SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt review: off the path

By Arthur Gies on May 13, 2015 at 7:30p
Game Info
Platform Win, PS4, Xbox One
Publisher N/A
Developer CD Projekt Red
Release Date 2015-05-19
Price at Launch N/A
Ad covers the page
Report this ad
Thanks for the feedback! Undo
What was wrong with this ad?
Thanks for the feedback! Back
We’ll review this ad to improve the experience in the future.
Thanks for the feedback! Undo
We’ll use your feedback to review ads on this site.
Closing ad: %1$d
The Witcher 3 makes what should have been a terrifying risk look like the most natural evolution in the world.
The Witcher and its sequel established a fascinating fantasy world full of politics, intrigue, magic and monsters, and rooted it all in Geralt of Rivia, one of the last of the infamous Witchers — bounty hunters created through a potentially fatal series of trials and alchemical mutations, for hire by anyone with coin to destroy monsters. The Witcher 2 placed this within an action adventure context largely linear in structure, albeit with major plot changes and entirely different second halves based on player decisions made early on.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt takes the setting and complicated world-building of its predecessor and blows them out with an ambitious but logical next-step: an open-world game. For a studio without the AAA resources of a Bethesda or EA, transitioning from a more conservative linear structure to an undertaking so massive demonstrates a level of confidence bordering on insanity.
But CD Projekt Red has pulled it off, and in fact, has built a game that succeeds largely based on how well their previous Witcher work and concepts of player choice translate in an open-world setting, even as The Witcher 3 makes steps back elsewhere.
witcher 3 screen one
The Witcher 3 opens with Geralt in search of multiple people, namely former love interest Yennifer and his former ward/adopted daughter, Ciri, both of whom appear to be the object of the attentions of the nightmarish Wild Hunt. The story rapidly spirals outward, involving kings and their agents, aligning the political machinations of sorceresses and rulers both with and against Geralt as he seeks to find Ciri and unravel the mystery of her disappearance — and just what the Wild Hunt wants from her.
It's worth saying immediately that the characterization and storytelling of The Witcher 3 is considerably better than The Witcher 2. Where that game often felt like a litany of confusing schemes and plots and a list of various power players that the player might never meet or see, The Witcher 3 is much better at introducing its actors smartly and efficiently — even as the cast ballooned in the middle third of the game, I never felt especially lost or confused about the various intrigues in play, of what I was doing, for who, or why.
This would be impressive enough in an open-world game with a quarter of the story and characters, and for CD Projekt to keep everything straight and intelligible is a genuine achievement. That achievement is compounded by the seeming effect of player actions and choices on moment to moment events in the game.
I don't think there's anything in The Witcher 3 as significant as the Iorveth/Roche moment in The Witcher 2, which dictated an entirely different middle act of that game depending on your decisions, but I did tend to find that my choices in The Witcher 3's major side quests and the things I had done prior to advancing the main plot were reflected in those bigger moments.
witcher 3 tall screen 2
The Witcher 3's narrative achievements also don't come at the expense of its broader open-world fundamentals. CD Projekt finds the compulsive, satisfying quest-to-quest momentum that makes the best open-world games so hard to put down and so easy to play for marathon sessions. In part, this is because it's interesting to learn more about the world, its history and the various monsters and factions that populate it. There's a great sense of place, of somewhere where things happened before, and even smaller points of interest establish environmental storytelling. More unusually for the genre, and more seemingly difficult to nail, is a feeling of ecology — that the creatures that live in, or at times die in and then haunt the area do so with an organic sense of history.
Monster contracts express this best, as each requires a bit of investigation prior to the their inevitable confrontation. Witnesses need to be talked to, evidence gathered, leads followed — and the matter-of-fact nature of these moments as side quests really do sell the idea of Geralt's witchering as his profession, with assignments that seem routine and others that rise to more epic proportions. And CD Projekt's production with sidequests do lend them an air of importance, as each seems to involve a fair amount of decent writing and multiple conversation options that could conceivably open more possible means of resolving the issue at hand.
"bless whoever at CD Projekt decided Geralt would automatically draw the correct sword when combat starts"
However, as the game goes on, monster contracts, and admittedly, side quests in general start to bleed together. Objectives in the middle third of the game feel more and more like running from one point to another to try to advance dialogue sequences, which is made more frustrating than it needs to be by an overly restrictive fast-travel system. Fast travel can only be activated at signposts, or, while on a boat, to various harbors throughout the world, and signposts can be pretty far apart. The Witcher 3's world is worth exploring without the artificial enforcement of extended runs whether on foot, horseback or boat.
These are all new considerations in a Witcher game, really, but some things feel much more familiar. Combat is still dominated by a combination of Geralt's steel and silver swords, used against threats natural and supernatural respectively — bless whoever at CD Projekt decided Geralt would automatically draw the correct sword when combat starts — and the use of signs, a collection of defensive and offensive spells.
witcher 3 screen 3
I think this is where some fans of The Witcher 2 will be most disappointed. Encounters in that game were brutal, and difficult, practically demanding preparation through the use of potions and weapon oils. Combat itself was methodical, with attacks taking stamina and poorly judged swings opening you up for deadly counterattacks from almost any enemy. The Witcher 3 has been greatly simplified. While potions and oils are still present and occasionally necessary, the need for preparation is mostly gone on the default difficulty. Geralt can swing his sword without getting tired, and signs are tied to the same stamina as basic physical actions like dodging.
In my experience, this leads to much more active combat than The Witcher 2, and I liked that I could go for greedy kills and attacks and try to end fights quickly. Signs are available for use much more often, and I found myself experimenting with various spells, sometimes relying on them entirely as I leveled my character to take better advantage of them. It all feels reasonably dynamic, especially when you throw potions into the mix (even if I rarely needed anything more than a basic damage buff and some health regeneration). Signs also add some much needed creativity and benefits to character customization — harpies and sirens didn't prove too much of a hassle for me when I could knock them out of the sky with upgraded telekinesis blasts, and I felt cleverer for my choices in that regard.
But I'll admit to missing the very visceral sense of impact and heavy give and take that defined Geralt's fighting style before. And The Witcher 3's basic mechanics have some more prominent problems elsewhere. The Witcher 3's camera is often terrible, especially indoors. It's hard to appreciate the beautiful world that CD Projekt built when it aggressively occluded my view of the fight in progress, and Geralt's generally great animations were lost on me when I got stuck on various objects in the world trying to avoid attacks.
This problem is even more rage-inducing during timed sequences that frequently feel hamstrung by cumbersome, unintuitive ground traversal that reminded me, in a bad way, of the "stupid-feet" problem that has plagued recent Assassin's Creed releases. When I needed Geralt to do something specific quickly, he often failed me in the worst possible way, running against a wall, failing to turn, or otherwise getting tangled up in the world or himself.
"When I needed Geralt to do something specific quickly, he often failed me in the worst possible way"
Meanwhile, the final hours lose the open aspect the game spends so much time cultivating, instead devolving into a series of not-particularly-interesting boss fights that range from laughably easy to unfair in their sharp spikes in difficulty. These are punctuated by even more egregious, strangely distracting jaunts from points A to B to C and so on.
But if you're playing the game like a normal person, not a reviewer, it will be weeks, maybe months before you ever make it to the less-inspired end-game. There's an enormous amount of stuff to do, people to meet and talk to, monsters to hunt, treasure to find and craft. And despite the weaker mission design, the story doesn't feel in a hurry to end or resolve. There's a sense of real finality present in The Witcher 3's end-game that its open-world peers often struggle to find.
For the advances in technology, writing and basic storytelling chops The Witcher 3 makes, it's a case of more ambiguous momentum elsewhere.
witcher 3 screen 4
The Witcher 3's expanded cast of characters doesn't preclude more screen time for just about everyone, and CD Projekt has done work to make for more interesting, influential women that feel just a bit more fleshed out than they've been previously. This includes a number of powerful women with complicated motivations and goals of their own.
That said, the world CD Projekt has created is oppressively misogynist. In some ways, the game deals directly with this — characters acknowledge again and again that it's hard to be a woman there, that it's a place of violence and terror and that women must work harder to be recognized and respected.
Then it kills them, over and over. There are several monster types devoted to murdered and wronged women whom Geralt is frequently asked to destroy, and other villainous characters are shown torturing or even butchering women to show just how evil they are. One sequence seemed specifically designed to see how long I could listen to a major female character have her fingernails pulled out before I ended the conversation to attack the individual in question. A later scene shows a villain literally surrounded by the bodies of murdered prostitutes.
a male character criticizing a woman for going into battle with her shirt hanging open is the "snake eating its own tail" of video game sexism
In another, a character who admitted to beating his wife so badly she miscarried is given an opportunity to explain why she had it coming, complete with a sympathetic conversation response option to go with it. The performances all around in this scene are excellent, the presentation among the best, most reined in anywhere in the game, but the message I saw it conveying was abhorrent.
I get that the setting of The Witcher 3 is meant to be a dark, dirty fantasy. But in a world that so explicitly goes out of its way to build a believable, distinctive take on the genre, the inclusion of so much violence explicitly directed against women feels like a clear, disconcerting choice. It's not just present, it's frequently a focus.
When they're not being murdered, women in The Witcher 3 are comically sexualized. Nudity is everywhere — think Game of Thrones on HBO — and even when they're dressed, female leads don't have it much better. One character, the subject of an extended series of side quests and whom plays a fairly important role in advancing the story wears a dress with a neckline so wide I was pretty sure I was seeing an areola every time she turned to the side (no, seriously).
Other moments are truly worthy of eye-rolling — as when one male character criticizes a woman for going into battle with her shirt hanging open, which is really the snake eating its own tail of video game sexism in a game where a significant portion of its speaking female characters are similarly and impractically exposed. Even Ciri, a daughter figure for Geralt and someone revealed to be incredibly powerful in her own right, walks around with her shirt unbuttoned in the middle, with a pretty clear view of a bra underneath — even when her attire changes to feature a fur-lined collar in colder climates.
Also, while I did not by any means see every city, burg and outpost in The Witcher 3's world in my 70+ hours spent within it, I don't recall a single non-white humanoid anywhere — not in Skellige, Novograd, Oxenfurt or anywhere else. Once I realized this I couldn't stop looking for any example of a person of color anywhere, and I never found it, unless you count naked monster women sitting at the feet of a boss like a slightly more awkward tribute to a Frank Frazetta painting. But maybe they're in there, somewhere.

Wrap Up:

The Witcher 3 is a great game — with some major qualifications
The Witcher 3's subject matter, its almost defiant doubling down on its treatment of women as titillating props for Geralt and the player, even as it tries to flesh out more female leads, is its most disappointing aspect. This constant presence weighs down what would otherwise be an excellent bit of closure for Geralt's video game saga — which isn't helped by the control issues that often detract from sequences meant to break up open-world monotony.
The result is still a game that often feels like a stunningly confident, competent shot across the bow of the open world genre, folding in an incredibly strong narrative and a good sense of consequence to the decisions that present themselves throughout, presenting a fun bit of combat creativity into a genre that desperately needs it. With that going for it, The Witcher 3 is a great game though it isn't a classic — and it can carry a somewhat qualified recommendation.
Ed's Note: Our review of The Witcher 3 is based on non-final PS4 code provided by CD Projekt Red. In our time with the game, we saw significant technical issues, including hard crashes, endless load screens, major framerate drops both at random and during more crowded fight scenes, and failures by the game to trigger even scripts which would halt forward progress within a quest until the game was reloaded, or, on occasion, the console restarted entirely.
CD Projekt's review documentation stated that there were a number of bugs on their list to be addressed in time for the retail release of the game, but at this time, we cannot speak confidently as to the release state of The Witcher 3 in this review. As such, this score will remain provisional until we have a clearer understanding of the game's reliability at launch.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was reviewed using pre-release debug code for PlayStation 4 provided by CD Projekt Red. You can find additional information about Polygon's ethics policy here.
About Polygon's Reviews
Latest Reviews
Prev Next

There are 442 Comments.

Show speed reading tips and settings
Shortcuts to mastering the comment thread. Use wisely.
C - Next Comment
X - Mark as Read
R - Reply
Z - Mark Read & Next
Shift + C - Previous
Shift + A - Mark All Read

Comment Settings

Been waiting for this game. Liked the Witcher 2 and could not for the life of me get into Dragon Age. Once I finish Bloodborne I’ll be picking this up.

Thanks for the good review
I’ve been waiting for this review! I was wondering what happened when Polygon didn’t have their review up yesterday but good it’s here.
But…
No Quality Control???
The first thing I looked for was Quality Control so I could listen on my drive home. Audio > *. Any plans for a W3 QC?
Kirielson
Kirielson
Moderator, Polygon
I don’t know, but you better send in your questions ASAP to the email.
Reviewers have been busting their butts (at most major outlets) to play the game these last few days. I would rather the review on any given site reflect as much of the game experience as possible, and be written by an author that has had time to collect their thoughts. What’s the rush? It isn’t like the game drops a few hours from now. Even if you wanted pre-order whatevers, you still have plenty of time.
Apologies. I didn’t mean to sound insensitive. I’m sure he worked hard on this review and I read it when I got home (along with watching some other video reviews on YouTube). Totally excited to play this game.
I need to finish Bloodborne too. D:
Maybe some of the DLC will have been released by the time I’m done. Oh the shame. The pile of shame.
I really don’t see how making the Witcher 3 more open world is a "terrifying risk." Maybe it would have been 6 years ago, but by now most AAA games are open world. It would have been risky for them to stick to their guns with linear storytelling as the invested more into the game. Going open-world minimizes their risk. I actually can’t believe the review thinks otherwise.
Arthur Gies
Polygon Reviews Overlord
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yeah, but they’re already GOG damned rich!
It’s the studio’s first open world game, and they didn’t have the financial resources from a major publisher like Activision or EA. So yeah, in a sense I see where Arthur is coming from. Yeah, the market wants (and probably even expects) an open world Witcher game in this day and age, but that doesn’t mean CDPR was necessarily going to hit it out of the park when it came to execution. Pile on the studio’s ambitious attempt at making the world feel life like with weather, choices affecting villages later down the line, general fidelity, and the combat overhaul and it becomes pretty apparent that they were aiming high. Fortunately for everyone, they seem to have succeeded for the most part. Hopefully the day one patch cleans up the game’s performance issues.
A technical/design risk, not a marketing one.
Exactly. Open worlds, as Ubisoft has aptly proven, are a nightmare to get right and easily slip into unstable tedious messes of collectibles and uninteresting side events when done wrong.
…And yes, I’m suggesting that almost all of Ubisoft’s open world games are mostly subpar, because for them it’s a standard marketing tick-off box at this point.
Dragon Age Inquisition went for an open-er world and it made that game a lot worse
And I would say otherwise. Opinions are great!
Compared to DA2, I’d say that Inquisition was a huge improvement. It’s my favorite in the series. You can blow off all of the fetch side quests and just focus on the main story and dragon hunting. Unless you’re achievement/trophy hunting, I guess.
Well, right now I don’t have enough power to advance the main quest, which is the part of the game that I actually think is done really well. So I sort of have to do those boring side quests, or go around gathering minerals. I just don’t have the willpower right now to do that
Which is a shame, I want to finish that main quest
Eh, the side quests didn’t bother me since I was grinding up levels for the dragons, so I never had that problem. I see where you’re coming from though. I forget how much power and influence you actually get from the war table, but just issuing commands from there might be your best option if you’re set on avoiding the side quests, although it would probably take even longer. The companion quests, which are much more interesting, should also help.
Dragon Age: Inquisition was probably one of the most grueling tedious games I’ve ever played. Specifically because I was such a fan of the first one (and lesser extend the sequel) that I wanted to make sure I saw everything the game had t offer. But also becuase if I did that, I would never need to return to it. I finished that game. But never again. Brrrrr.
……and it made it a lot better
There. FTFY
inb4 "8 is too low."
But holy fuck, if 70 hours is a rushed playthrough, it seems claims of 200+ hours of content was not just usual PR spiel. Good on the developers, bugs or questionable portrayals of women otherwise.
I want to ask something very seriously and I really hope my comment won’t be deleted. Is the way a game treats women one of the criteria by which you rate the games in your reviews?
And lack of people of colour. I thought those 2 things were odd to point out since they shouldn’t have anything to do with the review.
Why not? Reviews are about subjective criticism of the medium, not objective things like "graphics are technically impressive". If there was a heavily-misogynist movie with only white characters, then it would certainly be mentioned by many reviewers. Gaming shouldn’t be immune to this sort of criticisms just because they’re video games and not movies or novels – not if we want the art form to be taken seriously.
Now, if you want to have a serious discussion about whether or not the game is truly misogynistic, then sure! The reviewer clearly thinks so, and it obviously impacted his experience, but that’s where the point of discussion should be – not whether or not we should even talk about it.
Alright, good point. I guess maybe it should more so be a part of the review that shouldn’t affect the overall score. Like, the reviewer addresses the issues he/she has with the portrayal of a group, keeping it in the review but as a separate section.
Maybe I just have an odd view of the whole "X character is displayed in a very Y way"
I’m not sure why people stress so much over specific scores, and what should or shouldn’t go into determining a score. While I’m not a huge fan of scoring things in general, if you are going to do it, I think it makes sense to include anything that impacted your play through in that score. After all, if the reviewer found aspects of the game’s setting distracting enough to impact his enjoyment, shouldn’t that also impact the score?
Yes, absolutely. Excluding key elements that affect the enjoyment of the game experience from the score seems like a ridiculous proposal to me. A game’s score – to the extent that we even need them – _should _capture the overall impression that the game left on the player including all aspects of that impression.
Also, a game review – in my opinion – should not be some kind of robotic listing of attributes like "gameplay", "graphics", etc…
And even if it were a bland list of this kind, it would still fail to be "objective" in the sense some expect.
So, I guess I’m saying that I think a lot of people don’t actually know what a "review" is.
Agreed. I remember the old GamePro reviews, with their robotic listings of certain elements. They were not terribly helpful.
Well if it does affect the score the reviewer gave it, but it’s not a factor for you, you can probably count 1+1 and understand that you will probably give the game a higher score yourself. That’s why it’s good to read the reviews and not just the scores, because you get insight on how high you think you might score it yourself.
The final score should be dictated by the review’s overall text, pros and cons, warts and all. If an editor only concentrates on the game’s strengths and omits the blemishes, he or she does a disservice to the readers.
Symphony Man
Symphony Man
Assistant to the Community Overlord
This is why a group of editors assign the score, not the reviewer. Brilliant way to do it in my opinion.
a game that often feels like a stunningly confident, competent shot across the bow of the open world genre, folding in an incredibly strong narrative and a good sense of consequence to the decisions that present themselves throughout, presenting a fun bit of combat creativity into a genre that desperately needs it. With that going for it, The Witcher 3 is a great game though it isn’t a classic — and it can carry a somewhat qualified recommendation.
That sounds exactly like an "8". Scale that up or down depending on how heavily you want to consider the "qualified" (like a big "but …") portion. Racism and sexism don’t look like they factor into the number.
I wouldn’t call not including Black/Oriental/Asian people racist, in the same way i wouldn’t call a film with only a black cast racist. Never mind the fact the witcher books don’t include any non-white characters.
The sexualisation of women is part of the books and fantasy genre in general. I believe it fits here.
The should always be mediums that don’t cater to tick every box on the political correctness check-list, it’s not necessary for all games to feature people from all demographics. The game also doesn’t feature transgender people or people in wheelchairs. It doesn’t fit in this game and its lore and trying to make it fit would look worse than the exclusion.
The sexualisation of women is part of the […] fantasy genre in general.
Can’t say I agree. Not sure what fantasy books you’ve been reading (other than maybe Game of Thrones). If anything there’s something of a history of omission of women (look at Lord of the Rings, the great grandfather, for example).
Even the ASOIAF books, while depicting a reality where rape is not only common but expected behavior, don’t have an overtly misogynistic overtone that some other fantasy things do. The women aren’t there to be sexualized, but are actual believable characters living in a pretty shitsack world.
One part of The Witcher 2 that really bugged me was, after Triss got knocked out by a spell, another character had to carry her through an Elf attack while Geralt protected them. The whole time, the guy carrying Triss was commenting about her ass, and overtly hitting on her while copping a feel, and Triss, bleeding from the nose after being hit with a bad spell, was still flirting right back. This all happening during a moment when they’re under constant attack, with Geralt (who is in a relationship with Triss at the time) swinging his sword around killing Elves to keep them safe.
It’s this kind of casual sexism that really marks the Witcher series for me. It wasn’t tonally appropriate for the scene, nor did it really feel in character for Triss to be flirting back at some guy in a life or death situation after basically being beat up by a spell to the point of exhaustion and immobility. It was just weird and creepy.
You make some good points. If you think about it, the whole world of the Witcher is weird and creepy. The fantastical nature of the world really stands out when you try to apply social norms to it.
Just because its part of the books doesn’t mean its great or awesome. Or immune to criticism for being there.
Dropping the scoring system and not having one at all is more brilliant.
One thing you have to remember is that the reviewers do not assign the score to the review. Arthur stated his opinion and then another individual and or a group decided the score based off of the text.
I don’t see why that shouldn’t be reflected in the score. Games are a sum of all their parts, if those parts affected the reviewer enough it should be reflected in the score
The world setting of Witcher was created by a Polish guy, so I can’t imagine his sensitivity for persons of color is comparable to those who grew up in some parts of the United States. As for gender, the game looks very western middle ages to me, which makes powerful female leads a little unrealistic.
Of course, we’re in a fantasy world so why not have it all, but I don’t think it deserves so much focus in a short review. I wouldn’t expect this in a Mario game, where a third of the review is about the lack of a powerful unsexualized female lead. I’d rather see it in an opinion piece, but that’s just my… opinion :wink:
You’re not allowed to have those around these parts buddy.
That’s pretty funny, considering this thread is already full of people criticizing Arthur for his opinion. Because, you know, that’s what a review is, right? An opinion on something?
I wish it was in a separate opinion piece since the comments section just became a flame war. But that’s just my opinion.
I wish the audience would be mature enough to understand the nature of the review, and to intelligently comment on it without the flame war happening. I wouldn’t want to see this stuff spun off into an opinion piece simply because the audience can’t be trusted to behave themselves in the comments.
I think they can be trusted on this site. Most people here are mature enough to engage in these discussions, and ignore the few detractors.
It might well be worth the discussion too. Is the lack of people of colour in a fantasy world worth flagging in a review? This is a game recreating the works of a Polish author, and bringing his world to life. If that world was set on a continent of purely white inhabitants… I guess that makes the discussion far from a black and white (appropriate phrase O.o) issue.
Looking at the comments I dont think this is a flame war. Sure, people are voicing their disagreements, but its much more level headed than it used to be.
It’s a bit odd that Polygon’s most delicate Puritan assigns himself the task of reviewing the raunchiest games.
I am totally on Arthur’s side in almost every piece he writes (including this one), but now I am never not going to think of him as "Polygon’s Most Delicate Puritan".
Great title.
You know why his opinion is wrong? Because playing the Witcher 1, you NEVER felt like hmm, the elves in the real world think this game is racist. Or that real life small people think that "Witcher has dwarfs which are oppressed, this is racism". Or what you can have sex with a green tree-woman. I’m sure the forest is offended.
In Witcher 2, same thing applies. I don’t see trolls, people with point ears and and whatnot in the real world. Everything in the Witcher series is contained in its universe.
Giving the game an 8 just because "women are treated poorly and there are no black people" seems silly. In Witcher 1, the 2nd most important character in the game is Triss, which is a woman and she’s also very powerful, being a witch and all. Not to mention very sure of herself, smart, resourceful.
In Witcher 2, you have not one, but 6 different strong, independent woman. Triss, Saskia, Ves, Phillippa and another 2 witches which I forgot their name right now. 3 of these woman are witches, 3 of them are/were the advisers of kings, one is the best fighter in the Roche’s army and one is the leader of kingdom. Also, SPOILER ALERT: she a freakin’ dragon. END OF SPOILER.
So by all means, Witcher doesn’t put women in a more diminutive position than it puts most men. And the black thing is a silly complain. The main character himself is not human. White hair, skin tone closer to white than to the normal peachy look a human has, cat eyes, very fast reflexes etc.
Knocking 2 points out of the score for Witcher 3 because of these silly remarks is the same as Gamespot did with NOT giving Grand Theft Auto V a 10 because of its "violence and depiction of women" in an intentional satire of the real world.
I’m deeply, deeply disappointed by Polygon for their stance on this game.
Did I miss the part where he said he took those 2 points off for those reasons?
There were other parts that the reviewer didn’t think were perfect
Since he dedicated half the review for those 2 minor, laughable, reasons alone, I say they influenced his opinion greatly.
Minor and laughable to you. If they impacted his enjoyment of the game, then should’t they impact the score? The idea that something doesn’t bother you, so obviously it shouldn’t bother anyone, is a bit crazy.
Also, perhaps this is time for another reminder that the author of a review doesn’t actually determine the score at Polygon – several editors do, based on the content of that review.
It is totally laughable and beyond stupid, because he is discussing a Polish game content with his strong American bias on gender and race issues.
Wake up call for Arthur, women were unfairly considered and treated during Middle Ages, and most of the history. And there was no black people in Europe at that time as well.
It doesn’t matter where the game was made. If the way the story was presented directly impacted his enjoyment of the game, then of course it should be part of the review.
Actually stilgars, you are completely wrong. While there may not have been a lot of black people in Europe during the Middle Ages, there were some. You got this basic fact wrong. Perhaps you should inform your opinions before spouting off.
Knocking 2 points out of the score for Witcher 3 because of these silly remarks
TIL that The Witcher 3 is apparently perfect, except for how it treats women.
Half the review is about this. The other half is how the great is wonderful, except the reviewer rushed through it and was annoyed by how the fast travel points were used. And the fact that the sprint isn’t 100% prefect everytime, all the time.
These are some minor, minor thing in the grand scheme of things. Knocking 2 points of this just wants to make Polygon look elitist. They are incredible stupid reasons.
Exactly like they did with The Last of Us. It just makes Polygon look silly.
But I’ll admit to missing the very visceral sense of impact and heavy give and take that defined Geralt’s fighting style before. And The Witcher 3’s basic mechanics have some more prominent problems elsewhere. The Witcher 3’s camera is often terrible, especially indoors. It’s hard to appreciate the beautiful world that CD Projekt built when it aggressively occluded my view of the fight in progress, and Geralt’s generally great animations were lost on me when I got stuck on various objects in the world trying to avoid attacks.
This problem is even more rage-inducing during timed sequences that frequently feel hamstrung by cumbersome, unintuitive ground traversal that reminded me, in a bad way, of the "stupid-feet" problem that has plagued recent Assassin’s Creed releases. When I needed Geralt to do something specific quickly, he often failed me in the worst possible way, running against a wall, failing to turn, or otherwise getting tangled up in the world or himself.
"WHEN I NEEDED GERALT TO DO SOMETHING SPECIFIC QUICKLY, HE OFTEN FAILED ME IN THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY"
Meanwhile, the final hours lose the open aspect the game spends so much time cultivating, instead devolving into a series of not-particularly-interesting boss fights that range from laughably easy to unfair in their sharp spikes in difficulty. These are punctuated by even more egregious, strangely distracting jaunts from points A to B to C and so on.
In our time with the game, we saw significant technical issues, including hard crashes, endless load screens, major framerate drops both at random and during more crowded fight scenes, and failures by the game to trigger even scripts which would halt forward progress within a quest until the game was reloaded, or, on occasion, the console restarted entirely.
You guys are fucked up, he’s clearly not knocking 2 points out JUST for this, read the rest for god sake.
I’m glad you see it too! Are people missing the giant "provisional review" tag, or the large sections about non final review code and all of the bugs forcing console restarts and replaying quests? Really? There’s your two points right there. Let’s wait for the release and the final review before we lambast the guy!
Its funny how you automatically equate "non-white" people with black people. You literally see the world in black and white!
You know why your opinion is wrong? Because you truly believe two points were docked just for those two reasons and completely ignore the other issues he wrote about. Go sit down and respect a site’s opinion on a game.
The fact that its a fantasy world is part of what makes it a problem.
If they were going for some historical piece… sure, I can understand some of the decisions. But its a fantasy world. If your "fantasy" is that black people don’t exist and women are little more than sex objects then yikes.
This game was made in Poland, by a Polish dev team, and based on novels written by a Polish author. Demographically, Poland is about 98% ethnic Poles, a fair-skinned Slavic people. With the origins of the game firmly in mind, I doubt anyone even took into consideration the concerns of Americans and their expectations of a globally representative multiracial melting pot.
That’s a reasonable point, but nevertheless, I don’t think it negates how the game will be received by various audiences. The game may be received differently in different parts of the world, for example.
Yeah like how everyone outside of China hates those Kung-Fu movies because they typically only hire Chinese actors and in the rare cases where white people are depicted they are nefarious villains who are looking to exploit the Chinese.
Personally I had a hard time enjoying Robin Hood as a child because there were no South American tribes.
This. Exactly this. I’m digging the sass :wink:
I’m not sure if you are really targeting that at me or not. If you are, then I think you’ve misunderstood me. So let me use your example.
People outside of China may love Kung-Fu movies (I definitely do). And yet, we may also be in a position to point out the obvious racism in cases where the only bad guys are white moustache-twisters.
This doesn’t mean that such content is offensive or even shocking. But is it worthy of note? Sure, it might be. That you have even mentioned it here shows that it’s known and noticeable, however you slice it.
The next question is whether it’s a good thing or not, or whether the trope bores you, or lessens your enjoyment of the medium. All of these are fair game.
So yes, your example is actually pretty appropriate, but not in the way you originally intended (I assume).
Just to add to this comment briefly:
Another example is the way in which old-school Japanese games malign black people in quite denigrating ways – you’ll notice that, for the most part, this has improved over the years as it has become less acceptable to do this. This – probably more than the Kung-Fu example – is a case in point as to how these things develop and progress.
I guess it all depends on what you think a review should be. A discussion of the pros and cons that are relevant to the subject.. or a platform to launch a conversation about socials issues you are passionate about.
I think there is nothing wrong with writing an article about all the sexism or racism in the Witcher 3.. it could even be productive.. but that isn’t a review or even an article ABOUT the Witcher 3.. its an article about the topic you want to discuss, using the Witcher 3 as an example.
I think that’s the crux of it, yes. It really depends what you think a review actually is.
My only comment would be that the way characters are portrayed (and the pros and cons of such) are directly relevant to the subject (the game experience). Polygon apparently thinks this way as well, thus their review style.
It reminds me of controversial games like Postal and such; should these games be reviewed without any reference to their extreme and potentially objectionable subject matter? Well, if these things are excluded, it might be a very boring and mechanical review. Personally, I’m not keen on reading that.
As well, and aside from anything else, I would say that a review is always going to be about an individual person’s experience with the game. Many factors may impact that, including things like overt racism or even the game’s perceived value (i.e. pricing versus content). Again, I think it’s all fair game. It just depends on the reviewer. :blush:
I think there are ways to mention these things you find relevant without letting the issue dominate the review to the detriment of other important topics.
A review isn’t art. It doesn’t need to be a naked expression from the author. The responsible thing to do would be write as useful a review to the readers as you possibly can and strive to constantly get better at it. You know what I mean, we call it "being a professional."
So you give detail to as many relevant topics that your readers judge games on as possible, and in a way that doesn’t make the reader have to invest in your bias.
I don’t disagree with you there, but I would just say that I don’t think this review was unprofessional. That’s a huge stretch.
I also don’t think that the discussion about representation of women and minorities "dominated" the review. I mean, really, the review covered many, many points. These were but a couple therein.
The problem is that there’s an unwarranted sensitivity to seemingly any mention of representation of women as a criticism in a game review.
The reviewer can’t help that, and I don’t think they should self-censor to avoid such sensitivity. Rather, I think the reader should make up his or her own mind. If you think such sentiments in a review don’t interest you, then you’re free to disregard them.
But I don’t think it’s fair or right to suggest self-censorship in a case like this.
Rineocerous – If you define art as something that interacts with the viewer’s experience, and generates an emotional reaction, then yes, a review is art. It sure seems like you are emotional about the review.
But Polygon never misses an opportunity to shove their social agenda down your throat, so why wouldn’t they include it in the review AND write a separate article about it? Don’t be silly…
Yes, because choosing to read a review on Polygon is exactly like someone forcing you to eat or drink something. -5 points for needless hyperbole.
But the social issues brought up in the game ARE relevant to the subject of the game, because they are in the game…
this is a very American centric way of looking at things and is the problem with mass culture and why they keep having to remake things all time… I am Australian I have never been to Poland, I have been to a lot of places in Europe but I know enough about its history and place in the world to play Witcher 1 and 2 and read the books to see their cultural influence, as I understand it.
Another way of looking at it is: I dont need a remake of Broadchurch to understand what made the original UK version of Broadchurch so brilliant. The tale it told was universal even if some nuances of story were lost on me. I learn about other countries from exposing myself to their cultural art forms. CDPR have European sensibilities thats why I have no problem with the way nudity is handled in these games where as something like GTA. Sexuality is hardly differently in US to UK and to Europe, to make them generic is to kill exactly what makes these games unique in the landscape of gaming.
Sure. And if they are content with just Poles playing their game then its not a big deal.
But I’m not Polish, and this is an review on a primarily American website. So it’ll be consumed and judged from an American perspective. The fact that it isn’t racially balanced and contains a lot of sexism will make me enjoy the game less. Seems like the same is true for the reviewer.
I’m really not a fan of coconut. If I eat a triple coconut cookie I’m going to go "ew, this has too much coconut this is a crappy cookie". If the chef who made the cookie goes "I made this cookie for people who love coconut" my response does not become "Oh okay, I didn’t know. I guess this is a good cookie", my response is still "okay. this still has too much coconut, this is a crappy cookie" And maybe the chef doesn’t care and is happy making his coconut cookies for people who like coconut. Great. They can eat their cookies, I can go eat a cookie I like. But if the coconut lovers show up on my review of Cookiegon and start talking about how the cookie doesn’t have too much coconut and I gave it too low and how I really should be judging cookies by their sugar and flour and not their coconut…
Actually that self-important perspective is exactly what people have a problem with. Why is someone who doesn’t like coconut reviewing a coconut cookie? How is that valuable to anyone? Wouldn’t most people who share your aversion just opt not to eat the coconut cookie without needing to read reviews about it? And how is it okay for you to declare "this is a crappy cookie" just because you don’t like it? How can you deride what might be one of the highest quality cookies in the world just because it isn’t for you? This is why some, (reasonably minded people IMHO,) think a certain level of objectivity is important in the review process. If you want to make a note that you don’t like coconut so much and that may have affected your opinion of the cookie.. that sounds reasonable and a worthwhile mention for your readers that also aren’t big on coconut.. but to righteously declare something is of lesser value because it wasn’t made to your specific tastes is irresponsible to your cookie-blog readers who happen to like or love coconut.
Yeah, its alright for me to declare "This is a crappy cookie" because I don’t like it. Just like its okay for me to declare "This is a good cookie" because I do like it. That is what the word "like" means.
If I review the cookie, I should certainly say "I enjoyed the texture of the base of the cookie, but I wasn’t a fan of the use of coconut (also there were a few worms in the cookie, but the chef has assured me those will be sorted out in the final release)" then a reader can go "Okay, well I don’t mind coconut so maybe I’ll like this cookie more lets go find another review"
But if no one who dislikes coconut reviews the cookie, then suddenly I look at all the reviews and see "Oh wow! Everyone likes this new cookie". And then I buy it and find its full of coconut and am disappointed none of the reviewers warned me it contained coconut.
Part of the reason I like Polygon is that they do a good job warning me of the coconut in my cookies. If you don’t like that, there are plenty of other sites out there that don’t care about coconut.
And yet Polygon still won’t openly identify themselves as representing any special interests aside from gaming.
Sure.. maybe all the coconut haters will all visit this one cookie-blog to get the straight goods, just as how there are websites that review games based on Christian principals or how accessible they are to disabled gamers.. but at least they identify as such so as to not mislead readers who may have stumbled across their website looking for information relevant to themselves.
Sure.. maybe all the coconut haters will all visit this one cookie-blog to get the straight goods, just as how there are websites that review games based on Christian principals or how accessible they are to disabled gamers.. but at least they identify as such so as to not mislead readers who may have stumbled across their website looking for information relevant to themselves.And I don’t agree it is alright to declare something of lesser value because of your subjective opinion.. I find it unprofessional, socially irresponsible, and potentially slanderous, (and in this case hypocritical,) to not consider the views of your readers while expressing your subjective experience.
But what "special interest" are they representing? Women are not a special interest, they are more than 50% of the population. There shouldn’t be anything controversial in Polygon’s observations here.
Not all women are feminists and not all feminists adhere to the same hypocritical standards common in the school of "Amateur Feminism 101" that Arthur and much of the internet seem to belong to.
What is controversial is to base the value of a video game on it’s supposed lack of value as a platform for social agendas.
Like if I represent an institution such as Forbes.. which has credibility as source for financial and investment advice, and then tell everyone not to buy stocks in cannabis manufacturers because I find it morally repugnant and then those shares soar and everyone who was fool enough to listen to me loses out.. that’s a disservice to the cannabis companies, their investors, my readers, and the institution I represent. I may personally justify that with my own moral standing but objectively I’m terrible at my job.
On the first point about feminism; it’s worth remembering that we aren’t talking about some kind of militant feminist agenda with this particular review. I mean, as I read it…it’s pretty lukewarm. It’s not stating anything remotely controversial in terms of representation of women. One doesn’t have to be a "feminist" per se to see this clearly, I think.
On your latter points, I think I’d just say that this entire game was not being judged on the sole basis of "social agendas" (again, what "agenda"? Respect for women is a specific social agenda? Who would argue the opposite view in this case?) – I think that the portrayal of women was just one factor in a much, much broader review.
And that’s okay. Again, I think it ought not to be controversial in the way it apparently is. If you don’t agree with the author’s fairly safe, banal points…then I think you can safely disregard them. That’s okay too.
Rineocerous, subjective opinions are inextricably linked to value judgments. A review, by definition, is loaded with subjective opinions. I think you are just uncomfortable about Polygon talking about sex and race. That’s fine. Read other reviews then.
American perspective? You’re from Canada or Chile? Brasil? Mexico? I don’t know what perspective you’re reffering to and what country in the world has some kind of universal perspective shared among every citizen [though i would bet it’s not USA since it is – in comparison to European or Eastern – recently created country as a kind of gene and cultural gumbo so it should be actually most cosmopolitan country in the world], but whatever it would be – judging any art, film, book without cultural context is very shallow and juvenile and that comparison to some cookies and coconuts is just in pair to such view. It seem’s it’s just not your type of world that books and game depicts. OK – to each it’s own.
why should Americans judge it from an American perspective? Thats the problem right there. Americans should be look at it through European eyes through the culture that made the game. All forms of art and culture are different the world over, you should judge it based on where it was made, without wanting to change it to suit your eyes and sensibilities. Thats just a form a censorship.
There is a difference between sexuality and sexism. Sexuality is very different across the continents.
People should judge it things from their perspective because its the only perspective the have to judge it from… just a piece of art is French doesn’t make it any less sexist than if its American. Now, sure, it might be fine to show that art in gallery France whereas showing it American gallery isn’t okay.
Sure, there can be some level of appreciation for the culture in which a work was made. If an American company were to make the Witcher I’d likely have a bigger problem with it. But the idea that just because something isn’t offensive in the culture it was made that it can’t be offensive in the wider global culture is completely ridiculous.
that is frankly ridiculous, you seen the episode of the Simpson’s about the statue of David? That is exactly the situation. Or today’s example Fox News blurring the breasts of a Picasso painting. Which is even funnier cos its not even a naturalistic.
I come from Australia and we for the most part (these days) have as prudish sensibility to nudity as US does. That doesnt mean a pair of cubist breast are sexist or vulgar. That doesnt mean people arent capable or seeing other cultures expressions their that cultures eyes, it means that we ourselves dont create that sort of culture that much ourselves.
Nope, what a waste of words, I should have just stopped at Simpsons David episode that explains the ridiculous of some of the US approach to art. Maybe if you (and Australia) had as much nudity on display as Europe does everywhere, nudity wouldnt be such a deal.
If Fox News wants to blur the breasts of a work of art, its their airwaves and their choice to decide what to do with it. If they want to say "I don’t like the piece because there are uncovered breasts" that is also totally their right. You obviously don’t have to agree with them, but they still can have an opinion on it and share that opinion with others.
Clearly it is good to be accepting and understanding of other cultures. This is why I totally support CDPR’s freedom to make the game as they see fit.
But there is a difference between being accepting of a cultural work ("I’m okay with this art existing") and not being able to share your personal feelings on that work ("That being said, I don’t like it")
Jeez, you just really hate coconuts.
When "coconuts" is treating half of the human population like subhumans… yeah I really hate coconuts.
Also I hate actual coconuts too just not as much :smiley:
I think that it is a very important distinction that video games don’t treat people poorly, they render virtual avatars used in creative expressions that may or may not depict something pleasant.
I assure you no actual humans, male or female, were harmed in the making of this video game.
Sorry I don’t see your point. If CDPR was harming women in the making of their game, then "cultural differences" be damned, I’d want to see them properly dealt with.
The issue here is just that I don’t like treating women like shit, and don’t really have a strong desire to simulate treating women like shit.
It might actually be OK to simulate treating women like shit, if there was some sort of constructive payoff in the end. Like, if the misogyny was in service of the larger narrative where the gamer becomes more conscious of misogyny.
Characters are already in the books and are fully developed and games are CONTINUATION of their stories. Out of respect for an author, CDPR wouldn’t dare to touch characters established in clearly defined world boundaries [both geographical and social] and known for over 15 years, to whole generation of Polish ppl, for the sake of small, but vocal group of close minded ‘murricans with chauvinistic, toxic point of view of other cultures and countries and their over thousand years old history – and that’s what it would be – butchering Sapkowski’s books for the sake of misplaced political corectness.
It may be hard to understand for someone who’s not aware how short is his nation’s history in comparison to history of European [or mid and far eastern] countries, but there actually were times when ppl didn’t even knew that world is larger than maybe a thousand KMs wide, and ppl of different races were out of the picture – probably somewhere between folklore tales of devils and demons and that’s how they would’ve been percieved. :}
Want to have ppl of different races in a society where woman are equal to man? Maybe You’ll have it IF one day CDPR will take us on a journey to Zerrikania that is far south of Witcher 3 playable region.
If Sapkowski and CDPR were from Nepal, and W3 was a saga set in 10th century Africa and based on local beliefs and lore – would W3 also be bashed for not having obligatory ppl of nordic, south american or far eastern region?
Oh an as for woman – Geralt is mostly a boytoy for some of them so writing about woman being a prop…. omg… facepalm. Absolute lack of any kind of unbiased empathy towards female lead characters is hard to comprehend. You’ve got it absolutely backwards. Isn’t woman’s freedom to choose their partners and have fun with them a sign of their emancipation? Only a total, d**k treats them as brainless automatons, servitors to Geralt overblown desire by not even considering that their actions are result of their freedom of will and independent thinking. It’s actually their concious decision in game to have a sex with protagonist to satisfy their desire and to have fun and as with any two adult ppl – that feeling is mutual. Noone here is a prop or subservient – even playing as Geralt we may choose to follow our heart towards only one partner – it’s up to the player.
Ohhh i can only imagine what would Yennefer do if she read that she’s a prop :smile: ruuun! :smile:
This is the best comment in this whole thread so far.
You win the internet sir. Very insightful I didn’t think about it this way until now. Sometimes I forget these games are based on books
thank you for your comment sir. I hope someone at Polygon will take time to answer your post on how biased and unfair this sad, predictable review was.
Cathulhu, perhaps the game does make it clear that women are in charge. If so, great. But I can tell you that in the past games, that wasn’t clear. This reviewer obviously didn’t feel like they were given the type of status you imagine.
Anyone who brings up "but the books" defence also conveniently leaves out the fact that Sapkowski is on the record that he hates the games. He disowned them and treats them with contempt as poorly written fan fiction.
The game itself also takes massive liberties with the source material. It has to in order to make it work as a game. CD Projekt are as inspired by the Western RPG traditions as by Sapkowski’s books. And that’s fine. But apparently they decided that including different skin tones in a game that already discusses racism, is a step to far. Which frankly sucks, because there is no reason why they can’t update a work released in 2015 to be more relevant than one written in the late 80s to early 90s. I mean, what would have happened to the game’s world if some of the characters or NPCs were not white? If apart from the already pervasive racism dynamics of the human/elf/dwarf/witcher you could mix it up a little bit more with non-white characters? What would you lose by doing that? And don’t tell me "but the books" because the games are so far removed from the original saga by now that it’s not credible. Also by taking your opinion to its logical conclusion, updating or changing the original work in any way is sacrilege.
"If Sapkowski and CDPR were from Nepal, and W3 was a saga set in 10th century Africa and based on local beliefs and lore – would W3 also be bashed for not having obligatory ppl of nordic, south american or far eastern region?"
When we get a saga set in 10th century Africa, come back to me with that question. Also, it’s slightly funny that you ignore how so many games set in Africa or Asia still feature a white, male protagonist.
As for treatment of women. I haven’t played the Witcher 3 and frankly no one writing in the comment sections has. If it is anything similar to the Witcher 2, then yeah it will probably be poor. The game was much worse than the books at depicting both the flings and the more serious relationships of Geralt. You just get more information about the desires and thoughts of women that meet Geralt in the Witcher books. I guess it is easier to develop the point of view of other characters in literature since so many games are firmly attached to the hero’s perspective. But it’s still a valid criticism.
The only thing that I struggle with is the "too much violence against women" one. If you’re depicting a misogynist society, I guess that is to be expected, no? I guess I’ll see for myself soon since all the files for Witcher 3 are pre-loaded on my gaming rig and barring some PC related major screw ups, I’ll be playing and likely enjoying the game in a few days. In the meantime it’s time to go through the Witcher 2 one more time.
PS also anyone who unironically writes "vocal group of close minded ‘murricans with chauvinistic, toxic point of view" after some fairly gentle criticism in a glowing review, should probably should check again whether they are being a chauvinist
If it’s a fantasy world, why bother trying to make it realistic? Why not have powerful female characters? Fantasy should hew somewhat close to reality, but it doesn’t have to embody perfect social accuracy.
The Witcher 3 is a mixed bag. The gameplay is fun, the graphics are nice, the story is deep and interesting but it’s almost as if the developers went out of their way not to depict any automobiles. Sure you could argue that the game takes place in a time before such technological advancements but it’s a fantasy game depicting magic and all sorts of unrealistic beasts so there is really no excuse why there couldn’t be cars or at least a motorbike. Also there is a wide variety of food items available to restore your vitality but most of these items are forms of meat dishes.. making the game unnecessarily difficult for vegans on higher difficulties. The writers of The Witcher 3 also failed to address the social and financial difficulties of being a single father which I found distracting and unfortunate. Ultimately The Witcher 3 is a good game that falls short in a few key areas and may only be worth your time if you are a bachelor who prefers the outdated transportation method of enslaving horses and who feasts on an abundance of meat.
Because everything you just listed is equivalent to treating women with a bit of respect.
It doesn’t have to be equivalent. My point was that "reviews are subjective" is a stupid argument.
Also, all things are equal before self interest gets in the way.
Self interest like the way single fathers are depicted? I don’t know if I’m comfortable with that social agenda in a video game review, honestly. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
Wait! I guess it depends which social issues are kosher and relevant. But how do we decide that? Hm.
Hey, let’s make a Holocaust movie in which Jews are treated with a bit of respect. Seriously? The whole point of The Witcher is the morally rotten world.
Hahaha. That’s amazing.
It’s not really. It misunderstands the issue. Comparing the treatment of women to an absence of motorcars underscores this.
Can’t speak for him but I think this is mostly a reference to the absence of other ethnicities, not the mysogynism. Spot on in that regard imo
This little satirical piece completely misses the point.
OMG, I love this comment!
I also now understand that Polygon’s reviews don’t align with what I’m looking for in a review. I shouldn’t get upset at the reviewer for lowering the score of a game because how women are treated in a fantasy setting where woman are generally treated poorly. I should just accept that this is how Polygon will differentiate itself from other review sites. It’s great that those that feel so strongly about the subject can come to this site and read reviews that align with their viewpoints.
For me, I will focus on other review sites to make my game purchasing decisions.
David Zhou
David Zhou
Senior Full-Stack Engineer, Vox Media
This is the reasonable move to make. The entire reason multiple press outlets exist is that, in theory, they each are able to give their own take on things. Find a reviewer/site that matches what you typically like in games!
For many, it might be Polygon. Maybe for you, it’s IGN or Gamespot.
(I still read Giant Bomb regularly, for example)
I disagree with your point. But that is pretty funny.
I wholeheartedly agree with @silellak. The reviewer had every right to point out his views on these aspects of how the game made him feel overall. It’s an experience after all.
That said, I think the reviewer could have criticized the game portrayal of women & etc. with more context regarding such criticism with how it compares to previous games in the series and the how such portrayals compare to other efforts from Polish.
For example, Americans sensitivities to sex & race (perceived often as being immature or hypocritical by European countries) is very distinct from the culture the developers of this game call home.
Did the segments of Ciri allowed the serendipity of freedom you’d expect playing as a female protagonist?
It’ll be very interesting what Phillip Kollar thinks of this game during the upcoming Quality Control related to this game.
Personally, as far as previous blockbusters in the genre this game has shown extensive promise of being warrantable of being superior than Dragon Age: Inquisition—which I expected (while having a fantastic time playing that game)—the last AAA game with the aims of being a open-world & having heavy investment behind it.
Based on the added complexity it brings to the established gameplay systems of the series that warranted it having high media & preorder attention, it sounds like the game has overwhelmingly succeeded providing a distinct, worthwhile experience warrantable of purchasing this new entry of the series.
I enjoyed reading through the review and I don’t care about scores, but reviews shouldn’t just be subjective criticism. There does need to be a level of objectivity.
Yes, and there are both subjective and objective observations in this review. Both are valid.
Subjective: "I perceived a great deal of sexism in the game, and it impacted by enjoyment."
Objective: "The game has camera and performance issues, and controls feel inaccurate. These also impacted my enjoyment."
I don’t see why not. Just because it’s a game? The criticism wouldn’t be any less valid for a movie, tv show, play, or book.
The racial diversity thing doesn’t bother me at first blush, considering the source material’s Eastern European origins. But then I remember that Eastern Europe was the site of genocide within my lifetime – and has been in the past as well. So IDK if blaming it on the source material actually makes it any better. The "it’s based on medieval Europe" argument is a little better, I suppose, but you’d still see some racial diversity. Even in medieval Europe you’d find travelers (merchants, diplomats, invaders like the Moores, etc.) or even slaves (or their descendants) from abroad. Also, I can’t help but wonder if I’d feel more strongly about any of this if I were part of a minority… or a woman.
So yeah, as a white guy from the U.S. it wouldn’t be the first thing I’d notice, but it definitely gets me thinking, and it certainly doesn’t help negative stereotypes about gamers and our hobby of choice.
Thank you. It’s a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides, but I don’t think we should dismiss valid criticisms just because it’s a game.
I completely agree. I continue to be surprised at the bizarre cognitive dissonance on display within much of the gaming community at times. It’s weird, because in some ways we are a group of people who have a hobby that is derided by large parts of broader society; we should be more socially aware than we are, I think.
I think a lot of the cognitive dissonance comes from a simple attitude – if the game is fun, we want high scoring reviews context be damned, so that more fun games are made. Sure, I want more fun games too, but the real problem is that too many consumers rely on scores and Metacritic. This undermines nuanced discussion.
Just gotta say, i agree with the general point of your comment. However, i have to point out the incorrect statement of "..you’d still see some racial diversity". The Witcher 3, if i remember, takes place at the most 10 years after Witcher 2 (correct me if I’m wrong). This means, at the latest, it takes place in the year 1228. This is long before Europe had visited the exotic places of the planet, and as such, non-Caucasian people were practically unheard of. As such, in the context of the Witcher and it’s influences, it would not make much sense to have people of Asian or African descent running about.
However, the point about women being treated shittily i have to agree with. Though they were most definitely treated far shittier than they are today, the dark ages were most definitely not a rape and violence filled world. In most parts of Europe, anyway.
The ‘First Crusade’ started in 1096, and there’s plenty of evidence that there was greater racial diversity (esp. around big trading ports) than many expect. Heck, the Romans conquered most of Western Europe and had expeditions and links as far as India and perhaps even China (from what I can remember at this time in the morning), and that doesn’t just suddenly disappear.
This means, at the latest, it takes place in the year 1228. This is long before Europe had visited the exotic places of the planet, and as such, non-Caucasian people were practically unheard of. As such, in the context of the Witcher and it’s influences, it would not make much sense to have people of Asian or African descent running about.
Wjat? The Crusades? The Romans interacting with Egyptians? The Roman war with Carthage? Greek wars with the Persians? Alexander the Great’s little rampage into Asia? Europeans knew of non-Caucasians. Stop kidding yourself.
(oh, and I forgot the Huns, and likely many other examples, but the Huns are a pretty glaring omission on my part)
Also, while this game is based on medieval europe, it is actually set in a completely constructed world. Everything that is there is there because CDPR or Andrzej Sapkowski thought it should be there, and by the same token everything that isn’t there is missing because they decided it wasn’t important enough to include.
When we look at the overarching trend through fantasy, be it movies, books, or games, and see that it shies away from portraying Women or People of Colour in a positive non-objectified light, if it bothers to depict them at all, it starts to become relevant that a big fantasy game in 2015 doesn’t bother to depict many people of colour and doesn’t bother to create non-sexualised female characters.
(Not that it’s actually relevant, but if anyone wants concrete examples of People of Colour in Europe before 1200, have a look at this letter from an Egyptian Legionnaire.)
Roman Europe and medieval Europe have nothing in common with each other as far as racial diversity is concerned. The collapse of Rome meant the collapse of the Pax Romana which meant the collapse of large-scale population transfer from the south of the Mediterranean to the north, with two exceptions: the Muslim conquests of Spain and Sicily on the one hand, and the Turkish conquests of the Balkans on the other.
Also, since when are Egyptians not white?
I don’t know where are you going with that genocide argument, tbh, but as a person of both Jewish and Polish heritage I find the suggestion borderline offensive. I invite you to educate yourself about "paradisus Iudaeorum", read about history of Nazi occupation of Poland, visit the Krakow-based exhibition devoted to the topic at the site of Schindler’s factory — or the former Auschwitz-Birkenau camp located in 40 km proximity — learn about Tadeusz Pankiewicz, Marek Edelman, Kazimierz Moczarski, Witold Piłecki or Jan Karski before making in future any half-informed comments that try to summarize 800-year-long coexistence of two groups of people in a single, incoherent, if not outright inane remark on a website devoted to video gaming, of all things. Also, I don’t have a clue what other genocides that occured on the territory of Eastern Europe do you imply, because the genocide of Greek Anatolians, Circassians or Armenians would be vastly stretching the geographic definitions of the regions. But I’m wandering off.
Both the games and the source material in form Andrzej Sapkowski’s novels deal with notions of racism, ethnic and cultural tensions in abundance (the 1st book in the saga bears a telling title "Blood of Elves), only that these issues are problematized not along the lines of colour, but the fantasy tropes of races, i.e. Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Driads and Halflings. Both Sapkowski’s novels and CDPR’s series of video games (to a lesser extent) are products of Polish culture, written by a Polish writer and adapted into a video game medium, by and large, by Polish narrative designers and scriptwriters. To actively expect and decry them for not sharing American sensibilities strikes me as a bit ethnocentric and self-important.
On the subject of portrayal of women, while I have my fair share of grievances with the series, the world portrayed in the books and games alike draws heavily from Medieval history. One does not have to read Sapkowski’s Hussite Trilogy to see just how obsessed the author is with that period of European history and how much informed by it his world-building is, gender relations included. It’s a dark fantasy with adult themes, is it altogether so shocking to think that the developers would not shy away from showing men, who prey on women’s vulnerability in such circumstances? Still, Triss, Ciri or Yennefer emerge as some of the strongest, most interesting and likeable characters found in the whole series of books.
I think you need to calm down and re-read my post. A common argument on here has been that the game should get a pass for the lack of diversity because it’s based on Eastern European source material and is aimed at a primarily caucasian audience. I was suggesting that the game shouldn’t get a pass for the lack of diversity given how various racial and ethnic groups have been treated in Eastern Europe. I’m quite familiar with the history, hence my allusion to the history of genocide in the region – the same history you just told me to re-familiarize myself.
Uhmm, the post you are replying to, did not apportion any blame to anyone.
I mean your post is pretty spot on in general, but I’m just not sure how you think it is a reply to criticism that I thought wasn’t present there at all. Saying that Eastern Europe was a site of genocide in living memory is just a statement of fact. Apart from the Jews you have the Hlodomor and after WW II started, genocide of Slav populations in Poland and the Soviet Union in Generalplan Ost was official policy.
Also to support your point a bit further – all the people going: "but, but Polish culture is xyz so it’s fine if the game does xyz", conveniently leave out that until 1945 Poland was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. And during the late Medieval/early Modern eras we also had a significant Tatar minority, especially in the South-East of the Commonwealth before the partitions.
This idea that Poland is somehow a monoculture is the result of the Holocaust, deportation of the Germans living East of the Oder and deportation of the Poles living East of the Bug. And since much of the Witcher lore takes generously from the beliefs of the Eastern Slavs, once you include Russians and Ukrainians, then interaction with non-white people was a daily aspect of life for many since the first Mongol invasions.
People invoking "historical reality" as some sort of justification for the game, need to get a grip. You can like the game, hell, I’ll probably love it. But don’t go on about historic reality as a defence for what you like. Especially if you have no clue about said reality.
Poland was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society – no one disputes this. But we’re not talking about different ethnic or religious groups, which The Witcher universe seems to have in abundance. What we’re talking about are different racial groups, race according to the modern American definition of "variation in skin color." Poland was at no point in its history a multiracial society.
Sure, let’s just forget about the Lipka Tatars and their 400 years of service to Polish kings. Or that at various stages of our history, inhabitants of the Southern and Eastern parts of the Commonwealth would see or interact in some form with Asians, be it of Turkic or Mongol origin.
I am in no way arguing that the PLC was somehow similar to modern London or New York. What I am saying is that there was a lot of contact and some settlement by non-white populations. In the Witcher game universe, they are not rare, but literally non-existent. Mind you, I am not arguing that they should be included in the game. I see no reason why not, but it’s not that important. I am only arguing that people who bring up Polish history as a reason for CD Projekt not do so are wrong.
Why not? A sprawling fantasy world that aims to be gritty and realistic does itself a disservice by clumsily portraying women and only having a bunch of white people. It calls attention to itself, and it cheapens the world and the characters a little, thus detracting from the overall experience of playing the game.
I agree. I’ve read the books, and the Witcher wold is a fantastic rethinking of medieval Europe. Not Africa, India, or some wonderfully mixed fantasy place where all races simultaneously co-exist.
Sexism is realism, as is racism (against the non-humans), which is supposedly in the game – just like in Witcher 2. I think that makes this game more interesting, less Disney.
Women wearing stuff that exposes their bosoms is not sexist. These women have power. Some have tremendous power – more than the men. I think that’s pretty cool.
Also, read the books, they’re very good.
No, but for this game in special, it shouldn’t, as the game is based on a book that started in 1986, so those things are expected.
Keep in mind that the score is one agreed upon by the author and the site editors after the review itself has been written, and is intended to reflect the review as a whole but is not (strictly speaking) defined by it. There’s no "-0.5 points for no PoC" or anything, but if the game stumbles in one respect or another that would be considered.
Personally I appreciate that Polygon is interested in looking beyond the simple technical aspects of the game, and considering more diverse points of view in its review process.
The "mature" themes of the Witcher series feel very much like the juvenile wank fantasies of a 14-year-old boy.
I was hoping that the devs would have matured after the laughable sexuality of Witcher 2, but it looks like that didn’t happen.
Sexist portrayals aside, many reviews (including this one) say that the story is actually much more mature and respectful of an adult intelligence than many recent games. So it sounds like it gets things very right, and very wrong, on the same front.
Witcher 2 at least had a pretty solid story and if they build upon that I can very much see why Witcher 3 gets praised. But the treatment of sexual intercourse itself in Witcher 2 was easily the most cringe worthy part of that game. I struggle to come up with a game that treats sex in an interesting way that some books or films manage.
People have sex, why shouldn’t have in a game like this?
I… I don’t think anyone has said they shouldn’t…
No, they didn’t. They have said that Ciri should probably button up her blouse, because there’s no real reason for her to leave it unbuttoned. They have also questioned the choice of clothing in general for the female leads, since skintight pants and blouses don’t necessarily aid in combat. They have also said that some of the abuses towards women in this game felt like they were there for cheap shock value. Although, for a dark fantasy world based loosely on medieval Europe, I’m not sure raping and pillaging is out of place, as much as it may bother modern sensibilities. I guess I can’t really judge for myslef until I play those sequences.
As for Unicorn sex… well, wouldn’t you if you were a Witcher and your sorceress girlfriend was into it? I think it may have been Kotaku’s review that pointed out that sex is often goofy/kinky, and I have to say that I agree. Especially given the premise set forth for this world in which both witchers and sorceresses are sterile and can have a carefree sex life (STDs don’t appear to be an issue in this world). It’s just another part of the fantasy. I take more issue with the objectification of women through their choice of clothing than the sex scenes themselves. That may sound weird, but again, Ciri’s outfit isn’t exactly practical for combat. Especially not compared to the outfit Geralt wears.
You mean the fantasy novels of a 60 year old Polish man I guess?
The Witcher series has, so far, had a core theme of the issues of marginalized minorities and prejudice in society, and TW2 did a great job of fleshing out its nonhuman/nonmale/nonstraight characters – let’s remember that the actual plot revolves around an all-female cabal having internal schisms and secret machinations about ruling the world; Geralt is just the boy-toy of one of them, so he gets caught up.
So, whether the sequel lives up to the series previously established thematic undertones is kinda relevant. Much like ME2 was criticized for having a "filler plot" that lacked the first one’s wonder and focused storytelling. That doesn’t mean that it didn’t have great writing (particularly the characters) and peerless gameplay at the time, just that it diverged from the tone of the series enough to be a deal-breaker for some.
For a progressive website who purports to care about how culture, gender, and race are used or not used in video games and media, they seem to never take the second step in their research. First of all, the game is based on a twenty five year old Polish High Fantasy novel. So it helps to reflect on the time and place where that was written. Second, I think as a United States website it’s ethnocentric to judge foreign games by anglo-american values and criticize people from another culture with another history. Polygon is especially harsh when talking about Japanese games. I’d enjoy reading an opinion piece lampooning the portrayal of women and people of color in Japanese or European games, written however by a Japanese or European.
There are a few problems with this line of thinking. First, the game is based on the books, but is not an adaptation of any of them; this is an entirely original story, written this decade. Second, issues of representation are not bound by cultural borders. While they may be there because of prevailing culture in their nation of origin, it does not affect whether or not they are problematic in their depictions of historically underrepresented and persecuted minorities; and if anything, it demonstrates an even greater importance in discussing these issues if they are fundamental to a culture, because it demonstrates how that culture might itself have a fundamental problem.
"demonstrates how that culture might itself have a fundamental problem."
What criteria are you using to discern what facet of a culture is problematic?
"While they may be there because of prevailing culture in their nation of origin, it does not affect whether or not they are problematic in their depictions of historically underrepresented and persecuted minorities"
Underrepresented and persecuted minorities in Poland were the Polish for most of the 21st century. This is the ethnocentrism I’m talking about. Everything is through this American lens. It’s the egocentric predicament specifically for people living in the United States.
Exactly. It’s extremely tiresome to read clueless Americans go on about how every medieval fantasy novel, TV series, or game needs to reflect the racial demographics of the modern United States for some incomprehensible reason. There was no concept of skin color-based race in medieval Europe.
But it’s not quite that simple either. For instance, in medieval times, women were frequently stoned or burned as witches. If we saw a medieval-style game come along which constantly and randomly throws in scenes of women burning alive or being stoned by groups of men, we may want to take some pause and ask about the validity or relevance of this.
Validity? Huh, ignoring history like it’s nothing? People outside of the States and particularly Europe have already learnt how to live with their past no matter good or bad.
I would argue in a media like video games – artistic freedom should be king and it’s the creator choice to pick their tool set on how to tell the story. I don’t see any good outcome from that video games to be constantly reduced by so called critics to the point of cherry-picking stuff out of context and setting just to prove that their political stance is the ‘the final solution’ for everyone, everything else is problematic and should not exists. This sounds like censorship and nasty eugenics to me. Well, clickbait articles and "reviews" like this are the way to go for a media that’s clearly dying.
"I would argue in a media like video games – artistic freedom should be king and it’s the creator choice to pick their tool set on how to tell the story."
And so they are… (Well, except budgeting and marketing and production issues are clearly king, but anyway.)
…And critics should be free to criticise those choices. No?
If CD Projekt Red set out to make Witcher 3 a dark and unfair world, or even a sexy world – but the reviewer actually found it an experience that was cheapened by too frequent titillation – that would seem to be a valid criticism.
A big part of this is due to how past Witcher games treated women. Its interesting to note any changes if at all on how they treat women in a new game in the series.
Yes, Geis is always pushing an anti-sex agenda in his reviews under the guise of feminism. I’ll be glad when he moves on to something other than video games.
Arthur seems to have encountered more technical issues than the other reviews I’ve read. Most of them have only complained about occasional frame rate drops. Maybe they’re just glossing things over on the assumption that the patch will take care of it all? Still, not a terrible score by any means, and I’m looking forward to this game.
Giant Bomb hasn’t posted a review yet, but on the Bombcast, they definitely mentioned some major technical problems.
It makes sense. Polygon and Giantbomb normally do seem to be more forthright with these sorts of issues.
They won’t be posting a review.
Is that a result of having a broken build or the length of the game? Ever since the back to back of FFXIII and Red Dead taking up three weeks of Brad’s time I don’t think they’ve allocated the sort of resources necessary for reviews of long games, which is why I find their editorial content has a massive blind spot.
GB doesn’t review RPGs, they have no interest in it. They barely review anything any more. shrug, it isn’t why people go to that site.
Note that is is a supposition, but seems likely.
I didn’t know that, damn, it’s unthinkable to me to be a gamer and not play RPG.
Oh they play them. They all played Dark Souls II, they all played Bloodborne, Jeffs been talking about FFX/X-2 and Diablo 3 for a while now. They just don’t review any of them because they don’t see the point if they can’t get a review up in a timely manner. That’s why their Red Dead review is finished but was never published; it was a week late because of FFXIII.
Really? In the podcast they said the review was coming from their NY Office and then went on to say that Vinny would be writing it.
Some reviewers were playing on debug PS4 consoles that already had the day one patch applied.
I have yet to see such a review. Who had the patch?
Read the author’s bio:
Kevin VanOrd has played all three Witcher games and read several of the novels. He spent about 100 hours with The Witcher 3 on a PlayStation 4 debug system, a version that included the games’ day-one patch. He uses the word "ploughing" in everyday speech.
I assume other critics had this available to them as well.
This review is lower than the average it seems – I’m fine with that though. Its nice to get some actual disclosure on the technical issues.
I don’t exactly get the point of addressing Ciri’s "revealing" clothing. Does it really matter for a review? Shouldn’t the main focus be the stability of the game, how well the characters interact with each other, and the story? I get the lack of ethnicity. That just seems odd that you found only white people. But for Ciri’s design choice, does that TRULY have a major role in how you see the game?
I get the lack of ethnicity. That just seems odd that you found only white people.
The Witcher world’s setting was created by a Polish guy after all, I don’t think he is as sensitive to race as us Americans are. And treatment of gender, maybe the author was shooting for a little realism in this fantasy land (by realism, I mean mimicking the structure of the middle ages).
Philip Kollar
Philip Kollar
Senior Editor, Polygon
Oh! I thought by realism you meant the dragons and griffins and shit. Good to clear that up.
This is such a tiresome response. Why does a Polish author or a Polish development team have to make their medieval fantasy game correspond to the racial demographics of 21st-century America? Are Americans so jingoistic that they’re incapable of understanding that different parts of the world will have had different histories of race?
It’s perfectly sensible for an artist to want to be realistic in some ways and not in others.
Kirielson
Kirielson
Moderator, Polygon
No it’s just kind of ignorant for people to think that Europe was and is 100% white during that era when Moors, etc. all existed in that time.
I’m a specialist in Medieval Spain. The "Moors" (which is an outdated and racist term, nowadays we call them Iberian Muslims or Andalusis), were no less "white" than the modern Spanish – they were just native Iberians who had over the centuries converted to Islam. There was no large influx of "black" or "non-white" people from North Africa who supplanted the native "whites."
And that’s in Spain. Outside of Iberia, Sicily, and briefly parts of southern France there weren’t "Moors" anywhere else in Europe – certainly not in Poland. In medieval Northern and Eastern Europe (excluding the Balkans, which had a different history) there was no concept of racial difference – what mattered was religion, especially Jewish vs Christian, and also Catholic vs Orthodox vs Protestant/Reformed, and in the early stages Christian vs Pagan.
Poland got invaded more than a few times by the Golden Horde…
The Mongols were no longer "racially" distinct after a generation or two of intermarriage with the local population in any of the territories they conquered. The Golden Horde itself was principally Turkic, not Mongol (Europeans called them "the Tatars"). We have very little evidence from medieval European or Middle Eastern sources that the Mongols or Turks were conceived of as being racially distinctive, as opposed to linguistically or culturally distinctive.
In any event, the Mongol presence in Poland was minor: a handful of invasions over the course of a 40-year period in the 1200s and then nothing.
You trying to tell me that you can’t tell a Polish guy apart from a Turkish guy in a lineup?
You don’t really understand how this works do you.
Turks in Turkey look like Greeks. Why is this? Because historically they descend from Greeks who started speaking Turkish.
Turks in the region controlled by the Golden Horde look like Slavs. Why is this? Because historically they descend from Slavs who started speaking Turkic languages. Go look up Crimean Tatars, they look like this: http://unpo.org/imgi/p/449.jpg
When it comes to female misogyny in this game, I’m totally on the side of the reviewer. It’s unnecessary and cheap, and despite some arguments that this echoes medieval Europe, "sex on top of unicorns" with over-sexualized women that look like anime characters weren’t part of that deal.
When it comes to "inclusion" of ethnically diverse characters, that’s a whole other story, and if The Witcher is supposed to echo Medieval Europe (or more specifically, an Eastern European/Northern/Baltic setting) then that speaks for itself.
In my opinion, there is quite a wide divide between requesting to not have bluntly and horrible misogynic content in a game where women are raped and murdered, compared to requesting "inclusion" for identification reasons.
People keep saying it needs to be realistic… but The Witcher isn’t set on Earth. It’s an entirely fictional setting and place. The medieval appearance is aesthetic, and nothing more than that, it doesn’t matter how European countries were in a certain time period.
The entire world and the inhabitants are entirely fiction.
And so it follows that it should resemble America? That all fictional settings should resemble America, because why not? America’s the best? America’s racial history is somehow the definitive racial history of the world (even though it’s objectively terrible)?
Come on. This is ethnocentrism of the first order. A Polish development studio can make their game look like medieval Poland if they want to.
They’re fictional, they can resemble anywhere. A developer can make it look like anything they want, but it doesn’t change that it’s entirely fictional. And due to that, it doesn’t mean that critique in regards to the races depicted isn’t valid.
Of course they can resemble anywhere. What you’re doing is making the argument that they should resemble America. What I’m doing is pointing out that this is a totally arbitrary preference for you to have, and there’s no real reason why we should insist that our medieval fantasy settings resemble modern-day America more so than any other time or place (including medieval Europe).
No, I’m not. I’m making the argument that it’s fine for someone to have an opinion, and that historical accuracy is irrelevant.
Also, for reference: I’m British, live in Hong Kong, never lived or been to the U.S..
Historical accuracy is relevant if the developers want it to be relevant. It’s not fine for someone to insist that game developers suspend their desire for historical accuracy in order to create settings that imitate the racial demographics of the modern US. This is an arbitrary, thoughtless demand that should have no place in games criticism.
It’s not relevant when it’s still a fantasy world. They can apply certain aspects taken from history, but that does not then make it historically accurate, because it never existed within history. The game at no point can become part of European history in anyway. It’s always going to be fantasy.
And it is totally fine for someone to have an opinion. You may not agree with it, but it doesn’t make their opinion any less valid.
And finally, this does have a place in game critique, too. Nothing is beyond critique, ever.
Of course they can apply certain aspects taken from history. What we’re arguing is whether it’s reasonable for reviewers to demand they apply specific aspects taken from history and not others to meet their arbitrary preferences.
What Gies is doing in his review is the equivalent of demanding that The Witcher 3 have cars in it because he likes to see cars in his games. It’s just as arbitrary and just as ridiculous as demanding The Witcher 3 include an America-style array of skin colorations. So no, it’s not totally fine for him to have this sort of stupid opinion: it’s embarrassing and insulting to the intelligence of everyone here.
There’s no demand, there questioning. Bringing up the fact that everyone is white.
As it’s an opinion (which can’t be wrong) and it’s a fantasy world, where anything is possible, there is nothing that is being said that is absurd.
He brought up the fact that everyone is white because to him it’s a problem. He doesn’t like the game as much because it doesn’t have American racial demographics. This is like watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and complaining that everyone is Chinese.
It’s a stupid opinion, and you can’t wave it away by saying it’s a fantasy world where anything is possible. That doesn’t matter. In any work of fiction, fantasy or no, anything is possible. That’s why it’s called fiction. It is absurd to criticize works of fiction for not adhering to some America-centric ideal of racial diversity.
Crouching Tiger is also fantasy, but it is set in China and a historical dynasty. So that’s a different scenario. The Witcher is not set in anything other than a fantasy world.
That makes absolutely no difference. Fantasy is fantasy. They’re both works of fiction that could have been more racially diverse but weren’t because their creators didn’t want to create them that way. There’s nothing wrong with that and it’s not a valid locus of criticism.
It does, if The Witcher was actually set in Poland (like Crouching Tiger was set in China), then they’d be a greater reason for the racial representation. But it isn’t. Like The Elder Scrolls isn’t, like Dragon Age isn’t.
The Witcher has more in common with Tolkien, Dragon Age, The Elder Scrolls, even Dark Souls, than it does something like Crouching Tiger.
This is a distinction without a difference. There is no reason that a fantasy series set in a nominally mythical kingdom should be held to a different standard than one set in a nominally historical kingdom. It’s no more reasonable to demand that The Witcher’s setting match American racial demographics than it is to demand that Crouching Tiger or The Order or Dark Souls match American racial demographics. Mythical settings are often lightly-disguised allegories for historical settings, and historical settings are often thin veneers for fantasy.
No, there’s a pretty big difference between something being set in an actual historical period, and something being set in a completely made up universe.
And although they can be allegorical, it still doesn’t change the fact that they are ultimately, still pure fantasy.
No there isn’t. You’re making up this difference because you want to find some reason why it’s OK to tell CD Projekt Red that their game should be as ethnically diverse as Manhattan.
Fiction is fiction. You cannot insist that a work of fiction look the way you want it to look just because it’s set in a fantastical setting.
If you can’t understand that there is a difference between actual historic events and scenarios, and complete fantasy… then there’s nowhere else to take this…
Fiction is fiction, and it’s just as reasonable to question and critique the fiction in any way, as it is to accept it as it’s delivered.
There is no difference that matters for our purposes between a setting like The Witcher’s and a setting like CTHD’s. Neither depicts "actual historical events and scenarios," both are fantasy settings inspired by historical times and places.
Yeah, there is… CTHD is set during the Qing Dynasty in China… that’s. An actual time period that existed, and an actual country that still exists. The Witcher is pure fantasy, nothing about it linked to a real world time or place.
You keep saying this stuff like it matters. It doesn’t. There is no logical reason why the fact that CTHD claims to be set during Qing China (it isn’t, of course – it’s set in a fantasy world that claims to be Qing China where people can fly for some reason) and The Witcher claims to be set in a place called Kaedwen or whatever matters for the respective settings’ levels of racial diversity. Neither of these works represents an actual place in time, but both are strongly influenced by actual places in time – in the way people eat and dress and fight and behave and yes, look.
I totally agree. It would be like a reviewer critiquing Jade Empire for not having enough diversity…
GunFlame, thank you for you logical dissection.
So I have been keeping an eye on this game over the last couple of days. It has gained my attention, I just have one concern: Can someone who hasn’t played any Witcher games be able to grasp the story and game play mechanics? I never played any and I’m considering picking this up.
Thank you for any advice given!
Jesse Cox on youtube just recently released a video about the game and thats one thing he mentioned. Apparently it will be very accessible to people who havent touched 1 and 2. And my memory could be wrong but he said you can choose the transfer events if you dont have 1 and 2 due to the consoles.
Both Game Informer and IGN are claiming that it’s accessible to new players.
Videogame sequels are ALWAYS accessible to new players. Not being so would destroy sales.
Not necessarily. Dark Souls comes to mind, as the sequel in spirit to Demons Souls. I would not consider that an accessible game.
I am going to have to find more reviews to see what people think of the controls for if it does have the same weakness as Assassin’s Creed games, I will have to take a pass for I don’t want to have my memories of this game be filled with rage like Assassin’s Creed.
Bummed to hear about the game’s treatment of women. Have been super looking forward to this game after loving the first two, perhaps naively hoping that it’d be less gross about it.
The game doesn’t treat women in any way. Characters in the game treat women in certain ways, fitting to the setting, story and characters. When will reviewers and gamers finally learn the difference…
Wait, but didn’t the game developers, who created the game, create also the Characters? It’s a choice made by the devs.
Not that simple, there are 8 books that already created and defined the boundaries of the world, and the developers have to respect that.
The games are still built around the lore and world that the books created, and it’s definitely not a fair-minded world. People treat others unfairly, including the guy you play.
That’s OK, but I don’t think it invalidates the "women are mostly cannon fodder trope" type of complaint.
A game makes conscious decisions about how to present characters. When we say "poor treatment of women" we don’t mean "this game slaps women, physically, harming them in a physiological way." That’s a hilariously inane strawman.
When we say "treatment of women," we mean that the game presents female characters in a way that lacks agency, depth, or relevance. The game offers female characters as rewards to the player, presenting a sex scene filled with male gaze-y shots of a woman character who has no defining features beyond "sexy," as the end of a quest chain, in reward for having completed some task.
I think it’s a gross thing, and I’m glad Arthur called it out, because now I know to either stay away or to expect that kind of grossness if I opt to trudge through it in order to experience the rest of the game, which is apparently pretty fun.
You have the insight and vision of an eight-year old boy.
Because the narrative also has a viewpoint. Misogynist characters are one thing; character design that flashes a woman’s nipples all over the screen and world design that continually functions on the deaths of women is misogynist design.
I stayed away from the first game because of this crap. I think it was the first game I really consciously decided to skip because of it. I’m not even remotely surprised that it hasn’t gotten better.
It has gotten considerably better since the first game, by a huge degree.
Looking back on the 2nd game, women were the ones pulling the strings for most of Geralt’s journey, and vying for power as greedily as other men in leadership roles. Certainly the game never did anything like the trading card stuff again.
I just wanna say, the design of this site is great. Love the layout.
It really is. It’s the best looking videogame site there is, and one of the best that I know overall… It’s a shame that the better part of it it’s the looks.
Hey good read Arthur. Obviously most of these comments are going to be on Arthur’s continuing crusade of sexism and racism which is w/e. But I think the bigger thing we should talk about is the possible stability issues on PS4. Giant Bomb was having troubles with it on PS4 also which is worrying.
If you guys want to get up in arms over Arthur’s quirks go ahead but I feel like we should be able to read his point on Women and race and ask ourselves does it matter? If it doesn’t to you ignore it.
Well stability should be talked about after the day one patch hits, because that will have some effect.
I am glad Arthur raised how women and ethnicities are represented in the game. It is why I sought out this review, knowing that he would bring up the issue if it was needed. My wife was interested in the game but hates sexism in all forms. Now I know not to recommend it to her. It is too bad. I would like the rest of the experience, but like interacting with a sexist inlaw, the good does not outweigh the bad.
How is the game being sexist?
Please for god’s sake. The game is not sexist. Have you ever watched a movie based in medieval Europe? Well, chances are it was a lot more sexist than this game.
Please. Check the game, it’s totally worth anyone’s time. I really can’t wrap my head around the closemindedness towards different cultures that’s displayed here.
Just see it for yourslef.
The existence of more sexist things does not make this game "not sexist."
If his wife hates "sexism in all forms", then she probably didn’t like the sexist medieval movies either. It’s okay to say that sexism in a video game doesn’t bother you, but please don’t claim it’s not sexist like it’s a fact – especially when you haven’t even played the game.
I’ve read all the books and played the previous two games bro. I think I’m qualified to speak about this game even without playing it.
I think I’m qualified to speak about this game even without playing it.
This is just…the single best sentence ever. Hilarious.
He did graciously omit a word. "Intelligently".
Okay whatever, but what you are not qualified to speak about, is what other people should deem sexist and what not – especially when you’re using arguments like "at least it’s less sexist than X or Y".
Point taken. But what I meant is the following: I have never ever in my life watched a medieval movie at the end of which I thought "What a goddamn sexist movie this was, just horrible". I take it as a historical reference. It’s just the way it was back then. And I have no issues with this. It’s history. I just can’t comprehend how it can be offending to someone and how can it stop anyone from enjoying the movie/game/book/whatever.
I’m sorry if I offended someone, it’s probably coming from our cultural differences. As an eastern european maybe I just don’t understand your mentality concerning sexism and racism. They were never an issue in my country.
P.S. When I said I felt qualified to speak about the game, I meant about it’s setting and portrayal of charecters, not about it’s mechanics.
The difference here is: The Witcher is not based on reality – it’s a fantasy novel. It’s not supposed to portray any historical era. Or do you recall an era in human history where there were dragons and griffins? I’m also from Northern Europe, and I can say for certain that racism and sexism has been and is a problem in every European country. It’s still a problem, but saying it has "never been an issue" is just a bold lie.
I’m not from Northern Europe. I come from a post socialist country. 50 years of communism eradicated sexism here. At least in the sense it’s used by americans.
Allow me to laugh. Name me one Easter European country that is free of sexism? I come from one of the most gender equal countries in the world, (can you guess already?) but even I wouldn’t dare to say that sexism has been eradicated here – not even close.
I guarantee that sexism (and likely racism) were absolutely issues in your country. That you haven’t noticed them suggests that you’re likely a straight, white male.
I don’t say this out of spite or to be mean; I just state it as a fairly inexpensive observation.
I mean, I’m a white gay male. I’m very aware of the fact that I haven’t really experienced racial prejudice ever. Based on my own experience, I could say that it "doesn’t exist in my country". But when I listen to racial minorities speak, I realise that their day-to-day experience is very different than my own.
Now, I might be more sensitive to this concept because I’m gay, and in that sense I do understand the idea of direct and often very indirect (and mostly unintentional) discrimination that occurs. Perhaps this has heightened my sense of such things.
But in the case of a white, straight male? It’s really an uphill battle to fully grasp these issues, and that’s why you see a lot of angst about the review’s sexism and race references in the comments here. People literally don’t see an issue, even when it’s obvious to others. It’s not that straight white men are deliberately being sexist; it’s just that sexism is often invisible to them, because they have no first-hand experience of the issue in the way that a woman would.
Sorry for the extended throat-clearing, but I think this is worth saying, because it underscores some of the confusion you have expressed.
Speak about preview coverage and trailers, yes. Speak to the final product of the game "without playing it," no.
If you aren’t a woman, you aren’t really qualified to speak about the game not being sexist towards women.
Wow. I rest my case, I don’t see how I could fit in with people with your mindset.
Although what Drew Besse isn’t entirely true, you do need to consider the fact that even though you understand what sexism is, there’s a nuance you won’t fully understand or appreciate unless you are a woman. Keep that in mind.
That’s a valid point, but I think Drew was basically making a false statement earlier on. Men can – and should – have an appreciation and understanding of the nature of sexism. Many of the comments against this very review suggest that there’s still a really long way to go before men as a whole do have that fuller understanding.
Having an appreciation and understanding is fine — the author of the review is male and I don’t really have much of an issue with him sharing his opinion (though I would’ve liked to have seen Polygon include a side paragraph or two from a woman’s perspective)
Saying "The game is not sexist." doesn’t shown any sort of appreciation the nature of sexism, especially when there are women saying they find it sexist. If someone finds something sexist, they aren’t really any more wrong about that than they are wrong about their sexuality, gender, or anything else that resolves around how they feel.
I just don’t feel like a man saying "I don’t think this is sexist" adds much of anything to the discussion. It’s kinda like a dog saying he doesn’t think fox hunting is bad. You’re not really the victim here, so the fact that you think its okay carries very little weight for me.
Oh yes, I may have misunderstood you at the beginning. I agree with you – men who are coming in here and saying "the game is not sexist" or saying some equivalent of "this game has no sexist content" are simply factually incorrect.
I think the broader question is more about the fact that numerous commentators here think that the question itself shouldn’t even come up in a review at all. That, I think, is even more concerning.
How does that make sense?
Have you ever watched a movie based in medieval Europe?
If only we had a chance to re-imagine a similar time period with new, modern ideas. You know, like…some sort of…fantasy.
Wait.. that sounds amazing! Then we might even add other non-realistic things.. Like.. Umm.. Dragons? Maybe some monsters called Drowners? And Griffins? Can we have Griffins?
Yes, but not succubi. Too much bewbs.
Well, that’s your oppinion. For example, as a guy who lives in Eastern Europe, I enjoy the Witcher games because they are based in a setting I can feel somehow connected to and I didn’t enjoy the Dragon Age series because their setting is a bit of a mish-mash that I don’t find very convincing.
I agree the industry needs more scrutiny in the fantasy lands it creates; but this is an adaption that had pretty well-defined characters with certain attitudes—some deliberately perverse—regarding woman.
Arguably a trope of depicting medieval times is the blatant sexism possible in those times; this is especially true with villians / corrupt people in those times.
It’s definitely noble to change an established entity with more "corrected" or "balanced" portrayals of different kinds of people, but that can dilute the core themes of the series.
There’s a reason scenes like the woman obviously being mistreated by guards that was going to hanged during a Witcher 3 trailer or how witches seem to be treated throughout the actual game are so moving.
Well, if I understand it well, it isn’t criticized for depicting misogynistic patriarchal world where women need to work harder, but for using too much violence against women to stress how dark this world is. Original novels are taking place in the same world, but Sapkowski didn’t have the need to prove it by murdering women specifically.
The original books have the exact same tone. People should know what they are getting into and either decide if it’s for them or not.
Besides I would rather have a woman’s take on these issues. Between this review and Bayonetta 2, it seems like Arthur’s big play to be a serious jornalist and putting too much gravtis in a industry that has always been hopelessly immature and violent. I really like how indie games are giving games a new voice and welcome it. But this is a Witcher game dude, and very much like the source material! The video game audience will eat it up.
People should know what they are getting into and either decide if it’s for them or not.
…isn’t that exactly what a review is for?
Knowing what you’re getting into, goes beyond the review of one person. Others might will see the game differently.
I went to a Renaissance Fair once, I was the one of two black people there (or at least, as far as I could tell). The women there wore very thin, very revealing clothing, with various ornaments and jewelry that enhanced there naughty bits! Also, a lot of sexual jokes…I mean, jeez! A lot of jokes around gender and sexual orientations.
I’m pretty sure the Renaissance Fair is an appreciation of a specific romanticized time and this game seems to be focused on themes around it. So maybe the point of this game’s world is to, in a way, faithfully represent that theme.
I’m not sure if Arthur’s enjoyment is really being slain because of the lack of colored people and/or because of the sexist ideas a relatively faithfully recreated medieval setting might have, but I would guess as a reviewer, you should know that going in? Maybe not.
I guess as a reader, you guys should know Arthur is a really sensitive dude when it comes to this stuff and maybe you should just expect it from him and ignore it?
I’m just reading the comments here and responding to that, though. I’ve skipped reading the review as I want a fresh experience going into this game. The 8s, 9s, and 10s are making me pretty confident in the purchase.
But man…hopefully they fix all the bugs I’m hearing about at launch. Apparently Jeff Gertsman had it hard crash on him twice in 3 hours >___> That’s rough… And the bug report at the base of this review makes it sound more like an unplayable game than an 8/10
"I went to a Renaissance fair and it was sexist, racist and homophobic so its okay that this is too"
Yeah, pretty much, right?
I mean, if you’re recreating themes from a certain era or style, does it not make sense that those themes be apart of it? Say you’re making a game about the deep south in the 1950s? You CAN erase all of racism as a way to white-wash history to support your current cultural views, OR you can embrace it, and tell a modern, compelling story that also encapsulates those not-so-perfect themes of the time.
The Witcher is set in a fantasy world — its not actually historical. If you’re willing to bend history enough to put dragons and ghouls in your 1950s South, you can bend the rules on gender and race as well.
Like if you wanna make a game with a base theme, say: Victorian Era Britain – you look at the clothing, the technology, the buildings, the social structures, the etc, and you take all those themes, and you overlay your own ideas. Those can be ideas like steam-based machines, and cog-based tech and form an alt world. You can also say that women ruled the region in this version of Britain, or that racism wasn’t a thing, and explore what that’s like, OR you can keep the social structure the way it was and explore something else, which is also completely valid.
And, if i’m not mistaken, that is what The Witcher is trying to do. It’s taking the very harsh, old-world themes of a cold Eastern Europe, renaissance like time, making the typical lore and mythology of the time real, and exploring the world built out of that premise.
Sure they could have done numerous things in this game, like add flying whales, or an old timey taco-bell if they really wanted to, but they didn’t because they were going for a style that represented something different, something more true to the nature of the era and mythology of the time.
I guess i would probably only really cringe if say, they decide to take an era that was already pretty sexist, and over-represent the sexism. But, from the sounds of some of the comments below, that isn’t the case. In fact, it sounds like they actual try do the opposite to respect struggle that women may have had to go through in a time like that – which sounds pretty awesome to me.
I feel like the sexism and the racism are two separate issues.
With the sexism, it does play a role in the game so I’ll need to play the game to actually tell, but I certainly found TW2 to be overly misogynistic. While there were a couple of strong female characters, a lot of them were just treated weak objects for the hero to come in and save and then fuck and I didn’t get the sense from playing it that the game felt like this was a problem. But it is certainly possible that the sexism is needed for the game to work, and then its just up to the person playing if they’re okay with that.
With the racism, I believe its something that just doesn’t even come up at all. So like, why not make all the characters a mix of races. Don’t have to change anything else. Just like "oh cool, this is actually a mixed race society where race simply isn’t an issue". I mean, its a fantasy world, so how does that hurt anything?
Nipah
Nipah
Community Moderator, Polygon
Maybe all the races in the Witcher world mixed, but ended up white…
That seems like a shitty fantasy to me ¯\(ツ)
Nipah
Nipah
Community Moderator, Polygon
Well, they’ve also go the typical fantasy races, which doesn’t help matters. You’ve not only got white humans, but white elves and dwarves and gnomes and… well, everyone but dryads I’d assume.
But race is an issue, especially for the time period. So having a wide range of races, then not ever dealing with it would be a massive oversight for such a detailed game with very old world tones like this.
But I’ll say I’m expecting Cyberpunk 2077 to have an eclectic mix of races and genders – just because of the nature of the theme. I’m looking forward to hearing more about that
But race isn’t an issue in the game. There also weren’t magical beasts and heroes who ran around with two swords who slayed them in the time period. If you can add one and not ruin the setting, you can add the other. If the story dealt with race, sure, that could be interesting. But if it doesn’t… why does everything have to be white?
Let’s take a look at Bioshock Infinite. It’s a really similar scenario to what you’re talking about, in that it’s a fantasy rendition of a certain period in history.
There’s a TON of racism in it. But Bioshock Infinite’s tone vilifies these ideas, and The Witcher seems to celebrate them. That’s the egregious part, not their inclusion.
Yup. The Witcher doesn’t just portray sexism, it seems to revel in it. Whereas BioShock actually deconstructs these ideas (although it does so rather imperfectly in places)
What bothers me, is that this review focuses on things that are not specific to my needs. It’s not like I have other alternatives, Polygon is the only place that does reviews.
For us gamers who care about the number, or just the features, where are we supposed to go? Metacritic, IGN, Gamespot? It’s not like we have alternatives for what we’re looking for.
Polygon actually spent the majority of the review focusing on stuff other than the way it portrays gender and race. It was really only the last few paragraphs that talked about it.
Symphony Man
Symphony Man
Assistant to the Community Overlord
I’m almost positive he’s being sarcastic.
8/10 from Polygon on a game they consider sexist, the conversion to actual video game score without social commentary translates to 12/10, so I’ll definitely be getting it.
This whole complaining about sexism and racism in games that take place somewhere based on an era known for racism and sexism is getting really annoying.
Kirielson
Kirielson
Moderator, Polygon
Why?
Because if we keep changing everything controversial politically or culturally in games, then they’ll just end up devoid of personality or identity and feel the same as any other game.
If you removed everything controversial about GTA 5, you’d have a very tame, average game.
I’m all for equal rights or whatever, but I’d be even more for a game that switches the roles around. It might even be more entertaining.
What has been removed from GTAV? What has been removed from The Witcher 3?
Also, do we include in this, changes like Mass Effect 3’s ending?
David Zhou
David Zhou
Senior Full-Stack Engineer, Vox Media
Because if we keep changing everything controversial politically or culturally in games, then they’ll just end up devoid of personality or identity and feel the same as any other game.
I hope you realize you just basically said that if we remove sexism and racism from gaming, all games will be the same.
Good point. But the problem with that is what is considered to be racist and sexist is extremely subjective. I do think devs will start to sterilize their games to eliminate anything that can be construed as sexist/racist.
For example, if have a character in a game who is the only major character of a certain demographic group in said game, and then you give that character a very distinct personality, it will be interpreted as some sort of statement about that demographic group.
Therefore, devs will err on the side of safety and tone down all their characters, or make them overtly counter-stereotypical. Hyperfocus on political correctness limits where devs can go with their characters and settings.
Violence is bad and I am against violence IRL, should all violent games should be banned?
Why Polygon does not blame COD, Wolfenstein, GTA5 and millions of other FPS for forcing the player to kill human beings by zillions?
Why two standards?
I talked about this above, but including sexism and racism is different than having a sexist and racist tone.
Bioshock infinite includes racism, but does not have a racist tone, i.e. racism is portrayed in a negative light.
This game includes sexism, and very clearly has a sexist tone, i.e. female characters wear boobie dresses in the frigid cold.
Bioshock infinite DOES have a racist tone, as is should have. What is with your logic?
What? No. The events of the game are racist. The tone clearly condemns racism.
What era is it exactly that the Witcher portrays? 1800’s? I’m just curious because I’m interested on reading about the history of gnomes, dragons and griffins.
Yes, the well-known historical era of the Nilfgaardian invasion of the northern Kingdoms, just before the French Revolution, when a plague of gryphons, monsters and sorcerors rampaged across the land only to be curbed by Napoleon’s expanding Empire.
/sarcasm
The Witcher is a fantasy game. That means anything that’s there is there because the developer wanted to include it. There’s a case for portraying racism and sexism, but when you omit and erase the actual targets of racism so you can focus on white elves and dwarves experiencing it and when you revel in the misogyny of your world, then you’ve gone beyond portraying it and are into the territory of perpetuating it.
The whole "two swords" thing drives me crazy.
It makes zero sense that the finely crafted sword I was just using to cut a griffin in half turns into a wet noodle when I try to use it on a human bandit.
I thought we were able to kill humans with the silver sword in TW2, it just wasn’t as effective as the steel sword. However, I could be wrong since it’s been awhile since I’ve last played TW2. Either way, I can see how it’s annoying. But to be fair, they did have to implement some way of forcing us to use different swords on different enemies for the sake of keeping true to the books.
Are you sure about that? Pretty sure it killed enemies in TW2, and I expect it will in TW3.
The logic is from the books, and the logic seemed to me that Silver was effective against monsters. Using swords, in real life, degrades the sharpness…So, the sense of it seemed to be to not degrade the Silver, and more expensive sword, used for monsters by using it against humans when you can use a cheaper, and less degradable, sword against them. So, if you think about it, it would make sense in trying to save that Silver sword for things like Trolls and Vampires.
Also, it does look pretty cool. Witcher have the strength to carry it around, so there’s no problem with pulling your back muscles either.
In TW2, it does, but it’s not that effective. So I expect that’d be the case with 3.
Well, silver isn’t the most durable metal to be using to cleave through armor. Apparently it’s pretty top notch for the supernatural though. Plus, it looks cool and sticks to the source. So there’s that too.
As somehow who hasn’t had the oppurtunity to play any of the previous witcher games I’d like to know if there’s some sort of prelude allowing you to influence or gain understanding of earlier events? I thought I heard rumors about a feature like that for ps4 players. If it’s mentioned in the text I apologize, I skimmed some sections because I didn’t want spoilers.
Nice review anyway, looking forward to this game.
YES!
Many of the key scenes from the first games are expertly summarizes as you go through The Witcher 3. Also, some of the key decisions can be made by choosing "how you acted" while telling the story (I think only if it doesn’t find a game file with those decisions).
Thanks, that sounds great :blush:
There is an element in the game that allows you to fill out some of the past events/choices, yes. It’s done through a conversation in the game.
Of course people are going to be up in arms about the sexism stuff, as usual. Sigh.
Reviews are ultimately an opinion, and clearly Arthur is of the opinion that the way the setting treats women and POCs detracted from the experience. I don’t really agree, but I think it’s patently ridiculous to go around complaining about how TW3 was robbed of its ‘rightful’ score based on teh political correctness. Reviews are opinion, and I mean he gave the game an 8/10; that’s a damn good score.
As to the actual content, I’m not sure I agree totally. I don’t agree on the count of there being a lack of people of colour. CDPR are creating a game within an existing world where racial characteristics are mostly of the height and ear-pointiness variety. The criticism that it doesn’t reflect real world diversity is fair, but it’s not something that in my opinion is cause for alarm.
On the treatment of women I’m more ambivalent. I feel like there is a place for creating a world that is oppressive; as a ‘gritty low fantasy’ that trope is a core part of The Witcher’s DNA. However, I do feel like the series does often give female characters (who are not poorly written or ‘damseled’ by any means) outfits that are over-sexualised, and in the past games there were times where I felt portrayal of sexuality and of violence strayed into the gratuitous.
My views don’t make Arthur’s criticisms ‘wrong’, because once again, reviews are opinion, and art is subjective. I do feel like it’s a point worth discussing, and I don’t like that so many in the wider gaming community have the paranoid fear that if we start talking about issues of diversity, we’re going to end up with an authoritarian politically correct police state.
Whether we agree with his assessments or not is kinda moot at this point, because from what I can tell, no one except some reviewers has played the game yet. So maybe in a week or so many other people will be able to give their takes on it and decide for themselves if it’s sexist or not.
That is true; as I obviously haven’t played the game yet I can’t comment on specific situations in it. All I can go off is a combination of PR material, the reviews, and my experiences in the rest of the series.
I generally applaud Polygon’s reviewers for calling games out for sexist bullshit, but in this case… I’m a bit confused. Look at these quotes:
"CD Projekt has done work to make for more interesting, influential women that feel just a bit more fleshed out than they’ve been previously. This includes a number of powerful women with complicated motivations and goals of their own."
"That said, the world CD Projekt has created is oppressively misogynist. In some ways, the game deals directly with this — characters acknowledge again and again that it’s hard to be a woman there, that it’s a place of violence and terror and that women must work harder to be recognized and respected."
To me they imply that this game takes place in a terrible world, but the storytelling itself treats women well: as real characters, that exist on their own merits. It sounds like the game hasn’t internalized misogyny or sexual violence, although it does depict characters that have. That almost sounds laudable to me. Approaching the subject of sexism without endorsing is often worthwhile, and not something we should be condemning. The ability to portray a subject like this is a necessary and powerful artistic tool.
So I have the following question for the reviewer:
Are those two quotes misleading? Or is my interpretation of your words – that any portrayal of misogyny is inherently bad – accurate? Or somewhere in between?
I am not trying to attack the review or the score; just trying to understand where the reviewer draws the line, and why. Does he want a completely sanitized industry, or do those quotes simply misrepresent the quality of the depiction of female characters?
I think the key issue here is that the line between depicting an oppressive world and ‘internalising’ that oppression (for lack of a better word) is blurred and ultimately pretty subjective.
From past games, at least, I do think the Witcher does try to depict that world moreso than accept that world – clearly racial and sexual issues are in there on purpose a lot of the time. Does it always succeed? Probably not, but that’s a subjective thing and personally I find it’s usually thoughtfully written enough to work for me.
It seems like many people missed the paragraph that clarifies the distinction between a game depicting misogyny and game with misogynist tendencies, but here it is (emphasis mine):
"I get that the setting of The Witcher 3 is meant to be a dark, dirty fantasy. But in a world that so explicitly goes out of its way to build a believable, distinctive take on the genre, the inclusion of so much violence explicitly directed against women feels like a clear, disconcerting choice. It’s not just present, it’s frequently a focus."
Hope it clears up any confusion.
Symphony Man
Symphony Man
Assistant to the Community Overlord
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
The comments section of a review are for discussing the game in question, not for discussing how a game is reviewed, the ethics of a review, nor any other component of the review or scoring process.
The good news is that we have our META forum for these discussions where you can talk about the things above to your heart’s content.
That being said, any off-topic comment will be removed. Please bring those comments and concerns to our META forum and be sure to follow our Community Guidelines, thanks!
Was anyone actually looking to Witcher, of all games, to be a shining beacon of feminism?
You collected explicit nude cards of chicks you slept with in the first game, for pete’s sake. And by lord, you had more cards at the end of the game than Yugioh.
No, but they did expect some degree of improvement in the way female characters are portrayed compared to the last. And the game series had a bit of a history with slowly improving the way they’re portrayed, like how 2 dropped the sex card thing and had far fewer sexual encounters, yet whatever was there actually managed to be a bit more meaningful than the predecessor.
And speaking of improvement, they did mention that they have "done work to make for more interesting, influential women that feel just a bit more fleshed out than they’ve been previously. This includes a number of powerful women with complicated motivations and goals of their own."
So the women had "motivations and goals of their own". I’m impressed. This is a milestone.
I expected it because books on which the game is based are quite feminist.
True, but misogyny is a theme that is also covered in the novels. There’s a lot of dark issues about the treatment of women by a patriarchal-monarchy society covered in those books, as is in the games.
Sure, but for example in Witcher 2 I have this notion that women were treated more badly than men. For example Triss was kidnapped and held like some damsel in distress waiting for Geralt to save her. This would never happen in novels, where character like Triss would always act independently, trying to get out of this situation on her own. Or that mother in the first act, which was murdered just for the sake of depicting the darkness of the world. But yes, I generally agree that this, what is described in the review, could be easily another hysteria caused by hypersensitive american media.
She wasn’t really a damsel in distress when you saw the outcome of not saving her at the end, though. I think the brunt of her kidnapping wasn’t as bad as the trope because she was ultimately kidnapped by another female character.
I don’t remember the mother from the first act. I do remember a female Elf being accused by soldiers, though. I thought that was a great subversion of female damsels in distress tropes in games, by actually showing she had been the perpetrator. It played into the subverting that trope in games nicely, I thought.
I do think that there’s a general case of misunderstanding whenever any subject matter is covered in storytelling. I’ve seen too many times that just because a film, for example 12 Years A Slave, covers a subject matter…that it makes it a proponent in that subject matter, which isn’t true- but it’s believe by people. I think mileage varies on these things and what you’re comfortable with.
This diversity is actually mostly post-colonial. Before that Europe was much more homogeneous, with people of color living mostly in harbors in Spain and Greece. Middle Europe was actually 99,9% white. In the books there isn’t much describing of ethnicity, so it is hard to say whether there were some poc, however considering the fact that the world depicted in the books and games was based on medieval North and Central Europe where population was almost only white, it is quite obvious why CD Project do it this way. And this arise another question which people don’t usually see. If you add some poc to the game, how the rest of the inhabitants will behave toward them? Because in game like Witcher you can’t just reskin them and check the box on the list of inclusiveness. To stay true to the realistic depiction of the world there will be racism and xenophobia among white majority, another thing you need to handle somehow. However I still thing those are American measures applied on the Eastern European game. You shall respect the culture from which the game is coming from. I would wonder whether you would criticize game from Ghana to have no white people at all or game from India to have only Indian people in it.
Context matters, and I would have wished that Arthur had provided some in mentioning the lack of people of color in the game. I wasn’t sure, too, about Arthur’s view on the game covering misogyny therefore made the game misogynistic? I don’t know, seemed like it could go either way.
The review made for an interesting read, though.
Meanwhile on Game of Thrones…the crowd is loving it!
Well, to be fair, I have seen the same critiques leveled against Game of Thrones/ A Song of Ice and Fire as well. Pushback on it is constant, though.
Game of Thrones has some of the same problems, but there is a fair bit of male D&A so it is closer to equality in sexualisation than other shows/films. A fair way to go still though…
Cersei, Dani, Arya, Sansa, Melisandre, Shireen, Olenna, Margeary, Ellaria Sand…
They’re doing fine for strong, well-developed female characters.
And that’s just the ones who are alive!
And there isn’t nearly as much gratuitous nudity as the first two seasons. I can’t actually think of any so far in season 5.
Don’t think you can label Shireen as strong (same goes for Sansa) or Olenna or Ellaria as well-developed, but your point still stands. The show and books have strong female characters, even though they live in an extremely sexist world.
I was worried about the way the game would treat women after seeing a few demos of the game over the last year or two where the devs made jokes about how there are lots of naked women to look at… It seems those worries were valid. Alas! As the books do not treat women in that way at all. If Geralt’s sexuality was portrayed as it was in the books, or like BJB’s in the new Wolfenstein, it would have been praised heavily for it. As mature representations of sexuality are needed in games, as opposed to the more immature/misogynist sexuality that is in most games.
On the race issue I am not that worried. Race is represented by Dwarves and Elves in this universe. Which is based on a medieval Europe. Though that same argument can be made on the sexism front as well so I can see if it will be a problem for some people.
I do think I will really enjoy this game though. Challenging DS style combat, that is a bit faster, with a lot of hunting and looting, with funny and intelligent characters, story, and lore, in a beautifully rendered fantasy open world. Almost my dream game right there. I can’t wait to play it.
Good review Arthur. Your sacrifice is appreciated.
Geralt’s sexuality…? He’s pretty faithful to his novel counterpart.
The games are very faithful to the books, really. That’s undisputed. I think mileage varies on nudity and sex, as has been the case with the books themselves.
And, hey it’s Poland. They are not nearly as conservative about sex and nudity over in Europe as we are here in the U.S. There’s still alot of conservatism here in the U.S. over that stuff.
I disagree there. In the books Geralt does get about a bit, but he is not a misogynist only interested in the female body as an object. He has complex relationships with strong female characters. Those strong characters are in the game like Triss and Yennefer, but the books don’t go out of there way to describes loads of topless women who have no character, unlike it seems with the game.
I’m European. I agree we’re are more liberal with sex and nudity here, but not in a sexist/misogynistic way.
Well, Eastern Europe (Poland, Russia) and Southern Europe (Italy, Spain etc) aren’t exactly beacons of good example. I would say that they are pretty oblivious to feminism, and many men are scumbags.
That’s a very large generalisation… I’m from the UK, and have spent a lot of time in Germany and France, and I feel it those areas are very socially inclusive.
Germany, France, UK are inclusive, yes.
Both France and Germany have their share of sexism (prostitution etc), but it’s way better than in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe.
How is legal prostitution sexist? It applies to male prostitutes too.
Something being legal does not make it morally right, because it’s just a reflection of the politics of that particular place. Prostitution is unlawful in other places, and buying such "services" will get you into jail there. So putting the legal aspects aside, I think that if you look at the structural problems that bring women into prostitution (in a much higher degree than men), then it becomes pretty apparent that it is inherently sexist. Add human trafficking into the mix where women are kept captive by men and forced into the market, and if your heart doesn’t tell you that, well I’m sorry for you. I haven’t heard of many men being forced to sell their bodies to feed their children.
I’m a very libertarian person. I don’t believe prostitution is inherently "evil", or that a government should tell you what to do with your own body. I do however agree that the industry of illegal prostitution is very much fraked up, because of the reasons you described, and yes it does harm women more. That side of it happens everywhere though, very unfortunately. The remedy for that however is legalisation.
Because there is no prostitution in your country, whatever it is?
Insane.
One thing I didn’t see mentioned, was the quality of the writing?
One thing that’s stopped me getting really into the last two Witcher games, despite seemingly being aimed right at a me-like audience is the extremely poor writing. Generally, the plot itself has been solid at worst and fantastic at best. The world is positively fascinating…but the writing and to a lesser extent the voice-acting have really let the last couple of games down.
They are obviously better executed than something like The Elder Scrolls games, but worlds behind Bioware’s RPGs (the pinnacle of writing in games, IMO).
Sadly the gameplay hasn’t been enough to keep be engaged enough to make it to the end of the game enjoyably (unlike The Elder Scrolls games) which means I’ve got one finished playthrough of the last two games from dozens of attempts.
If the writing is better or the gameplay is stellar (the quality of which isn’t discussed much either), I’ll give this a go…otherwise I’ll wait for the bargain bin sale on Steam and probably give up halfway through again.
"One thing I didn’t see mentioned, was the quality of the writing?"
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/13/witcher-3-wild-hunt-review-xbox-ps4-pc
"The world is full of history, nuance and – glory hallelujah! – plausible writing."
I’ve seen many people criticise the mature themes of this series in particular in that it tries a bit too hard with needless shock-value violence and rampant misogyny and… for the most part, they are right. I can see where arthur is coming from when he criticises the treatment of female characters.
That said, Sapkowski was kind of a lot worse. I suppose it would be hard to make the game respectful if you’re basing it on the work of a misogynist drunk while also trying to stay true to the source material.
I have to say, while I can’t get enough of the world and the characters, I hated the writing style of the Witcher books. More often than not, Sapkowski went for shock value with all the gore and blood and tits, mostly in places where it served no purpose other than being there. His writing is incredibly childish. I actually feel that CD Projekt has done a very good job of handling the world better than Sapkowski himself ever did.
I suppose this raises an interesting issue for debate. Can poor handling of female characters be excused in a game based of a book that does the same thing? Is misogyny ok if it is an integral part of the world that has existed in fiction for decades and the game at least tries to be self aware about it? Is inclusivity more important than respecting the surce material, and by the same token, does criticism of the original work carry over to the adaptation? Should CD project even be criticised for world building decisions that ultimately weren’t theirs? If so, would it have been better if they changed the world to be more inclusive and at the same time diverted from the source material they are building on?
Anyone?
A world that portrays how shitty it is to be a woman in a repressively patriarchal premodern setting isn’t being misogynistic – far from it.
Nice review! I’m a bit puzzled by the following quotation though.
In another, a character who admitted to beating his wife so badly she miscarried is given an opportunity to explain why she had it coming, complete with a sympathetic conversation response option to go with it. The performances all around in this scene are excellent, the presentation among the best, most reined in anywhere in the game, but the message I saw it conveying was abhorrent.
What is the abhorrent message being conveyed? It seems potentially interesting to me that the player character is given the opportunity to respond indifferently to such a situation. I don’t think you have to interpret the presence of the choice as an endorsement of it. I may be giving the writers too much credit—maybe it’s clear from the context that they’re genuinely sympathetic with the abuser. But what would be the point of setting up moral choices in games if it wasn’t possible for you to fail to do the right thing?
The Witcher 3’s camera is often terrible, especially indoors. It’s hard to appreciate the beautiful world that CD Projekt built when it aggressively occluded my view of the fight in progress, and Geralt’s generally great animations were lost on me when I got stuck on various objects in the world trying to avoid attacks.
This… is not good. Especially when you’re in 3rd person. You kind of need a good camera.
This problem is even more rage-inducing during timed sequences that frequently feel hamstrung by cumbersome, unintuitive ground traversal that reminded me, in a bad way, of the "stupid-feet" problem that has plagued recent Assassin’s Creed releases. When I needed Geralt to do something specific quickly, he often failed me in the worst possible way, running against a wall, failing to turn, or otherwise getting tangled up in the world or himself.
Now I’m kind of curious, how did 3rd person games get stuff like this… wrong? We’ve had… how many games in 3rd person work well, so why is this suddenly becoming an issue?
Wait, so the game can be misogynist, because it has both strong and weak feamle characters, and, generally, proposes a horrid world in which to be female. Fair enough, i can buy that. In this world, though, are men shown as drunks, homeless, and lechers? Is the world equally as shitty to be some random dude? Are most (if not all) of the human enemies that you kill also men? Are the big bads power hungry men? Then, boy howdy, that sounds awful misandrist to me. So, as a game that is both misogynist and misandrist…hmmm. Balance attained.
And i think the Witcher plays out its minority roles through dwarves and elves, if i am not mistaken.
I’m glad Arthur enjoyed his time with the game part of the game. Bummer about the camera being screwed up, hopefully they can fix it in post. I’m not worried about the hitching and stuff, I’ll be playing on the pc. While I don’t share Arthur’s concern over the rampant misogyny, a review is someone’s opinion; getting upset at him for expressing that opinion when it obviously stuck out in his mind seems foolish.
Not sure why people struggle so much with the idea that sexism impacts the review score. The reviewer made it pretty clear that the way women are portrayed in the game is crudely handled and that it detracts from the greater sense of realism that the Witcher strives for. So if it effects the quality of the world and its characters negatively, why shouldn’t it be reflected in the final score?
So does CDPR’s artistic integrity count for nothing? That is the world they created, if you can’t handle the subject matter, maybe someone else should be reviewing it.
The books tell it just like how Gies describes it, it’s not pretty.. but is it pretty in GoT for women etc? Grow up, life’s not fair or ‘realistic’ in a DARK FANTASY WORLD.
Arthur, I normally like your reviews – but you’ve jumped the shark.
Was there an announcement at the latest Polygon staff meeting that everyone had to be a SJW from now on, artistic integrity be damned?
It’s a dark ‘fantasy’ world mate, life’s not only hard there for the women, but the men too – Geralt’s butt is on show err day but I don’t here you kicking a stink because of that.
How about focussing less on misogyny and more on your review style, that might help.
I don’t even see the problem with that presentation of the world. I mean, women were oppressed a couple hundred years ago in the real world, and Witcher shows a much less developed civilization, even if a fantasy one.
I really must admit Geralt’s butt looks pretty great this time around.
I think people in the comments are getting up their tits for nothing. A review is someone playing a game and telling you whether they liked it or not and why. You can’t really go to the reviewer and say he should have liked it differently. Some people are sensitive to how women or particular ethnicities are portrait (or not) in any game. Like, if you were a woman you probably would see this game differently than if you were playing as a man. I think that’s perfectly normal.
Well, if your the score reflects your obvious failure to put things in context, then I think the backlash is pretty reasonable. If there wasn’t a score below this opinion piece everything would be OK.
Wow, 8/10?
That’s the the lowest score for the Witcher 3 I have ever seen,
On metacritic t get’s 92/100 on PS4 version. Other sites rates it even higher.
Some of problems/defects bring in this review I don’t even consider as something bad.
First of all, personally I don’t care about feminism, racial tolerance or any other social problem in a video game. It’s absolutely ridiculous how much waffling there is about these elements while the main objective of modern games is basically killing. If you are an adult and have at least half of your brain functioning, you will treat sexism, racism and other social problems depicted in a game same way as killing – part of the f**** game, it’s story (if any) and the world it’s set in.
Second of all, this game is based on the world and characters from books by Sapkowski. So if you have a problem with all above, take it to him.
The reviewer is simply minded. You should get a better one. It’s not a dandy candy dragon age, Witcher is based closly to the medieval times. About not ecountering single non-white humanoid anywhere… The author doesn’t know source material. Okay he don’t have to as the third game is standalone for new players, but there is whole continent based on Africa(where Azar Javed from Witcher 1 comes from). Perhaps Reds just didn’t feel the need to introduce new Zerrikanian.
Sure this review can be read but it’s not something your opinion should be made based on.
Hmm, the author of this review should read some books about medieval Europe and Poland history. It works to point out that there are no non-white people in the game world only if you’re cherry-picking, pulling stuff out of context, blindly applying some weird diversity principle to everything, which is a silly idea, especially in medieval RPG based on a book by a Polish author.
The score that reflects the author’s failure to understand the context of the game is actually the most infuriating part.
There are no colored people in the Witcher world. At least not in the portion of the world that has been explored in the books/games. Maybe south of Nilfgaard or to the east, but that is not where the game takes place.
Btw there’s no non-whites in the Lord of the Rings either (unless you count the orcs).
What, like the Harad?
Guys you have to get over the racism and sexism you think you pick up in every game. I have been here since the site launch but polygon is getting hard to read these days.
So for the record,
THIS IS A FANTASY PRODUCT!
It is not it’s job to uphold the values of our society. anymore than it is the job of literature or Hollywood to do so.
If anything the very opposite is true.
IT’S NOT A DOCUMENTARY!
Are media is fantasy it’s not meant to be our world and shouldn’t. It exist’s to take us out of our would for a short time.
It’s a leisure product it does not need to be say or do anything more than that.
Unsecure I’d say.
It’s like saying "Well, it’s gaming so who cares", the exact same level of argumentation. Plus, CDPR have been very clear in their will of building an entire world and you can’t let some things aside.
Even though I think the black people thing is mainly due to the original universe, created by a white Polish guy and based on Northern european fantasy setting. But hell, they could have tried to implement some colored people even though it was not in the books, would’ve liked that.
I believe there was a character in the Witcher 1 who seemed to be from a middle east area. He was some villain.
Aha, really ? Well, okay, but to have one middle-east guy who’s a villain…definitely not a smart move if your game is all whittish or somethin’
Then again, CDPR were not the smartest when it comes to W1, I mean, collecting cards of the women you had sex with ? Yikes, I’m kinda surprised there was not more of an outcry about that for example.
I mean, he appears to be from an area that was "not white people Europe." Where that was, I don’t know.
And there was some of that for Witcher 1. A lot of people found it to be gross, but there wasn’t the black lash at the time. I sort of thing the reason for that is that it wasn’t women saying it was gross.
Women voices in the gaming community is not as strong, I’m afraid.
Yeah, well it is growing. Hence the back lash to reviews like this that address the issues some women have with games.
I personally find reviews like this valuable as I did not enjoy any of the "sexual" nature in the previous witcher games. I played and enjoyed them, but its not a feature I or my fiancee enjoy.
Yeah and this is exactly the kind of feedback we need.
I watched some of the sex scenes of the Wild Hunt already and I’m still astonished to see how much they feel more porn influenced than love influenced : The point of view is mostly on the woman pleasure and male dominance – in some cases. It doesn’t much feel like a physicial exchange between two people. And I can see men designed this scene, it’s obvious.
The semi porn nature of the game is annoying for sure. Hopefully there is an option to just shut that stuff off. I’ll watch Team America if I want to see fake people having sex, at least that is funny.
My main plan is to do what I always do in Witcher games. Play Garalt as a loyal, one woman sort of man who is against sexism in a completely sexist world. Its worked out before and made the game more enjoyable.
‘But hell, they could have tried to implement some colored people even though it was not in the books,’
This is ridiculous – why would they? What for? So some sorry reviewer in Polygon gives them 10/10?
Look, I’m all for equality, tolerance etc. But the more this being forced on into (pop)culture and art (place movies/books/games in whichever category), the more I dislike the whole ‘movement’. So called ‘tolerance’ (with all it’s shapes and forms) is now jumping out of the fridge when I open it. The notion of this is everywhere and it’s tiresome. It clearly went over the top and it now starts to piss people and diminish achievements off all people that were working so hard to get typical social problems acknowledged in modern world.
Please stop and let artists and creators produce whatever f*** they want!!!! ESPECIALLY when their creation depicts certain times, regions and cultures and/or is based on the source material (fantasy book in this case). And if you don’t like it, just stay away, simple
Again, I think they could have implemented it but when I will play the goddamn game, it might not tickle me and I might be perfectly fine with it and the same goes for the pointed-out sexism of the game. It’s all very hypothetical and that’s why I’m really not comfortable with the debate going on here.
But again, it’s worth discussing and I see some truly misogynistic reactions over here so…
Okay, so let’s take an extreme example of where that would lead us. Imagine that 80% of all the movies released were made up of stories about raping and murdering children. It doesn’t concretely hurt anyone, and the audiences seem to love it. Is there or is there not a problem about this situation?
It’s also lovely how you declared that art and entertainment has no business in taking part in cultural discussions. I guess the likes of George Orwell, Dostojevski and Franz Kafka shouldn’t have even written anything then. Same goes for every movie and video game with a message.
Great review, Arthur.
As usual Polygon has done a great job of criticizing a game like any other cultural product instead of putting it on a pedestal because "it’s just entertainment". I enjoy reading your site specifically for this type of review, keep it up!
Agreed. If I only want to hear about the technical aspects like framerates, resolution and responsiveness of the controls, I’ll look elsewhere. It’s the difference of art and entertainment, I guess. I also want my movie reviews to have an opinion about the movie itself, not just about how well the CGI was done and how many times the reviewer laughed or cried.
Come on Polygon. You can’t judge a game which tries to mimic medieval Europe for ‘questionable treatment of women’ and ‘lack of black people’. This is ridiculous.
Oh heck sure they can. It’s not ridiculous at all, though it partially has to do with the setting, etc.
But hell sure they can and they should.
I can’t really judge the portrayal of women in this game before I’ve played it, but on the racial issue I can certainly add a comment.
The world of the Witcher is set in a fantasy interpretation of middle and northern medieval europe. With this setting comes a very different mentality towards sex and race. Had poc been included, it would be lazy just to have included them for the sake of just that, inclusion, they’d have had to be treated in an authentic manner, just like the way elves and dwarves are treated. And since the issue of racism is already being explored through the elves and dwarves, adding poc really would add anything.
You could say that that’d be a great reason to add them, as it makes no difference, so why not make half the people you meet a poc? But how boring is the portrayal of poc in DAI? They have no culture, nothing making them unique and interesting, because it’s not based in medieval Europe, but melting pot US. I’ve never felt much connection to the world of DAI because it all feels like a badly americanized parody of Ye Olde Europa with added dragons and elves.
Now it’d be very interesting to see a fantasy game big enough to include poc fairly, where their mythologies and cultures are represented as well as as the European trolls, elves and dragons. But before they are represented in a game in such a manner, they will only ever feel tacked on for the sake of the american audience.
But it’s only fair that you react to the game in the way you react to it, and cover it as only you guys can. I’d hate for you to completely ignore your own feelings when reviewing games for the sake of snarky euros such as this one. But as it stands, I rarely agree with any of your gripes when they aren’t purely technical (as no one likes a broken game) so I can’t really use your reviews for much.
But that’s my problem, and not yours, so keep up the good work!
Well, I don’t think it would cost much for CDPR to add a side quest or two about colored people and give them an even small story to show their presence. And they could write some good stuff about that, MAYBE since I didn’t play the game as well.
I mean, that’s great that they’re probably trying to talk about racism and stuff with elves and dwarves, I really mean it. But since they’re at it, why not push it further.
They know their game is going to have a massive impact, mostly as an entertaining piece but not only so why not showing maturity in the portrayal of minorities by adding black, indian or whatever ethnies folks. They want to respect the original material from the books, I get that, but Wild Hunt is an adaptation. And that means freedom in the portrayal of a universe, and if your argument for not adding colored people is "Respect for the books", then they have a serious issue with ethnies, and I’m just saying since I don’t believe they have claimed such a statement. But that kind of "one step forward" costs them very little.
Remember : "Everything means something." Absence means something. Presence means something.
My point wasn’t really: Respect the books. More: Do it right.
Have you never felt that poc have been added to a setting, just because? In GoT it makes sense, because the place where they are originally from exists as well, so there is context to their presence in any given area. You know that the pirate guy is a free spirit who goes where he wants, not only because that’s the way he acts, but because his homeland is so very far away.
Black people didn’t live in europe until the post colonial period, they just didn’t. If the climate of the entire earth was like it is in europe, everyone would be pretty similar looking, but it isn’t. We know where black people originally came from, and we know the sad circumstances by which they came to live in the US, for example, so their presence has context.
If you add black poc to a fantasy setting that is basically Europe, you’ve got to have a reason for them to be there. Without context they are just there to check a box.
Maybe you have an encounter with poc on the harbour of some city, and the person in question is a traveller from a far away land called X, that’d make sense. But unless Nilfgaard is changed into Schmafrica, there is no place where they could be from that’d give their existence the context needed to properly settle them in this world.
I’ll reiterate one of my original points. I’d love for a game to properly incorporate an interpretation of african or south american culture in a fantasy game, or basing a game entirely on such a setting. But if it’s not done properly or for the right reasons, it’s not going to said cultures any justice.
Yeah, I got it, should have mentioned my "You" was more of a general one.
I’m not that much asking for "all fantasy must have black people" but…yeah, I think a most of it should represent diversity. And for instance, even the shitty Dragon Age Inquisition, which I believe will be on its knees comparing to Wild Hunt’s universe build-up and narrative design, had the very decency to have black character and gay character in the main team. Even though the characters were badly written – and mostly outside of their ethnical origin/sexual orientation -, they were here, representing a world of diversity. Bioware might be doing a poor work of narrative, universe and so on, but they implemented a real diversity in their SF/fantasy worlds. And that is crucial I believe.
Now, I understand the point for the Witcher, especially since it’s very Northern european-grounded but still, I believe that showing that these people exist is an important thing and is somehow relevant.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m frequently saying that these kind of things should always be meaningful and cohesive, and that they should not be thrown out like garbage because it has to be there and fuck the rest. I mean, hell, I was one of the first to be concerned about Ava Duvernay apparently directing the Black Panther because despite her legitimacy on the project – she directed Selma, she’s black – I think she has done a weak job with her movie and so wasn’t very happy about seing her into this but still…
You’ve got some very good points, and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. We probably both want to play the same game, where all kinds, sizes and colors of people are represented fairly and in a way that is satisfying and makes sense.
Christ, Inceptionnist. You’re unbelievable. You must get frustrated every time you watch Hobbit or LOTR, don’t you? Can’t see many colored people there
I love LOTR and the first Hobbit.
And then again, maybe my point is irrelevant but, LOTR and Hobbit are both direct adaptations. And there’s a clear universal message of every races banding – is that the word ? – together to defeat a greater evil. There is a universal impact.
Wild Hunt is not only an adaptation of the Witcher’s universe but also a sequel not considered as canonical if I remember well and it’s not like the presence of a a few colored people would shake the whole lore uh ?
And like I said, it’s entirely possible that I’m perfectly fine with the absence of colored people when the game comes out, especially given the setting of the Witcher universe but since Arthur pointed this out, I found ir interesting to discuss.
And I’m more concerned with people’s reluctance to see these characters making their way into the Witcher universe. I get the "lore/book" vague argument and the artistic freedom but stiiiiiill…
You see that ‘but still’ is returning like a boomerang. No matter if you played the game or not, if you know the context or not, you sound like you want to put a colored people in the game BY DEFAULT. And my question is.. why??? What’s wrong with not having them?
What’s wrong with showing diversity in games ?
And I’ve only raised the question in response of Arthur’s criticism, which I didn’t not find SUPER MEGA relevant but interesting and so I started thinking about it, PROPOSING that it might have been a good thing just to show colored people somewhere in a side quest or two. Don’t think that I’m a holy defender of "colored people everywhere", I’ve said in previous comments that my first concern is always the fact that these sort of things must be cohesive and well depicted. Ok ?
But in this world of triple-A fantasy RPG, there has been Dragon Age Inquisition showing, like I said before, a black woman and a gay in the main team. A small gesture that meant a lot. If we are to move forward diversity in games, then every game could – and MAYBE should – start to illustrate that diversity. And I’m not saying turning half of Wild Hunt’s cast into colored folks but all I’m saying is that giving a very small part of your game to colored people – even ONE side quest could do, that would still be it… – would be a good move and a smart one.
Now everyone is going to wave the argument of "Adaptation", "northern-european setting", "coherence", and so on, but still…it’s too easy. The "but still" is because I’m tired of having to explain myself for expressing this simple and small idea as if I was tarnishing the universe depicted.
This could be a small gesture, CDPR did not make it. I get that. When I will play Wild Hunt, I might almost never think about it, the universe is what it is. It’s grounded in a certain type of setting. I’m not gonna boo CDPR for not putting colored people into their game, maybe I should, maybe I should not, I dunno. But the point Arthur expressed in his review was interesting and the fact that he thought about it is, I believe, a good thing. Consciousness.
I mean, it’s not like 90% of video games characters are white, uh ?
This is something that’s been bothering me about Dragon Age lately. The inclusion of different human races doesn’t make much sense the way it’s done and is obviously just there to cater to the whole inclusiveness movement – which is totally fine in and of itself, but simply adding, for instance, a few coloured people for the sake of it is lazy.
I’m not familiar with the The Witcher lore at all, since I’ve always felt turned off by the whole "Look at me, I’m gritty and there’s boobs and chicks to bang. So mature!" thing. Probably unfair of me.) But … in the area it’s set in, do coloured people even exist? Or would it make sense for them to? I mean, if you go and make a fantasy game based on a specific African culture before Europeans and whoever thought they should show up and play the boss, I certainly wouldn’t expect you to put a bunch of white dudes in there just so that I can feel included.
Come to think of it, why isn’t there such a game yet? Get to work, devs!
A child gets his future told to him, and it tunes out that he’s destined to become an explorer who discovered a new land and dies from some exotic disease while exploring this strange new land. I think the people there are mentioned, but it’s been some time since I read that book. Anyway, it’s not unlikely that this place features people of another color than white.
Western culture surprises me. Gratuitous violence portrayed in The Witcher is acceptable because it’s a harsh and violent world with lots of nasty people; but portraying women a certain way and not including people of colour is completely unacceptable?
It’s a fantasy version of middle/dark ages Europe, if you’re going to accept the violence and brutality, then you’ll have to accept that women and human beings in general weren’t treated well in those days and that it was pretty much a monoethic society. Yes, it’s fantasy so they could have taken some liberties to appease certain groups of people; but do they have to? Not everything has to match up to your vision of what you believe the world should be.
Well, no, they don’t have to, but in the end, you don’t have to like the result, either. So, fair play, I guess.
"That said, the world CD Projekt has created….."
Edit: The world Andrzej Sapkowski created. Sorry if it was already said but if we are dropping anvils this morning, I want the right anvils to be dropped.
Decapitating and slicing human bodies to your left and right is fine, but don’t you dare not including different races, set the game in a misogynist world or staying true to the source-material.
I think this debate should take place in a few weeks or months when more people will have played the game because right now, even if some arguments might be interesting, there are a lot of assumptions made and I personally don’t know about the game in itself since I didn’t play it.
What debate? Either you accept the way women are presented or you don’t and you don’t get the game. The studio can do whatever the heck they want and they’ll stop making them when INDIVIDUALS stop buying their games.
Seems like people think, "Hmmm. Should we let them get away with this? It’s not MY idea of what a game should be. Maybe it’s time to stop them, huh guys?"
You see, content of the game is now not important. The discussion started and it hovers around the general topic of calling sexism and racism in a video game ‘bad’ while killing tons of people at the same time is just, you know, part of it.
I want sexism, racism and all kind of political incorrectness in a game set in a dark fantasy age
The review comments calling into question the sexism and misogyny suggest a sensitive reaction brought on perhaps by the recent climate in the industry. Such a reaction isn’t unexpected and isn’t unwelcome per se, but it did come off a little like someone playing the "I’m offended" card a touch too strong.
This game doesn’t have content any more objectionable than the thousands before it, most of which didn’t get called out like it’s a hot topic of the moment. You folks can argue the rights and wrongs of subjectivity and objectivity and reviews and opinions all you like, but in the here and now, parts of this review stuck out for the wrong reasons. We expect this gaem to contain such things, so don’t need an offended person telling us about it.
There is a time and a place to move things forward along the trajectory Anita Sarkeesian is aiming. We do need to place a critical eye on the content of our wares, but perhaps actually criticising a game in its review for not progressing things, felt a little shoe-horned in.
Plus personally, I absolutely want sexism, misogyny, nudity and a general tittilation as I play. I want fantasy to put me in a position I’d never find myself in real life; to see my own reactions to it; to experience situations without consequence. I know that to see something bad happen to someone in a virtual world re-affirms my notion that I couldn’t tolerate seeing such things happen that way in the real world. Again, I can witness the effects without anyone actually having to suffer.
Seems like a game review is actually the most natural place to criticize a game. Isnt that what reviews are, criticism?
Also, just because feminist criticism of gaming has only recently become mainstream, doesn’t mean its going away. Its a sign of social progress.
Not even gonna comment on your self professed desire to play sexist games…
I don’t want all games I play to be sexist, just to clear that one up. I’m no monster!
It’s perfectly fine to raise the topic in the review (a game and its reviews should not ignore the state of the nation(s)), but it went on about it just a touch too long.
Once again…
  • 8/10 is a score that means great. It’s a great game.
  • Regardless, scores mean nothing, read the text of the review.
  • If you don’t care about the misogynistic parts of the game, then congrats, you will enjoy it.
  • Reviews are opinions.
  • You don’t have to read Polygon if you don’t like the way they do things. The one thing the internet is full of is people reviewing video games.
Great review Arthur, always interesting to read.
There is a crucial difference beetween the way the universe treats women and the way the game does. MARK MY FUCKING WORDS.
Are they supposed to be the same?
Absolutely not. A game might show a violent, sexist and racist universe without being all those previsously mentioned things.
HAhahaa. Oh, you and I. The fun we have.
Just getting started pal.
All I’m saying is that either all video game characters should be genital free like Barbie Dolls, or there should be a wiener shot for every boob shot. It’s what we ALL want.
I think you may be wrong. We DO want that.
I think your vision of the thing is a bit narrowed. Seing a dick shot for every breast shot is not gonna fix a lot.
Holy dicks, can we have a separate comments thread for stuff about women / medieval settings / racism / etc.? I want to ask a question about the game, and I fear that it is now buried under 300 comments about misogyny.
I have a very new, pretty damn beefy computer. I also have a PS4, and generally prefer sitting on the couch playing video games to sitting alone in my office. What is the preferred platform for this game? Do you guys have your hands on anything other than the PS4 version? Any pros or cons? What kind of specs do you need on your machine to get PS4-level performance?
I am torn between picking this up as a test for my beautiful machine or enjoying it on the comfort of the couch.
PC is pretty much the same as PS4 so except for a few comfort/quality bonus in framerate or stuff like that, you should get the ps4 version.
I’ve seen both versions running – PC Ultra – and they’re pretty much the same.
Symphony Man
Symphony Man
Assistant to the Community Overlord
This seems very unlike CDPR since they’ve always been "PC first" developers, but, you’ve seen both and I’ve seen neither.
But what about the sexism?
Seriously though, I don’t think anyone has played anything but the PS4 version.
I might be wrong though.
They’ve shown the PC one and it is as disappointing for PC fans as reassuring for console owners, there’s really a small difference from what I’ve seen.
Hmm, that’s interesting. CDPR usually does well with pc gaming.
Is it a performance issue? I’ve heard that the graphics settings options are pretty good. I haven’t really looked to far into it yet, because I can’t afford the game right now.
You could check on neogaf, there was litteraly a Downgrade Hunt going on there and it was both funnt and depressing in every ways. But yeah, we’re far from the Sword of Destiny trailer.
I really enjoyed the review, and it actually made me want to play the game more than the purely positive review I read. Though, I still dont know that "ambiguous momentum" means.
It seems as if the world of The Witcher 3 suffers from a moral breakdown, plagued with inequality, racism, etc. A world in which I play as the moral compass. Just what I expected. Worthy of its mature rating, I am sure. I look forward to May 19th. Thanks Polygon.
I don’t think Geralt should be the moral compass of everything. He’s a guy growing old, with so many bad shit happening to him and he just has to deal with it. Like many reviewers say – and that’s one of the things I hope that are true – his story is a personnal one.
Not a "Chosen One with great powers and great responsabilities" thing.
I would agree with you if we talking about the next Witcher novel. However, as far as RPGs go, I want to make the choices.
Yeah but meaningful choice doesn’t necessarily implies such a grandiloquent and vast scope. I guess we’ll see when the game comes out.
And I do want Wild Hunt to be epic and stuff.
I agree. I’m sure there will be meaningful choices of little consequence in TW3. The reason is that previous TW titles had small choices that were meaningful but of little consequence. For example, in TW2, there was an event just outside of Vergen where an Elven woman offers herself to Geralt as a reward. I denied her offer, and any payment whatsoever. There was no consequence to this decision, but it was a very meaningful decision to me. My ability to say no to such an offer allowed me to act as the moral compass, and I felt good about it.
I remember that !
I said no too. I don’t want to get negative all the time but if the meaningfulness of the game’s choices is that it made a male guy feel good about his morality, I don’t find it relevant. I even find it awkward, especially since the only obvious way for the woman to show her gratefulness is to spread her legs. I don’t like it at all now that you mention that moment.
But context and memory, I don’t remember that moment well but you get my point.
No means of insulting you by the way, don’t get it wrong.
No worries, I have not found any of your words offensive. I just think the fact we can choose to say "No" to sex offers, bribes, double crossings, etc. is a great aspect of the game. The Witcher games often put us in awkward situations, but they always give us a choice. We are not forced to exploit men and/or women, take payments, backstab allies, etc. It is a very redeeming quality of the game, I think. This is a quality that other games lack, e.g Duke Nukem games that force misogynistic Alpha male bullshit on us.
No person of color?? As a person of color although I freaking hate that term, the setting is based off Medieval Eastern Europe, where white is the color, everyday. It’s not like it takes place in modern America or Europe where such a slight can be misconstrued as potentially ignorant, but when the setting demands a certain level of realism (also, most likely the author wrote the books as such and well before our modern sensitivities were developed), there’s no reason to derail from it just to check another box off the list.
Yeah! Also, who uses the term ‘person of color’ in 2015? Seriously? Obama is the first black president, not the first ‘person of color’ president.
It’s like this review was written by old SNL’s Church Lady.
This game has no persons of color, and it treats persons of vagina poorly.
And here’s a perfect example of why people are looking more and more at YouTubers for reviews.
Video game is an intellectual, entertaining and political object that is worth being observed. From every aspect.
If you think otherwise then yes, you can go watch AngryJoe video reviews.
I especially like how the reviewer details several incidents of violence against women and then says the game is mysoginistic because of violence targeting women. Are we supposed to assume there’s no violence against men in the game? Because if so it would seem less targeted and more indiscriminate, wouldn’t it?
Are we supposed to assume there is violence against men but be surprised and offended by violence against women? Wouldn’t that be a problem in-and-of itself? Am I also to assume that there are no acts of violence targeted against men? That would be a little ludicrous. It would seem logical that the violence in the game is mostly indiscriminate. Then why mention violence against women if the violence is indiscriminate against both genders?
You see where this leads? It leads in circles, that’s where. Idiots who want to argue in circles about gender and identity when gender and identity don’t matter are not intellectual, entertaining or politically competent, so why would I want to listen to their views?
Whats the point of reviewing unfinished code, which does not represent the final quality of the game?
I think that like most reviewers, he got a finished version without the day 1 patch on a DEBUG Ps4. So that’s still 98% of the final quality of the game.
Then the company shouldn’t have given them review copies so early.
Gamers are litteraly starving for these reviews. And it’s not like it was super buggy.
And then they complaint about them when they are released because it doesn’t confirm their bias.
I think so much of reading this is knowing the reviewer, Arthur, knowing where he stands and knowing whether or not you agree with him and to what extent. Maybe that’s just me being a fan of the site, but I know Arthur takes the portrayal of women in the games he plays very seriously compared to a vast majority of the audience.
That being said, when I pick up this game I may have radically different opinions than him but at least I will have been walking into it with an awareness of what to expect, which is the purpose of a review imo.
This. One hundred times over, this.
Thanks for this. Others should read this comment. After his Bayonetta 2 review, I got a clear picture of where Arthur stands on certain issues and my view is respectfully different from his. So let’s not hate on him. You knew he was going to mention it. Wait until Tuesday to decide if it’s even an issue for you.
For me, I know I’ll be fine and am stoked to lose myself for 100s of hours. An 8 is a good score and Arthur thinks it’s a good game!
Hide Image
P.S. and the score is provisional!
So much anger in the comments but that’s okay because next week I’m going to enjoy the hell out of some Witcher 3. Thanks for the great review, Arthur.
Sweet! Everything you said makes me want this game even more. Overt sexualization? Check. Ultra-violence? Check. Huge open world? Check. Good story, good acting, and consequence system? Check. Monsters, potions, spells, boobs? We good here. Tuesday can’t come fast enough.
This is why it got an 8, its a good game that a lot of people will want.
David Zhou
David Zhou
Senior Full-Stack Engineer, Vox Media
it sounds like you should buy it
Guess the review did its job, then
Tuesday may not come fast enough, but based on your comment it seems as if you already have. :blush:
Great review. After reading and contemplating it, I’m left wondering what you mean by "somewhat qualified recommendation". Is it the technical glitches, character portrayal or gameplay problems that count against the game? All taken together? I’m left feeling like there is just one sentence missing to definitively conclude the review. As a potential buyer, I’m gripped by indecision. I see lots of accolades, but Polygon and Giant Bomb (both places I trust) have some reservations about performance and gameplay that I’d love to see further explained / explored.
It would be best for you to wait until May 19th to make your decision. The reason is that the patch that is supposed to fix many performance issues is not set to release until May 19th. That is the primary reason this review is tentative. After May 19th, you should have a better understanding of where The Witcher 3 stands.
Are we not allowed to criticize the reviewer for complaining the game is too easy when it has multiple difficulty levels?
Objectives in the middle third of the game feel more and more like running from one point to another to try to advance dialogue sequences, which is made more frustrating than it needs to be by an overly restrictive fast-travel system. Fast travel can only be activated at signposts, or, while on a boat, to various harbors throughout the world, and signposts can be pretty far apart.
This sound like it could be a positive thing for me overall. I preferred Morrowind’s fast travel system over Oblivion and Skyrim’s. I like when the journey is part of the quest itself, so a more limited/restrictive fast travel system could be better for me.
I enjoyed the review, it was well written and made me more informed without spoiling it for me.
I can’t even imagine how boring games would be if all you social acceptance wieners got your way.
Every game would have the perfect ratio of racial diversity. Everyone, yes including all of those horribly treated, booby shirted, and oppressed women, would be spoken to with the utmost respect. There would be no violence or excitement just for the heck of it because it’s a game, that was meant to be fun, you know, for our amusement…in our spare time…for fun. I don’t want to play a game where all we do is tip our hats, wave hello, and open doors for people(except women because we all know they’re equal and chivalry is really just spotlighting weakness).
Video games and table top games are supposed to be a way for us to escape the real world and forget about our problems for a while, stop injecting your personal issues into our entertainment. If you’re that worried about it then go join a local "I hate everything other people enjoy" chapter and let the rest of us have fun.

Something to say? Log in or sign up

X
Polygon
Log In Sign Up
T F G
Y O
If you currently have a username with "@" in it, please email support@voxmedia.com.
forgot?
forgot?
Log In Sign Up
T F G
Y O

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.
If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot username?

We'll email it to you.
If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.
Try another email?

Forgot username?

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.
Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.
Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.
In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%