Did people forget this..?

[COMaestro]

I find it funny how though I have played Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas, I can count the number of times I have fast travelled on one hand. I would always walk in Oblivion (run really) as it would improve my stats. In all the games, you could come across random encounters, or caves, etc. to explore which you would totally miss by fast travelling. But as stated before, it all depends on why you are playing the game. I love the exploration element (and get royally pissed when I hit an invisible wall or reach a slope that's too steep), some people want the main story so blitz from quest to quest, others like a mix of the two. The only reason I've ever used fast travel is because I wanted to finish the quest I was on before going to bed, and I was tired.

I fast travelled more in Assassin's Creed 3, but that was more because I really wanted to finish the game to move on to something else in my backlog. My neverending backlog....

 

[Loonyyy]

Try to play Skyrim without quest markers. Go ahead, try it. If the game is built around (a) certain feature(s), you can't just say 'don't use them'. It doesn't work like that.

By this logic, Morrowind should be nigh-impossible. It was, at the very least, just a little difficult since I was so used to waypoints. I had to remember names and places and maps, and Oblivion onward never asked that much of me. But back then, Morrowind was considered one of the greatest RPGs of all time. So no, a sandbox WRPG does not need waypoints.

I started Morrowind after I finished Oblivion, and stop playing within the first few hours because of this.

Can it be done? Of course, people did, just like you. Is it enjoyable? That's debatable, but the fact that Bethesda will not release a game without waypoints nowadays should give you a clue.

I find it enjoyable. Oh, was I meant to take from that "clue" that the waypoints are somehow more fun? No, they're less deep. And, as the argument goes, reducing depth sells. Oh, wait, you wanted to appeal to popularity for what was found fun? No deal. Different experiences and challenges are valued by different people. Most people who enjoyed Morrowind enjoyed the navigation, precisely because it took effort. You had to take directions, and use them. You didn't get a magic arrow pointing you to every objective. The magic arrows aren't bad, but they're not the same experience as taking directions, which many of us found much more immersive, and made for much deeper gameplay.

Once upon a time you could not save your progress. People still played and praised those games. Do you think its reasonable for a modern game not to implement any form of save?

See: Roguelikes.

People do still like those sorts of games, because of these very elements. Regardless, the introduction of these features is more akin to the removal of content, than the adding of it.

 

[sanquin]

In medieval times, people didn't collect playing cards for getting someone into the sack and shagging them, to varying degrees of explicit content. The game has an immature and sexist depiction of women, interacting with them, and sex in general. I'd hesitate to call it misogynistic, simply because I think that part is stupid and infantile, rather than rooted in actual hatred towards women, and rather in some teenage "American Pie"-esque desire to collect "All the sex" from the supporting cast. It's still mildy off-putting, and demonstrates a poor attitude towards sex. It's childish and sexist, but not too far to be beyond understanding.

Whether or not the characters are misogynistic (Something I don't really care about) is of less importance than the tone of the game, which is well established during the tutorial, where my conversational choices led to me fucking a main supporting character (The red-and-purple whatever her name was in the starting castle), and getting a collector card for it. I mean, really, it's just pathetic. You get a better idea of sex at a strip club. That's just sad.

I never said they went with a realistic setting all together. I said they went with a more historic depiction of how men treated women in those times.

And yes, the sex cards and such were pretty damn immature. It was just a small part of the game though.

 

[sanquin]

People in the medieval times didn't pass around naked postcards of eachother. They were Christian prudes.

Nice, a straw man argument. Also, they were maybe Christian, but anything but prudes. They might have said they wouldn't have sex before marriage and such, but really they did. And quite often too. Heck the more wealthy people loved to hold orgies and the like.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Once upon a time you could not save your progress. People still played and praised those games. Do you think its reasonable for a modern game not to implement any form of save?

See: Roguelikes.

People do still like those sorts of games, because of these very elements. Regardless, the introduction of these features is more akin to the removal of content, than the adding of it.

And I present a counter-argument; Hardcore Mode [http://www.diablowiki.net/Hardcore]. Also, if you aren't playing a no-saving run of a game for the fun/personal challenge of it, then why are you playing the game in that fashion at all?

And for that matter, why are you pissed/angry/upset that other games are giving users those options? Neither the players nor the other games don't affect your tastes, personal choices, or status on any scale. In a way, you're almost being a homophobe; you're complaining about/condoning things and people that really don't alter your lifestyle in any tangible aspect.

EDIT: That crossed-out section of text is in its current state because I realized that I may have been assuming too many things about your stance on Dark Souls and it having an easy mode, Mr. Loonyyy. Also, I got slightly emotional.

EDIT #2: I seemed to have completely misunderstood the conversation that was taking place. See my understanding statements right here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.400401-Did-people-forget-this?page=3#16460153].

 

[z121231211]

I remember people complaining about the kick in Dead Island being OP and that it was no fun because they didn't use anything besides the kick, and I'd tell them just not to use it and then they'd ask me why they'd use anything else... because you're not having fun otherwise dipshit!

Yeah, I totally get your point.

Just understand that these are gamers we're talking about here. Finding the easiest way around something is what gamers do, the designers just have to make the answer to this not so easy to find. That's why them not having fun because of something OP is the designer's fault, not their's.

When someone playing a game finds something broken, their immediate reaction is "woah, this is powerful I should try using it more often" not "OK, how easy is this going to make the game for me? better be safe and limit myself from using it." The fun of a game is trying to win it, not finding the most the most enjoyable way to play it, that's the designer's job.

 

[imagremlin]

snip

We have different definitions of depth and fun, you and I. I don't think searching is depth or fun.

Lets say I make a game where to walk, you have to continually press two buttons, left foot, right foot. In my eyes, this game is no deeper than a game where you just push a stick or press a button to move forward; it's simply more tedious. A game where I have to search for the locations is tedious to me, not deep. Depth comes from the combination of rich mechanics IMHO, how you choose/combine your resources to overcome challenges. Even then, Elder Scroll/Fallout games do offer a modicum of searching with a few waypoint-less missions when they want to make the search part of the challenge. Small doses are OK in my book.

I do agree with your argument that it can be more immersive, after all, we don't get glowing arrows in real life to tell us where to go (well, actually we kind of do these days, Google Maps, anyone? but I digress). But not all types of immersion are fun, at least to me. Hey, you could argue that my press foot button to walk is more immersive, but I suspect not much fun.

Fun is subjective, as I said. I don't find searching fun, and I reckon most people don't find it fun either or games would not have waypoints. Each to its own, but you people who enjoys this kind of thing is in the minority, so yes it's an appeal to popularity. Take it as you will.

Sure, there are games with permadeath these days to cater for people that miss that kind of stuff. It is still a niche from what I'm standing though, 99.9% of games out there are not doing this. If they do, I may be proved wrong, but I suspect I won't.

 

[imagremlin]

I find it funny how though I have played Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas, I can count the number of times I have fast travelled on one hand.

Same here. There's a great feeling to being on your way to a location and suddenly noticing something interesting on the top of a mountain. What's that? Heck with my current mission!

Mainly I used fast travel to unstuck myself or my companions from the terrain, which happens on occasion on Elder Scrolls/Fallout. Crap, when was it that I last saved? I would fast travel to the nearest location and everyone was free again.

 

[Loonyyy]

snip

We have different definitions of depth and fun, you and I. I don't think searching is depth or fun.

We differ on fun, something I acknowledged. But the navigation system in Morrowind was comparatively deeper. It had greater rewards for learning to understand it, and different playstyles would have different approaches to it. It may not have been fun for everyone, but again, everyone's going to think things have differing amounts of fun.

Lets say I make a game where to walk, you have to continually press two buttons, left foot, right foot. In my eyes, this game is no deeper than a game where you just push a stick or press a button to move forward; it's simply more tedious.

Or, let's make a game where all the player input is removed, and it's all a cutscene, eh? Come on, these false analogies are silly at best. The travel and navigation in Morrowind is not at all analogous to the system you described. In the system you described, the action is simply complicated. In Morrowind, the navigation is not only complicated by the mechanics. It requires additional thought and input.

A game where I have to search for the locations is tedious to me, not deep.

Tedious, not fun. Tedious is not an opposite of deep. And, if you think the system is not deep, sorry, but you're flat out wrong.

Depth comes from the combination of rich mechanics IMHO, how you choose/combine your resources to overcome challenges.

Agreed.
In Morrowind for example, you can use spells to teleport, or join the Mages Guild to travel to other Guild Halls, use Silt Striders, gain magical skills to teleport without buying scrolls, try to master the Boots of Blinding speed, whether through obstinancy or through magic, etc. That's a deep system, which has different implications for different playthroughs and playstyles. You're entitled not to enjoy it, but it's not a shallow system. It fulfills your definition of deep to the letter.

Even then, Elder Scroll/Fallout games do offer a modicum of searching with a few waypoint-less missions when they want to make the search part of the challenge. Small doses are OK in my book.

I'm totally cool with that.

I do agree with your argument that it can be more immersive, after all, we don't get glowing arrows in real life to tell us where to go (well, actually we kind of do these days, Google Maps, anyone? but I digress). But not all types of immersion are fun, at least to me.

Sure, but it's not the lack of the glowing arrow that makes it more immersive. It's the interpreting of instructions, the looking for signs and landmarks, and solving the minor puzzle. As opposed to opening the magic map and teleporting. The teleporting doesn't even have to kill immersion-a handwaving of it by saying that everyone has now the ability to perform complex teleports, whether by cheap scrolls, or some other handwave. That way, they can keep the integrity of the setting, and have the mechanic. Presto, a solution that doesn't kill the immersion half as much!

Hey, you could argue that my press foot button to walk is more immersive, but I suspect not much fun.

I wouldn't. It wouldn't. Immersion is about getting lost in a game, and things which make you think about how it's a game destroy immersion. Cutting to the map to fast travel kills immersion, especially when your horse spawns next to you, despite you being nowhere near him when you fast travelled. If you have to think about pressing the foot button to walk, or left and right feet, that's going to hurt immersion. Minimising the interferance the controls have maximises immersion. Immersion is not simply complexity. Very simple games can be highly immersive.

Fun is subjective, as I said. I don't find searching fun, and I reckon most people don't find it fun either or games would not have waypoints.

I've no idea. I don't know whether Bethesda focus tested it, or did any kind of research. Oblivion happened because Morrowind was a success, so I wouldn't be inclined to dismiss the influence Morrowind would have had.

Each to its own, but you people who enjoys this kind of thing is in the minority,

Prove it, or just stop saying that. And, even if it is a minority, that doesn't mean that it can't be made for the minority.

so yes it's an appeal to popularity. Take it as you will.

I will. Appealing to popularity doesn't make things the most fun for each player, and if we try to make the most popular game, we'll end up with something generic and woeful. What's the most popular game at the moment? CoD? LoL? Something like that. If they try to appeal to the largest market, rather than making something which has appeal to the niche it's aimed for, it'll just be a mess. That's the problem with only going from popularity. It's lazy, and it doesn't bring about true satisfaction. There's much to be said for you personally liking the waypoint system more, but that it may or may not be more popular is not one of those things.

Sure, there are games with permadeath these days to cater for people that miss that kind of stuff. It is still a niche from what I'm standing though, 99.9% of games out there are not doing this. If they do, I may be proved wrong, but I suspect I won't.

I'm not saying they will, or even should. Just that games are made mostly in niches, and there's nothing wrong with appealing to those niches. Indeed, most games do.

Once upon a time you could not save your progress. People still played and praised those games. Do you think its reasonable for a modern game not to implement any form of save?

See: Roguelikes.

People do still like those sorts of games, because of these very elements. Regardless, the introduction of these features is more akin to the removal of content, than the adding of it.

And I present a counter-argument; Hardcore Mode [http://www.diablowiki.net/Hardcore]. Also, if you aren't playing a no-saving run of a game for the fun/personal challenge of it, then why are you playing the game in that fashion at all?

I don't see that as a counter-argument. Again, they've added a feature which you can toggle, which adds something new. You see, I could put up with all the fast travel in Oblivion and Skyrim and just not use it if they'd still keep the old style journals and detailed directions. Then adding the fast travel would be adding a feature. But adding in the shallower feature of fast travel, and leaving out the other stuff is trading depth for simplicity, and leaves no room for the original playstyle.

And for that matter, why are you pissed/angry/upset that other games are giving users those options? Neither the players nor the other games don't affect your tastes, personal choices, or status on any scale. In a way, you're almost being a homophobe; you're complaining about/condoning things and people that really don't alter your lifestyle in any tangible aspect.

I'm very glad you crossed this out. It's disgusting. I never said that I was pissed, angry, or upset, and it's not about other gamers being given options, it's about the removal of them. For instance, if fast travel was added to Morrowind, I would not care a jot. It wouldn't need to change how I played the game.

The bit about homophobia is flat out wrong, and I'm disgusted to see that posted. It's a complete misunderstanding of my position. To go with your inane analogy: It's like if gay marriage were allowed, and at the same time, they removed straight marriage. (And before someone takes that out of context, know that if you do, you'll simply get a spot on my ignore list) I have no problem with a feature being given to someone else, that I will not use. I've said this numerous times. I've a problem with the removal of features I do use. There's a big difference.

EDIT: That crossed-out section of text is in its current state because I realized that I may have been assuming too many things about your stance on Dark Souls and it having an easy mode, Mr. Loonyyy. Also, I got slightly emotional.

Good. My stance on DS and an easy mode is actually quite different to what you assumed. I actually think that an easy mode for that is a good thing.

 

[Loonyyy]

In medieval times, people didn't collect playing cards for getting someone into the sack and shagging them, to varying degrees of explicit content. The game has an immature and sexist depiction of women, interacting with them, and sex in general. I'd hesitate to call it misogynistic, simply because I think that part is stupid and infantile, rather than rooted in actual hatred towards women, and rather in some teenage "American Pie"-esque desire to collect "All the sex" from the supporting cast. It's still mildy off-putting, and demonstrates a poor attitude towards sex. It's childish and sexist, but not too far to be beyond understanding.

Whether or not the characters are misogynistic (Something I don't really care about) is of less importance than the tone of the game, which is well established during the tutorial, where my conversational choices led to me fucking a main supporting character (The red-and-purple whatever her name was in the starting castle), and getting a collector card for it. I mean, really, it's just pathetic. You get a better idea of sex at a strip club. That's just sad.

I never said they went with a realistic setting all together. I said they went with a more historic depiction of how men treated women in those times.

And I said I cared not one jot about that, and that wasn't the issue. I've no problem with an attempt at authenticity. Game of Thrones for instance, has the same thing.

And yes, the sex cards and such were pretty damn immature. It was just a small part of the game though.

Yes, but it goes to the overall tone of the game, and it's a sexist one. It's a nasty, tawdry little thing added on, which doesn't do it any favours. It's not the realism that's an irritant, it's the point where they broke the fourth wall to appeal to the masturbatory fantasies of a male audience. Which puts some people off, and just makes me disappointed in the pandering.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

In medieval times, people didn't collect playing cards for getting someone into the sack and shagging them, to varying degrees of explicit content. The game has an immature and sexist depiction of women, interacting with them, and sex in general. I'd hesitate to call it misogynistic, simply because I think that part is stupid and infantile, rather than rooted in actual hatred towards women, and rather in some teenage "American Pie"-esque desire to collect "All the sex" from the supporting cast. It's still mildy off-putting, and demonstrates a poor attitude towards sex. It's childish and sexist, but not too far to be beyond understanding.

Whether or not the characters are misogynistic (Something I don't really care about) is of less importance than the tone of the game, which is well established during the tutorial, where my conversational choices led to me fucking a main supporting character (The red-and-purple whatever her name was in the starting castle), and getting a collector card for it. I mean, really, it's just pathetic. You get a better idea of sex at a strip club. That's just sad.

I never said they went with a realistic setting all together. I said they went with a more historic depiction of how men treated women in those times.

And I said I cared not one jot about that, and that wasn't the issue. I've no problem with an attempt at authenticity. Game of Thrones for instance, has the same thing.

And yes, the sex cards and such were pretty damn immature. It was just a small part of the game though.

Yes, but it goes to the overall tone of the game, and it's a sexist one. It's a nasty, tawdry little thing added on, which doesn't do it any favours. It's not the realism that's an irritant, it's the point where they broke the fourth wall to appeal to the masturbatory fantasies of a male audience. Which puts some people off, and just makes me disappointed in the pandering.

While I agree with you, but "realsim" doesn't mean the same thing in a video game. Since the the world behaves/acts differently. Geralt in the books is a pretty handsome character that all the ladies tear out their eyes to be with.

King Joffrey slaughtering babies? The first mention of killing babies in real life would get you shot by the police. In their world.. he's the king. He gets to do whatever he wants.

Do I agree with the cards? No. Do I agree with all the sex scenes? Yes. That's who he is. He's suppose to be a sex craving character, and all the girls want his meat.

 

[Louzon]

Try to play Skyrim without quest markers. Go ahead, try it. If the game is built around (a) certain feature(s), you can't just say 'don't use them'. It doesn't work like that.

I don't think that he's saying that you shouldn't play with things like these. I think he's saying that people griping that an optional feature like markers in Skyrim are just ridiculous. If you think it makes the game too easy, don't use them, you have the option to...know what I'm saying?

 

[Madman123456]

Skyrim has quests designed around the arrow. In morrowind, they'd tell you you could find this and that in the census office in seyda neen. And off you go. You know where Seyda-neen is and you know where the census office is.

In Skyrim, the Quest says "bring me the head of Olaf Olafsen!" or something and the arrow points you to it. If you switch it off, you wont know where to look and you wont be given any clues most of the times.

Overall, i do like the Quest arrow because the alternative would be that designers would have to make quests that give you a right amount of clues to find something and inevitably fuck it up.

I do like some "spoonfeeding" games do at times; I like it when important characters, first of all companions, are un killable.
Not really realistic and it might not be all that immersive. But immersion starts to break a bit when i reload save files because a companion ran right into my sword or line of fire. Just make the companions immortal and have them be knocked out until the end of a battle so i can't use them to tank satan while i shoot him with the bow i just crafted from my own phlem.

 

[V8 Ninja]

*snip*

*rebuttal snip*

I seemed to have jumped into a conversation where I had no idea what were the main arguments and who were arguing them. And now it's biting me in the ass.

So yeah, after analyzing the conversation, I'm more on a balanced side and I actually understand who is saying what. I would agree with your statements, although I disagree with your level of hostility that you showed in presenting those statements.

 

[imagremlin]

le epic snip

I'm curious that all of the counter examples you used to support your views on depth seem to relate to fast travel and not waypoints: spells to teleport, join the Mages Guild to travel to other Guild Halls, use Silt Striders, gain magical skills to teleport without buying scrolls, so on. If I read that one correctly, we agree 100%. I don't like fast travel either, as I mentioned on another reply above.

What I was arguing against was lack of waypoints, the "find character/location X" puzzle, particularly on an expansive map like Oblivion's or Fallout's. The problem gets even worse when you have a dozen quests open. After I've done six or so, I go to my quest list and find one that goes "Find Character X" and I've totally forgotten what was that about. Without a waypoint, on a map that big, that is not only "not-fun" but "not-happening". In that I sympathise with the original "try Skyrim without waypoints" post you replied to.

Like Mr Madman says:

Skyrim has quests designed around the arrow. In morrowind, they'd tell you you could find this and that in the census office in seyda neen. And off you go. You know where Seyda-neen is and you know where the census office is.

In Skyrim, the Quest says "bring me the head of Olaf Olafsen!" or something and the arrow points you to it. If you switch it off, you wont know where to look and you wont be given any clues most of the times.

 

[Nomanslander]

Well that doesn't always work, when a game was designed with certain brain dead mechanics in mind the designers also went lazy.

Where a game without quest markers would have to be done in a way you can logically navigate the world, one with them doesn't, remove the markers from that and guess what... you are utterly lost because they never bothered orienting the player, or with topological features or quest directions.

Pretty much this.

Game designers don't just implement features for the sake of it being there, they're careful devised in order to render a game "playable." Taking the above example, if you could just turn off a quest marker in an open world game, how will the player manage to find his/her way to their next destination? Something else has to be implemented to get them there short of pointing it out straight.

 

[Krixous]

Like in dead space 3, even if you don't play co-op, carver will just miraculously appear in cutscenes and even if you don't use micro transactions, getting weapons is a grindfest now.

I just beat dead space 3 unless your playing on pure survival mode you have way more then enough resources to play around with. besides tungsten by the end of one play through i had over 10,000 in each category left over.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

Well that doesn't always work, when a game was designed with certain brain dead mechanics in mind the designers also went lazy.

Where a game without quest markers would have to be done in a way you can logically navigate the world, one with them doesn't, remove the markers from that and guess what... you are utterly lost because they never bothered orienting the player, or with topological features or quest directions.

Pretty much this.

Game designers don't just implement features for the sake of it being there, they're careful devised in order to render a game "playable." Taking the above example, if you could just turn off a quest marker in an open world game, how will the player manage to find his/her way to their next destination? Something else has to be implemented to get them there short of pointing it out straight.

Finding places isn't a problem in Skyrim. Pull up your map, and look at the grey area they marked on your map, and start walking in that destination. That's how I did it.

The only time I play Skyrim with Map Markers is when I was finding certain people after I looked for 20 minutes.

 

[Loonyyy]

le epic snip

I'm curious that all of the counter examples you used to support your views on depth seem to relate to fast travel and not waypoints: spells to teleport, join the Mages Guild to travel to other Guild Halls, use Silt Striders, gain magical skills to teleport without buying scrolls, so on. If I read that one correctly, we agree 100%. I don't like fast travel either, as I mentioned on another reply above.

I could have made it more clear. In the case of say, Skyrim, the two are pretty well intertwined. You've got the waypoints marked on the map, and you fast travel to the nearest one and do your thing. But they're both part of the same system, the simplifying of navigation.

What I was arguing against was lack of waypoints, the "find character/location X" puzzle, particularly on an expansive map like Oblivion's or Fallout's. The problem gets even worse when you have a dozen quests open. After I've done six or so, I go to my quest list and find one that goes "Find Character X" and I've totally forgotten what was that about. Without a waypoint, on a map that big, that is not only "not-fun" but "not-happening". In that I sympathise with the original "try Skyrim without waypoints" post you replied to.

True. But this can be mitigated with design. If the sidequests crop up organically, and the progress is restricted, you can stop a player from getting too many quests. But indeed, it's a more difficult, niche approach. In Morrowind, I didn't really have this problem, because I'd start in a town, gather the quests I could, do them, before completing my main one. However, the confusion becomes apparent if you leave it for a month and come back. You have to read a lot of journal to get up to speed.

Like Mr Madman says:

Skyrim has quests designed around the arrow. In morrowind, they'd tell you you could find this and that in the census office in seyda neen. And off you go. You know where Seyda-neen is and you know where the census office is.

In Skyrim, the Quest says "bring me the head of Olaf Olafsen!" or something and the arrow points you to it. If you switch it off, you wont know where to look and you wont be given any clues most of the times.

[/quote]
Totally. I tried exactly that at one point, travelling Skyrim without fast travel, and it was a pain in the neck to do, because you have to use the map, which is just tempting as all hell, and then you'll only find the objective with the compass. I didn't even bother with the no compass mod. It was pretty clear it would be ridiculous.

Which is one of my main points: I much prefer the deeper inclusion of directions and the like in Morrowind, than the magic compass/fast travel approach of Skyrim. And, they can even both be included. The best difficulty system I've seen in a game was Mount And Blade: Warband. You can adjust the timescale, size of battles, how easy the controls are, etc, which contributes to the overall difficulty. All it would take would be a checkbox for fast-travel, and they're set. Hell, they don't even have to put a checkbox in, and leave it to self-imposed challenge. So long as the underlying game is there.

 

[Loonyyy]

In medieval times, people didn't collect playing cards for getting someone into the sack and shagging them, to varying degrees of explicit content. The game has an immature and sexist depiction of women, interacting with them, and sex in general. I'd hesitate to call it misogynistic, simply because I think that part is stupid and infantile, rather than rooted in actual hatred towards women, and rather in some teenage "American Pie"-esque desire to collect "All the sex" from the supporting cast. It's still mildy off-putting, and demonstrates a poor attitude towards sex. It's childish and sexist, but not too far to be beyond understanding.

Whether or not the characters are misogynistic (Something I don't really care about) is of less importance than the tone of the game, which is well established during the tutorial, where my conversational choices led to me fucking a main supporting character (The red-and-purple whatever her name was in the starting castle), and getting a collector card for it. I mean, really, it's just pathetic. You get a better idea of sex at a strip club. That's just sad.

I never said they went with a realistic setting all together. I said they went with a more historic depiction of how men treated women in those times.

And I said I cared not one jot about that, and that wasn't the issue. I've no problem with an attempt at authenticity. Game of Thrones for instance, has the same thing.

And yes, the sex cards and such were pretty damn immature. It was just a small part of the game though.

Yes, but it goes to the overall tone of the game, and it's a sexist one. It's a nasty, tawdry little thing added on, which doesn't do it any favours. It's not the realism that's an irritant, it's the point where they broke the fourth wall to appeal to the masturbatory fantasies of a male audience. Which puts some people off, and just makes me disappointed in the pandering.

While I agree with you, but "realsim" doesn't mean the same thing in a video game. Since the the world behaves/acts differently. Geralt in the books is a pretty handsome character that all the ladies tear out their eyes to be with.

I don't think you get what I mean. I was referring to his use of realism

"Misogynistic, maybe. But guess what? In medieval times people weren't as tolerant, open minded and emancipated as today. Is it really that terrible that a game tries to portray a more realistic version of how life was in those days? Or do you rather have happy fantasy worlds where the feminism movement apparently also already happened like in Skyrim?"

as a justification. Geralt may be a ladykiller in the books, and I've no problem. But the Witcher does have a problem with sexism, because of those cards. As I said, more than once, I don't care if the characters are misogynistic. The game would still be sexist, just because of those cards, and I don't think portraying a character with negative traits says anything negative about the game.
-Dexter is a serial killer.
-GoT is full of murderers, theives, traitors, rapists, and all manner of shit.
-The Walking Dead, murder, totalitarianism, etc.
These are some of my favourite shows though. It's not about the characters, it's about presentation. If they had sex-cards, or kill-cards, or the like, I'd say they have a childish attitude towards those things, and if it was with regard to one gender, it'd also have a gender issue.

King Joffrey slaughtering babies? The first mention of killing babies in real life would get you shot by the police. In their world.. he's the king. He gets to do whatever he wants.

I'm not sure that you read the exchange. Like, at all. Sanquin appealed to realism to negate criticisms of The Witcher as misogynistic. I countered with a sarcastic remark about how the cards have nothing to do with realism. 1) Pointing out something which has nothing to do with how realistic it is. 2) Pointing out something irrefutably infantile, pandering, and sexist.

Do I agree with the cards? No. Do I agree with all the sex scenes? Yes. That's who he is.

I never said I didn't, did I?

He's suppose to be a sex craving character, and all the girls want his meat.

Which is a pandering masculine power fantasy, but I can live with that. But that's absolutely nothing to do with what I posted!

I'll use a syllogism, since amusing rhetoric seems to get in the way.

Premise 1) Including in a game, collector items of soft-core pornography of females is infantile.
Premise 2) Including in a game, collector items of soft-core pornography of females is sexist.
Premise 3) The Witcher includes collector items of soft-core pornography of females.
Conclusion: Based on Premises 1-3, The Witcher, to some extent, is infantile and sexist.

Don't bother responding to this, I've placed you on the ignore list.