Having played through The Wild Hunt twice I don't believe there are any genitals in it. I know 2 was more graphic and one-sided in its nudity though.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
CDPR is a transphobic company. It's time we stop making excuses for them.
- Thread starter Kyuuji
- Start date
I stopped playing that game in large part because of the misogyny, after like 10 minutes. The way the camera pans when women enter the screen, etc. It's shitty and immersion breaking
there are. if you use the mod that lets you play as other characters, you can choose your body. keira, yen, triss, syanna and ciri (?????) all have completely nude models with vulvas (and no pubic hair of course)
Ciri that needs to be saved? What? This is absolutely not true, cmon!
Honestly I don't know about this detail, I was too distracted by daddy Geralt and his sexy body to care about female nudity in the game (joking)
Let's be honest, the game plays a lot with nudity of both the sex. I mean, the game starts with geralt in a bathub in a very sexy pose and he appears at least shirtless in a lot of scenes. And trust me, A LOT! It was one of the first time that, as a gay man, I was happy to see that also male nudity was a thing in a game.
The male characters in Witcher 3 are the only ones allowed any body diversity in their character models, there's like no women in the game who don't conform to beauty standards.
User banned (1 month): Dismissing sexism in a sensitive thread
Well, Ciri has a big scar on her face and also various visible skars on her body.
And Philippa Eilhart is blind (she miss both the eyes if I'm not wrong) and explains that she purposely didn't want to cure her eyes with magic.
So, no? It is not true?
Oh yes, because Geralt is totally unfuckable. Cmon, let's be real, I know no gay man that doesn't find Geralt sexy.
There are women, in this very thread, telling you that the game is misogynist. It's not really up to you to decide otherwise, you're not affected by it.
Those are deliberately cool looking scars, they're not anything that removes from her attractiveness.
She also has high heels and her bra is showing through a slit in her top, both incredibly pointless design choices from a functional perspective that are clearly designed to make the character more attractive.
Let's put the word misogyny aside for a moment, can you see how this objectification of women exists in the game?
Oh yes, because Geralt is totally unfuckable. Cmon, I know no gay man that doesn't find Geralt a
The post was stating that in The Witcher 3 women are characters that are not allowed to have body diversity.
And this is not true inasmuch THERE IS body diversity in The Witcher 3 not only on male bodies (Geralt) but also on female bodies (Ciri and Philippa)
It's not an opinion, it is a fact because these two characters ARE in the game.
You seem confused about what body diversity refers to because all the characters you're referring to have nearly identical physical builds. Skinny, pretty big boobs, similar heights. Compare their looks with someone like the Bloody Baron for men. He has a fairly unique model, very different from others in the game. Is there a similar level of difference in any of the women?
Your examples of Ciri and Philppa are not "body diversity" in a meaningful way here.
Their BODIES are still the slender, sexy ideal.
Are you blind too or just dishonest? The scars and the blindness are not getting in the way of these characters being evidently objectified and sexualized for the straight male player. They're thin, young women with big breasts, as are most other women in The Witcher.
Reference point for the current discussion
While I personally think they are a diverse cast of women, it's not because of their very different bodytypes (there's very little variety). The picture of course misses few notable female characters, like the Crones and Anna, who's an older woman.
While I personally think they are a diverse cast of women, it's not because of their very different bodytypes (there's very little variety). The picture of course misses few notable female characters, like the Crones and Anna, who's an older woman.
Last edited:
I think the point J.Devesh missed is that a game can still have sexist and objectified depictions of women even if it also has interesting roles for them in the narrative.
Witcher 3 is certainly a step up from games where female characters have nothing interesting to say or do, to put it lightly, but that doesn't eliminate all the other issues.
Witcher 3 is certainly a step up from games where female characters have nothing interesting to say or do, to put it lightly, but that doesn't eliminate all the other issues.
It's not about nudity though, it's about the way the nudity is utilized/portrayed/presented to the player. But that's for a conversation in the other thread honestly. Oh, banned nvm I guess
This exactly
The game appears to have representation issues for everyone except for straight cis white men.
Diverse...they all are fair skinned/white, or am I missing something? Or diversity in terms of personality/characterisation and not appearace?Reference point for the current discussion
While I personally think they are a diverse cast of women, it's not because of their very different bodytypes (there's very little variety). The picture of course misses few notable female characters, like the Crones and Anna, who's an older woman.
It's worth noting that CDPR completely erased a key part of Triss' backstory (she has a scar on her chest area in the books) so they could have her button down her shirt like 50% of the female cast
I like the Witcher 3 but the more time that passes the more I think it's strengths were down to the original source material's themes, not necessarily CDPR's additions (though there are/were decent writers involved on that front, too, I think it's a bit too hasty to write all of them off. If anything it just makes Cyberpunk even more of a bummer).
I like the Witcher 3 but the more time that passes the more I think it's strengths were down to the original source material's themes, not necessarily CDPR's additions (though there are/were decent writers involved on that front, too, I think it's a bit too hasty to write all of them off. If anything it just makes Cyberpunk even more of a bummer).
I have no interest in ever playing the game because of the designs, but isn't this basically what can also summarize Nier Automata?
Yeah lol no, didn't mean diverse by any physical traits. Just characterisations and the stories they are in. I overall like the cast, with some criticisms. The biggest problem being the lack of body and skin diversity (few of those outfits bother me too).
Also Geralt is the main actor of TW3, but he's not its subject. He's characterised only for the player to project anything on him.
Red Dead Redemption 1/2 are the stories of John Marston and Arthur Morgan, L.A Noire and GTA San Andrea the stories of Cole Phelbes and Carl Johnson, God of War and Control the stories of Kratos and Jesse with their family. Their fate, moral, past and present actions are entirely intricated to the story.
TW3 is the story of Ciri fleeing an astral ghost ship, seen from the point of view his bodyguard and that's all. Geralt could be literally replaced by any other character, what defines him is only a symbolic parental attachement and the responsability of it, but nothing individual, nothing that will be challenged in the story except pink romances and money retributions.
What the heck?
Your argument could work with any of those.
Red Dead 2 is a story about a gang and their fall from glory. You could replace Arthur Morgan with anyone to tell that story.
God of War is the story of a former god trying to live a simple life but all that comes crashing down. That doesn't need to be Kratos.
Geralt is the center of the story. The game is about a man looking for his adoptive daughter who is fleeing from a very dangerous force, while along the way rekindling an old romance and running into people from his past and seeing the shape of the world he helped form
Nothing personal coming from Geralt is challenged during the story of TW3, despite being the first role in it, even the few I've mentioned is superficial. RDR2 is the story of his hero, like other titles I've quoted. TW3 is a story with its hero.
Nothing personal? What are you even talking about? Geralts personal choices change so much. There is a massive amount of personal things that happen to Geralt. If you ignore everything that happens to him in the story sure.
I haven't revisited that game since its release, but I guess it is largely applicable as well.
That said, there's a couple of differences.
a) Not quite as many named female characters in Nier Automata to begin with. In comparison, the Witcher 3 has a much larger cast in that respect.
b) Nier is absolutely a game with sexualized designs, period, but it's arguably complicated (not negated, mind you) by the creator intentionally messing with the player. The Witcher 3's story is quite straightforward, structurally speaking, since CDPR doesn't try to aim for anything remotely resembling meta-commentary.
I can't really elaborate on the second point in particular without spoilers and going into too much detail might derail the thread.
In both games the highly sexualized designs absolutely did not need to exist, even more so in Nier Automata as there is literally zero reason for it in the story....Witcher has reasons even though they are dumb and shitty.
I've just edited the message you were responding to clarify, sorry.
I am trying to make a difference between the role and the actor of it.
So for me RDR2 is the story of its hero but TW3 a story with its hero.
Of course the role of Geralt is implied everywhere in the story, but the story isn't his own, contrary to all titles I've mentioned.
And that lead to a lot of room for the audience to project anything on him.
You can even see "Hearth of stone" as a big joke about this, possibly intentional.
I am not describing this as something necessarily negative, that's just how I think the lead writing chose to conduct their story.
So you are saying in those titles the big thing going on is their lives where in the Witcher 3 , Geralt has a big part to play but the overarching story is much bigger than him? If so that makes sense.
Hmm have you ever read the original source material? Not to heap praise on CDPR but the original books are even more misogynistic and racist than the games
I think what Manfred means is that Geralt is shaped by the player. So the Geralt I played with was certainly different than yours, but every Arthur Morgan and Kratos were the same. Of course, creating a player character for an RPG means you have to sacrifice them having their own personality because of player freedom and all of that.
Then there's also how the narrative is portrayed. For example, the story of Dragon Age II wouldn't work without Hawke. Even if the player shapes them, the story doesn't move forward without them actively participating in it. It's the story of their family. But when you go to The Witcher 3, the Wild Hunt is after Ciri, the Lodge is doing its own thing, the Witchers are all over the land and get together for a final battle... all of that would happen the same way even if the player character was someone else.
But like Manfred said, it's not a bad thing, just a narrative choice.
Exactly, maybe to give more room to the world and everything that fills it or when they've planned the game, to avoid a path too strict.
But it also fits the "neutral/unaffected/unsentimental" lore of what witchers are, what their transformation implies for them (drugs etc).
Admittedly I've only just started up the first mainline book (I heard the first collection of short stories are where it's the most rife with the gratuitous sex so I only read summaries of it) but I watched Curio's vids on the series as a whole and it seemed like they handled things with a lot more nuance than the games. Not perfectly by any means, but still.
The TV series seems like it's making some effort to avoid some of the issues, at least
Oh, I agree there isn't a real in-story reason and I'm not talking about the in-universe lore of Nier. The designs are sexualized and deserve to be criticized for that.
For me, the most interesting part of Nier Automata was the whole meta angle, not the surface narrative. In other words, the game viewed as a construct with a purpose and what it does as an experience beyond the limits or needs of the formal storyline, including how and why the creator wanted to manipulate the player's emotions.
As I was saying, CDPR's games don't really go there. The Witcher 3 certainly didn't and it seems CP2077 won't either.
I believe that can directly tie several of the decisions made during the creation of Nier Automata as a commercial product into the kind of commentary the game was making or suggesting about both itself and the player. Of course, you'd need some in-depth spoilers to properly elaborate on most of that and since this is always going to be open to debate and interpretation...I am fully aware not everyone who played Nier Automata will reach the same exact conclusion, but that's fine.
This just makes the conversations about Nier Automata potentially more interesting. It doesn't excuse the sexualization even if it can be explained in an additional way.
Last edited:
Ah, I just read the short story collection and got so turned off I never read the full-on novels. Unfortunately, the misogynistic tone of the games is right in like with those early stories.
I agree with the sentiment, and I am honestly sorry for that because the themes that transpire from the costume design is actually interesting - putting a spin on how the Androids are some flawed imitation of human feelings and desires - but 2B and the commander are walking sex dolls compared to the side characters
[I actually don't think that 2B is worse than just about everything in CP77 btw, it's the male gaze that is nauseating]
[I wish it was this cool instead]
Last edited:
I know you were banned already and threw around even more nonsense than this but, like, c'mon -"not such misogynist" implies it is just slightly less ya know.
Well, it's very complicated to answer without derailing the thread, but the sexualized women in The Witcher 3 have character depth but no real reason for the sexuality, making them pretty much window dressing to appeal to a male audience in spite of their actual good characterization usually. Nier Automata on the other hand did it completely shamelessly (as in, they didn't try to Kojima their way out or hand wave it away, literally the creator just said "I like sexy women, so I made 2B sexy" or something along those lines) but also had symbolic reasons for why the female androids are somewhat sexualized (and also sexualized the male villains having them be shirtless and buff as well). Ultimately, I think it comes down to the execution and where The Witcher 3 continued sexualizing the characters, Nier only really does so on a surface level
Not entirely true, considering the sorceresses and their motivations.
In the Witcher universe, mages can alter their appearance. Mages court kings and other powerful figures, and using an attractive body can help them politically.
Now, I would actually like this lore if it wasn't just used as an excuse to make all the female mages sexy.
Depending on the situation they were involved in, they could use all kinds of forms. Sex appeal wouldn't always be a strength in a political situation, perhaps age to show wisdom, or heavier frame to show strength in a different culture, etc... they could easily have used this lore point to show a diverse range of positive representation for body types, and because it would have been diverse the slim/slender ones would have been a part of this positive representation as people like that do exist... they're just not EVERY single woman.
This is a fantasy setting, and it becomes less immersive the more it leans into the fantasy's of a specific userbase instead of the incredible diversity an imaginative fantasy setting allows.
This limitation they placed on themselves actively harmed their characters, imo, even if you could make an argument that they're well written and interesting overall... they could have potentially been even more interesting.
Not to mention, you know, different kingdoms (and kings), would theoretically favor different aesthetics and body types, much like it happens in, uh, reality.
At first I thought this was the same 3-4 women with different costumes. I'm still not 100% convinced it isn't, even after looking harder.Reference point for the current discussion
While I personally think they are a diverse cast of women, it's not because of their very different bodytypes (there's very little variety). The picture of course misses few notable female characters, like the Crones and Anna, who's an older woman.
Exactly.
Ask a range of people what their preferences are and... shockingly, it will also be a range.
Nope. Nobody involved with the game has brought up these concerns.
It's really disappointing when you consider the fact that they have one of the biggest Trans pop-music icons involved with their soundtrack.