama.

 

[Sorcerer]

I edited my previous response after you quoted. But the comment was meant to serve as a primer, or at least highlight another prevalent example of an issue in the industry. And it succeeded as several people are here discussing it despite the attempts of a certain subset trying to shut it down.



Try asking them? You're seriously the first person I've ever heard make that statement. So maybe it's not something anyone before you realized.

HA. Being the type of game that it is maybe people just zoom by without noticing the little details. But I love that stuff.
One image that shows up more than once is a woman with her breasts out, I suppose breast feeding. but one gets the feeling the infant maybe dead because of the shroud. Its a horror game I get it.
Maybe in that era those kind of pictures would be normal in a household? But who would have multiple copies of the same painting of that type in the same house?

 

[Audioboxer]

This is exactly what I'm talking about!

"i want natural diversity, not forced diversity"
"so you don't want the diversity to be evident?"
"no no that's not what i'm saying at all, how did you get that from it?"
"ok well then appealing to a wider audience is a good thing then right?"
"whoa whoa let's not go that far, jeez, it's like you want to turn gaming into 1984 or something"



I'm saying ideally the situation will eventually become "character X (who happens to be Y) is pretty cool, but ultimately i feel like their emotional arc wasn't as well-resolved as character Z (who also happens to be Y)" as opposed to "there are plenty of horribly-done white characters in games, so why do you have a problem with all black characters in gaming being caricatures?"



Give me some examples of forced minority characters and explain why they're forced, then.

Diversity in these narrative based mediums comes from the writing. Some might be good at it, others not so good. Point is you cannot unfairly attack an individual studio for doing what they feel they can do best.

Maybe we do need more gay writers in the industry, or writers of any sexual orientation that feel confident enough and mature enough to handle said topic. As lets not pretend that the second a gay protagonist is in a game, or character, journalists and the media have a microscope out to make sure it is politically correct. Like it or not it can be a thorny topic to try and tackle.

Forced diversity is bad because it usually ends up coming from writers not skilled enough to do it well and ends up with some outrage online about how a gay character is portrayed as too fabulous or stereotyped.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Minus the psycho that seems to be what they were doing here.

Not really. Saying a product is sexist is not automatically saying it is bad, or that the devs are awful, etc. Nowhere did the tweet says "CDPR are SEXIST PIGS!". It just said that The Witcher 3 is sexist and CP2077 looks to be sexist too based on the promotional material released so far.

It is incredibly important to be critical of the media you consume - especially the media you enjoy.

 

[twopenny]

Wait, please explain what you mean by that. Repulsive is a word that gets me alarmed at someones view on sexual content, if I'm understanding you right.

Was responding to this line of thinking:

Originally Posted by Vaga

So what if it's sexist? Are you offended that easily? What is wrong with being offended?

If it is objectively sexist, then i find that objectively repulsive. Look, don't misunderstand my point here, as I suspect you're getting ready to claim i'm advocating censorship. i'm not. I'm saying that if we are to agree a given work is objectively sexist, then I'll necessarily have a negative reaction to it.

Being critical of a work--indeed, even being repulsed by it--is an important part of artistic engagement.

 

[User 73706]

Diversity in these narrative based mediums comes from the writing. Some might be good at it, others not so good. Point is you cannot unfairly attack an individual studio for doing what they feel they can do best.

Maybe we do need more gay writers in the industry, or writers of any sexual orientation that feel confident enough and mature enough to handle said topic. As lets not pretend that the second a gay protagonist is in a game, or character, journalists and the media have a microscope out to make sure it is politically correct. Like it or not it can be a thorny topic to try and tackle.

Forced diversity is bad because it usually ends up coming from writers not skilled enough to do it well and ends up with some outrage online about how a gay character is portrayed as too fabulous or stereotyped.

Why aren't straight white male characters ever "forced", though?

 

[Sylas]

That doesn't scream sexist/sexy at all (that's what came from the woman in the OP).

That screams...I wouldn't get within 50 yards as I'd fear for my life...lol.

That's some Black Widow, lure you in, then rip you in half stuff.

I actually think this is a really interesting example of a split between sexism and power fantasy. I, personally, know a large handful of women that were incredibly enthused by the theme presented by this single image--taking what is normally alluring and turning it into a weapon.

It's both a very heterosexual fear and a very strong sort of power fantasy. It's being alluring and attractive--which isn't necessarily something made specifically for the male gaze--while also being capable of tearing a man in half. It's taking power away from the male in a situation (something that's present in many places and used to various effectiveness. For an example of shitty versions of this see: Drow) and giving it directly to a woman.

But in the same vein it is an overtly sexual image and you can draw a conclusion based on what we know, from our own world experiences, and make assumptions about the world of Cyberpunk 2077. She's dressed somewhat scantily and is a cyborg manufactured to look a specific way--so the likelihood is that in-universe she was created with the male gaze in mind.

The image put out by CDPR's... uh, PR representatives might've been in poor taste, but The Chinese Room's statement is equally shitty because it's making assumptions for other people--especially women--when it's calling something that has context as a variation of power fantasy. It's the problem with making sweeping statements in general, but then this is also the company who's female co-lead had to step away from the company because her partner didn't stand up for her when she was treated poorly by their publisher due to her gender.

It's the pot calling the kettle black when the pot is arguably even blacker than the kettle.

 

[Vaga]

I mean, I'm not offended so much as disappointed that a large, intelligent group of people might engage in something so repulsive.

What? Are you serious? Sexual depiction is repulsive?

 

[Revolutionary]

Pretty disappointed in whoever's running their Twitter account being so fucking dense. Almost makes me regret buying their games. Almost.

 

[Audioboxer]

Was responding to this line of thinking:



If it is objectively sexist, then i find that objectively repulsive. Look, don't misunderstand my point here, as I suspect you're getting ready to claim i'm advocating censorship. i'm not. I'm saying that if we are to agree a given work is objectively sexist, then I'll necessarily have a negative reaction to it.

Being critical of a work--indeed, even being repulsed by it--is an important part of artistic engagement.

Fair enough, I do think Vaga could have been more eloquent with his response. Regardless of what I'm arguing in here I don't think "so what if it's x" is all that great a response. I have said so what if there's sex and nudity, but that's because I honestly believe CDPR are not sexists, nor have a company wide issue with such a thing. They are simply creating a piece of adult entertainment and IMO the sex in the game is handled rather un-obnoxiously anyway.

At least compared to other mediums and pieces of writing that try to tackle sexual violence, rape and abuse. The one character and scene in The Witcher 3 with sexual violence gets his comeuppance and is clearly portrayed as a villain and evil character. Evil people do evil things, and it's fine to portray that in entertainment.

Why aren't straight white male characters ever "forced", though?

I don't understand?

I do think racial diversity is something the gaming industry needed to get better at, and it is making some progress. I personally think it's a side effect, or has been one, of many of the studios making popular games coming out of Japan. It's not the Japanese peoples fault biologically how they look based on their geography in the world, not any more so than some Western studios in certain countries. It's something we are seeing getting better though, black protagonists and racial diversity. I still stick to my argument though creatively a studio has a right to make a character however they want, and I'm sure discussions happen internally and get agreed on about characters. Unless you want to start some strawman argument that most studios are racist and have racist employees...

 

[Riposte]

Content has to change if it's going to survive in a different medium. Time is just as much a medium as any other, and works need to be adapted accordingly.

The Witcher 3 may be one of the most awarded games of all time and was a tremendous financial success. The only thing it didn't survive was your personal scrutiny.

 

[UrbanRats]

I'm not familiar with Chinese Room, but this kind of twitter pot shot is sort of pointless and childish, especially coming from a fellow developer's account (instead of a private individual) and especially directed to a developer like CDProjeck Red which, despite their spotty track record on the subject, has shown incredible improvement and willingness to listen to their fans on the subject, with utmost humility.
If this was directed towards Warhorse Studios, i'd still find it inappropriate, but it'd make more sense.

The rest of the discussion is the same argument we've had since forever on GAF, which it's not to say it's not worth having again, but just that i don't feel like i've anything to add, that hasn't being argued on here about 500.000 times before.

Witcher (3) isn't spotless, especially given that is based on a character that is, essentially, James Bond in (fantasy) medieval eastern Europe, and that is THE sexist premise, if there ever was one.
But they showed a level of improvement over the base subject, that honestly, MGM should take notice of (compare Witcher 3 to Spectre for proof of this).

So yeah, if you're going to make a snarky, one liner remark on Twitter about a developer, i don't think they're the best target.

With all of this being said, i still find it pathetic how people get immediately defensive about this, and started throwing unrelated shit back ("at least they make good games!" being an example of this).
Just because someone started with a snarky remark with little substance, doesn't mean you should answer back with one.

 

[Alpha Phoenix]

Edit: Ops. Never mind!

 

[Darkroronoa]

So i guess at this times everything is sexist.

I think people use the word sexist a little too lightly. Too many people that just want to provoke and stir discussions. How can you know from a picture if something is sexist? Sexism implies more deep problems.

 

[Kinyou]

Not really. Saying a product is sexist is not automatically saying it is bad, or that the devs are awful, etc. Nowhere did the tweet says "CDPR are SEXIST PIGS!". It just said that The Witcher 3 is sexist and CP2077 looks to be sexist too based on the promotional material released so far.

It is incredibly important to be critical of the media you consume - especially the media you enjoy.

But it is still making a judgment about the devs, isn't it? Or are they not responsible for the content they produce? You can't have both.

Why they'd randomly go after CDPR (while they're are also a lot worse offenders out there) with a tweet that doesn't even have arguments is beyond me. It just seems like a cheap shot.

 

[twopenny]

What? Are you serious? Sexual depiction is repulsive?

maybe don't conflate sexy/sexist -- might make your arguments clearer

 

[CHC]

I'm saying ideally the situation will eventually become "character X (who happens to be Y) is pretty cool, but ultimately i feel like their emotional arc wasn't as well-resolved as character Z (who also happens to be Y)" as opposed to "there are plenty of horribly-done white characters in games, so why do you have a problem with all black characters in gaming being caricatures?"

Phrased like that it makes much more sense. I definitely see your point but I also think it's as much as a byproduct of just plain shitty writing than any kind of sexist / racist culture. I don't think most novels or TV shows are any better about this stuff just because, like most games, the majority of them aren't really that good. That doesn't excuse anything, mind you, it's just how it's going to be because most writing is inherently not great.

 

[Cannonball Titcomb]

1. I love The Witcher. I've loved these games since the first one (which I bought and played at launch), and I'm currently playing through The Witcher 3 and savoring every moment. It's fantastic.

2. I think the world The Witcher depicts is a deeply patriarchal and misogynistic one, which accords with what we know about both medieval and modern society. This is okay. Depiction of patriarchal and misogynistic societies is not only (mostly, I guess; it's complicated) unproblematic, it's kind of the norm. The Witcher does cast a critical eye — at times — over some of these problematic aspects, and it certainly makes it clear that the world of The Witcher is a very, very bad place to be a woman.

3. Beyond what it depicts as its milieu, yes, The Witcher is a sexist game. It has an extremely and aggressively male gaze. It is beyond obvious that the people making it are heterosexual, cisgender men who are largely unthinking about the blinkers of their (majority) perspective. For example, it features consequence-free, uncritical and deliberately titillating prostitution that has no gameplay or plot value, and which does almost nothing to examine the status and conditions of medieval prostitutes (which were abysmal). Many, many women in the game are presented salaciously for reasons that have nothing to do with plot, characterization or gameplay. We're talking about game developers that turned (largely consequence-free, uncritical) sexual encounters into collectible cards in the first game. Yes, they've moved past that, but the game is still jam-packed with subtle sexism that many players won't even notice or consider, so inured are they to sexism and their sexist perspective.

4. The marketing of The Witcher games has consistently leaned on sexist, male-gaze tropes to draw in its (overwhelmingly heterosexual, cisgender, male) audience. Looks like Cyberpunk will, too! This isn't necessarily CDProjekt's fault, but it is tacky and lame.

5. All of this is pretty standard for the games industry and for the world we live in in 2016. I don't think The Witcher 3 is much worse in these respects than most games or other popular art. And it's actually smarter and more nuanced about women and gender and sex than many other videogames — and its own source material. Admittedly, that is a very, very low bar to clear. It still sort of sucks at those things. We're making progress, though.

This guy gets it.

 

[Alpha Phoenix]

But it is still making a judgment about the devs, isn't it? Or are they not responsible for the content they produce? You can't have both.

Why they'd randomly go after CDPR (while they're are also a lot worse offenders out there) with a tweet that doesn't even have arguments is beyond me. It just seems like a cheap shot.

I'm hoping this is just a PR fuckup and not representative of the studio as a whole.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

It's worth pointing out that this is all on GameSpot who used an image for social that they never actually used in the article itself. But whatever gets clicks, huh?

 

[RockTurtle]

Not really. Saying a product is sexist is not automatically saying it is bad, or that the devs are awful, etc. Nowhere did the tweet says "CDPR are SEXIST PIGS!". It just said that The Witcher 3 is sexist and CP2077 looks to be sexist too based on the promotional material released so far.

It is incredibly important to be critical of the media you consume - especially the media you enjoy.

isn't that the purpose of classifying something sexist? that it is bad and needs to be changed and conform to some ideal standard.

 

[Audioboxer]

isn't that the purpose of classifying something sexist? that it is bad and needs to be changed and conform to some ideal standard.

Yeah I think some people need to recheck the definition of the word

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. The belief that one gender is superior to the other, especially that men are superior to women.

Which is why just chucking sexist at nudity and sex in general is utterly ridiculous. It causes far worse problems for sexual health than some with the ammunition seem to understand. We're talking genuine suicidal states on the extreme end with people thinking they are awful individuals for enjoying the opposite/same sexes features, or wanting to engage in consensual sex, or for even feeling good seeing a naked body.

 

[Sylas]

isn't that the purpose of classifying something sexist? that it is bad and needs to be changed and conform to some ideal standard.

Not necessarily! It's simply pointing out that there's a different representation between genders on display in a specific work. Sexism can be used as a plot device, or a framing element. It doesn't need to changed, but it does need to be acknowledged.

It's an idea in writing that if you do want to put something socially unacceptable on display you either need to provide a foil to that, or do a good ol' nudge nudge wink wink to your audience so they don't think it's okay in an out-of-context fashion.

Sexist content can be created unknowingly. In an industry that is dominated by white straight men, their personal interests, likes, and biases will show in that content. In that sort of situation creating diverse content is a conscious effort because it is currently not the default. Therefore sexist content can be created if the people working on it aren't being aware of it.

As an example, Derek Yu, the creator of Spelunky, noted that the things that Anita Sarkeesian brought up in one of her videos about Spelunky was something he'd never even noticed, and said that it had given him something to think about in future.

To touch on this; I think calling something sexist and leaving it at that is 100% useless and should be something people are ashamed of. Nobody is going to go, "Oh, you're right. Let me change this!" when they aren't given any context or criticism. Chances are if someone made something sexist--and didn't mean to--they can't and won't just step back and realize what they did. You need to be constructive in your criticism.

Plus it's very easy for a company that makes games with arguably few to no characters to call another developer sexist. You aren't even really given the chance to examine the world in the games crafted by TheChineseRoom outside of the brief window they allow you.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

But it is still making a judgment about the devs, isn't it? Or are they not responsible for the content they produce? You can't have both.

Why they'd randomly go after CDPR (while they're are also a lot worse offenders out there) with a tweet that doesn't even have arguments is beyond me. It just seems like a cheap shot.

Sexist content can be created unknowingly. In an industry that is dominated by white straight men, their personal interests, likes, and biases will show in that content. In that sort of situation creating diverse content is a conscious effort because it is currently not the default. Therefore sexist content can be created if the people working on it aren't being aware of it.

As an example, Derek Yu, the creator of Spelunky, noted that the things that Anita Sarkeesian brought up in one of her videos about Spelunky was something he'd never even noticed, and said that it had given him something to think about in future.