So far, the Witcher 3 seems kind of sexist

[Gengisgame]

I was about to something similar myself.

People liked the Barons story, it was a rare portrayal of abusive relationships that is more like real life than almost any you have seen before (minus the supernatural elements).

Not to say there's anything wrong with the abusive spouse getting there's but this was fresh and fit the story better over Geralt caring about the day to day life of a couple he doesn't know.

There's a general rule of "attractiveness" that is simply part of nature. I know it can feel demeaning to women that big boobs, tight butts and slender bodies are considered to be the standard for what is attractive, but there's a fairly simple reason behind it - mens minds interpret those body types with good genetics, therefore assuming they would produce the best offspring. Over centuries we've marketed that image as a selfish sexuality sort of thing, but there is a logical scientific reason for it.

In other words, main characters being quote unquote "attractive" isn't necessarily sexist in nature, but rather a pretty typical way to appeal to OUR nature, which is desiring those with healthy genes.

This is literally untrue. Over centuries the standard of beauty and thus healthy or sexy has changed, and it has very little to do with any kind of "state of nature" conceptions of attractiveness.

No, it's quite accurate. Just because or perception of what is a "suitable mate" has fluctuated (being overweight was once considered desirable in a time when many were starving to death), doesn't mean that at its core, our basic primal instinct isn't the driving force.

I mean, one of the ways we know homosexuality is a natural thing is that it occurs in the animal kingdom.

Know what else occurs in the animal kingdom? They seek out the mate with the best genetics.

Beauty is no really in the eye of the beholder to put it another way, the best type of body for breeding is statistically measurable.

Homosexuality does not exist as in males exclusively sleeping with males, it exists in the same way that a normally exclusive straight man outside prison may have sex with another in prison.

 

[Woodsey]

Why is this sexist? The notion of years of spousal abused being even close to equivalent to cheating on your husband is incredibly dismissive of the severity of spousal abuse, and gives the suggestion that somehow she was asking for it by goading him, and cheating on him.

That's a character trying to justify his own actions knowing (or at least suspecting) full well that the man in front of him thinks he's a scumbag. Geralt can respond in several ways, and while one of those is to suggest that they're both as bad as each other, that's entirely up to the player to judge.

Besides which, once you reach the quest's ending epilogue, it's pretty hard to argue (at least in the two versions that I've played through, not sure how many there are) that the developers themselves are treating the characters as having been equally bad.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Thought I'd pop back into this thread just to see what's transpired. All I learned is that a lot of people on the internet have even more free time than I thought.

 

[kuolonen]

The society of the game is sexist, this is true. Considering it is sort of a period piece trying to capture the environment of pseudo-medieval europe, this is actually a good thing (since, much like other aspects of culture, history and environment of the setting of the game, it is seeking to be true to that regard so that the more mystical parts, such as the griffon killing and what not, feel more grand medieval adventure and less, well, like skyrim I suppose.) The grim and dark world is excessively violent, often bleak, and, yes, fittingly reflects medieval europe's harsh views on things ,from being sexist, to also being racist (a common theme, especially with the whole war part of the game's background), and superstitious.

That the game reflects a sexist society does not itself mean the game is sexist. That is no better an argument than to try to claim that because a book has racism in it, say, such as Harry Potter, that means the books are racist. It just doesn't work that way.

Geralt, being a character of the time, and one in his own right and not actually an avatar of the player, is going to reflect the ideals of the setting he lives in, for good or ill. While he may be more open to some things and thus push on the setting these differences fro mthe standard, (given how his story and history shaped him in the setting) other things will be native to his character because of the setting pushing on him. again, this all seems sort of intentional, and reflects a deeper character than just an audience mouth piece attached to a swordarm.

The idea that specific named female characters are good looking is not surprising given specific named male ones are. Compare either to the run of the mill peasants you run into and it is generally like comparing models to people of walmart, but given main characters get a lot more investment into their looks by the creative team, this doesn't surprise me nor does it seem that noteworthy or damning of the game itself as sexist.

On the topic of the baron quest, I really liked that one. It was dark and sad and as you went through it you learned everyone involved were not great people, and it really did hammer the point home that the people you see as total monsters are still just flawed human, and regardless your judgements of their actions, you can still see why they did what they did, be it weakness, desperation, fear or whatever else. I really doubt the story there was to try to get you to think the baron's wife was to blame, but rather that everyone involved was human making choices, often poor ones with consequences. Some of them being weird spirit fetuses.

Well, I was going to write pretty much the same content as this post, but I see I don't have to. Word-for-word exactly my thoughts, especially Geralt being part of the world, not some space-time traveler who brings the enlightened ideas of 21st century western world to the masses. If he was some holier than though "This is wrong because it is against the values held in other world that I have inexplicably absorbed" -person I couldn't stand playing the whole game.

And I love how people are zooming in on Red Barons worst aspect being an abusive husband, when he is condoning his troops raping as they please all over the countryside, with some victims being so young the rapists aren't even sure if the victim is a boy or a girl at first. (or even after, somehow)

 

[Adultratedhydra]

I mean. Are you skipping over the fact that the response is said in a way by Geralt that shows he practicall has disdain for both at the end of the conversation? It's not a "d'awwwww you deserve eachother." It's more said in a vein like "Well dont you two pricks just deserve eachother." and implies he really doesnt like either of them and is tired of going through their shit just to get to Ciri.

But i mean the main question here becomes, does it get boring not having fun?

 

[kurupt87]

This is how I'm interpreting how the writer was trying to make us view the situation, and this is what I take issue with. As I mentioned in the OP, and Phasmal mentioned in one of her posts, there is this notion that this scene conveys that she made him beat her. That she was verbally abusive to the point he had no other choice. This not only absolves him of responsibility, but it ignores the incredibly horrifying context of their relationship. To summarize things:

- She fell in love with another man and cheated on him
- She announced her intention to leave him
- He killed the man she loved in front of her in a fit of rage and fed him to dogs (Which he admitted he was wrong to do, good for him!)
- She gets into a fit of rage and tries to kill the Baron.

Now as things go, we've established that she didn't love the Baron anymore, and that she now loathes him to the point of wanting to kill him. Over the next however many years of their marriage, she attempted to kill herself multiple times, kill him, and escape. It is very clear that she is being kept in this marriage against her will to a man who she'd rather kill herself than be with. On top of that, the Baron beats her and rapes her, resulting in her trying to abort their child.

No shit she's "emotionally abusive". She loathes this man, and she wants nothing more than to be out of this marriage. In a normal, healthy relationship, emotional abuse is terrible. When you're trapping someone in a relationship with you, beating them, and raping them, you lose the right to expect them to be nice to you.

"But he loves her" and "She knew how to push all the right buttons" are two of the prime justifications that people who engage in spousal abuse use to defend their actions. If someone is emotionally abusive, you leave them. You don't hit them. It's never an excuse, even in relationships without so much context behind them.

Having played Witcher 3 (so anyone who wants to keep going on about how anyone who finds the game sexist didn't play it can go away right now), all I can say is all of this. There's absolutely nothing wrong (it's, in fact, quite laudable and a sign of good writing) with making an abusive husband three dimensional and have his own characteristics that someone might find sympathetic. The problem comes in presenting this man, who murdered his wife's lover, brutally beats her, rapes her, and holds her prisoner as somehow morally equivalent to his wife because she isn't nice and polite to her abusive, rapist, murderer husband or claiming that she's somehow responsible for the way he treats her.

She is responsible. The way he treats her however is not justified.

He goes off to war and spends years doing horrible things, seeing horrible things. Shell shock is a thing, alcohol as treatment of shell shock isn't particularly effective. He comes home to find his wife with another man, he's not going to take it very well.

And this is not set in our world, where violence is not an acceptable action. It is set in a fictional world where violence is not only acceptable, it is the go to solution for those with power.

Again though, there is NO WAY the Baron's actions are justifiable to us. Given the setting though, they should be totally expected.

OT: Yeah, Witcher 3's pretty sexist. Now, don't get me wrong, it's certainly better than some other games and other fantasy series supposedly set in a medieval period, but that doesn't somehow make it perfectly egalitarian. And the claims of historical realism or some other similar nonsense falls apart because of things other people have said: apparently introducing magic and monsters and powerful sorceresses results in a society that still views women as inherently inferior and subordinate. And let's not forget the apparently super historical and realistic strumpets (and whatever else the random NPC's were called) in hot pants and skimpy tops in what I imagine is pretty damn cold climate.

I don't see how introducing magic and monsters somehow changes the fact that women are physically smaller and weaker than men. Power through physical strength is very effective in a society where violence is the norm, it's also really easy to exert over those smaller and weaker than you.

There needs to be a reason why men won't exert their physical strength over women. Take Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, that does it in an interesting way. That is set in a matriarchal society that has come around because of a societal gender guilt, men are responsible for breaking the world.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Again though, there is NO WAY the Baron's actions are justifiable to us. Given the setting though, they should be totally expected.

Considering the way the plot is set up they are not exactly justifiable or expected in that setting either. The Bloody Baron keeps it all a secret because he finds it shameful that he would beat his wife, which clues us in on the fact that it is not something that's normative within the setting. In fact, the entire plot is the Baron seeking outside help so that it won't leak out that he's beaten his wife, forced her through a miscarriage because of his abuse and was such a terrible and abusive husband that she eventually thought it was better to strike a deal with the feared Crones then to remain with him. On top of this his daughter flees from him and garners sympathy from her new companions because of how much of an asshole the Baron was to her.

The Baron is ashamed and the only reason he would be that is because he's been behaving in a way that's immoral within the society he lives in. Had wife beating been an acceptable approach to solving marriage problems then he'd have no need of keeping it a secret, especially since she was unfaithful against him. In the same vein, the only way Anna and the daughter would get the idea to flee the Baron is because they know that his actions are wrong and not just the rights of the Patriarch in the family. The entire plot collapses if it was meant to take place in a society where domestic abuse was a common right exercised by the head of the family.

I don't see how introducing magic and monsters somehow changes the fact that women are physically smaller and weaker than men. Power through physical strength is very effective in a society where violence is the norm, it's also really easy to exert over those smaller and weaker than you.

So you don't see how introducing elements that change up the way society would be constructed and balanced would change the entire dynamic of society? This is a world where it is relatively trivial to find a Peller, witch or other magic user to cast a curse on someone who's being abusive. A world where the best magic users are women. A world where acting in an immoral fashion can, quite literally, lead to you becoming a monster yourself. A world that's far more enlightened in terms of both natural science and social science then the real medieval world was. I am not saying the world is "wrong", but I do occasionally feel it is rather lazy since it introduces a lot of elements that we know have radically changed society and some that would do it in extensive ways (magic) and yet seems content to occasionally flip the "but middle ages!"-card when it wants to be "dark and gritty".

 

[kurupt87]

Again though, there is NO WAY the Baron's actions are justifiable to us. Given the setting though, they should be totally expected.

Considering the way the plot is set up they are not exactly justifiable or expected in that setting either. The Bloody Baron keeps it all a secret because he finds it shameful that he would beat his wife, which clues us in on the fact that it is not something that's normative within the setting. In fact, the entire plot is the Baron seeking outside help so that it won't leak out that he's beaten his wife, forced her through a miscarriage because of his abuse and was such a terrible and abusive husband that she eventually thought it was better to strike a deal with the feared Crones then to remain with him. On top of this his daughter flees from him and garners sympathy from her new companions because of how much of an asshole the Baron was to her.

The Baron is ashamed and the only reason he would be that is because he's been behaving in a way that's immoral within the society he lives in. Had wife beating been an acceptable approach to solving marriage problems then he'd have no need of keeping it a secret, especially since she was unfaithful against him. In the same vein, the only way Anna and the daughter would get the idea to flee the Baron is because they know that his actions are wrong and not just the rights of the Patriarch in the family. The entire plot collapses if it was meant to take place in a society where domestic abuse was a common right exercised by the head of the family.

There is environmental NPC chatter in the game that is something like, "You're a well travelled man Witcher, how often should I beat my wife?"

Also, just because something is accepted doesn't make it the proper/preferable way of doing things. There's also the fact that it is not even working as a method of control over his wife. That he needs to beat her so much demonstrates the fact that she does not respect him.
He doesn't have the respect of his own wife and child, nor can he control them, yet he is the nominal leader of all Velen?

Hell, I think his wife is actually in control of the abuse she receives. If she had any other method of hurting him she'd take it, but she doesn't so she tanks the hits because she is tough and just hates him that much.
I believe the Baron loves his wife, I believe he despises hitting her (the reason she makes him do it, that she stays around so long). He has taken everything from her and this is the only thing that is in her power to hurt him with.

I don't see how introducing magic and monsters somehow changes the fact that women are physically smaller and weaker than men. Power through physical strength is very effective in a society where violence is the norm, it's also really easy to exert over those smaller and weaker than you.

So you don't see how introducing elements that change up the way society would be constructed and balanced would change the entire dynamic of society? This is a world where it is relatively trivial to find a Peller, witch or other magic user to cast a curse on someone who's being abusive. A world where the best magic users are women. A world where acting in an immoral fashion can, quite literally, lead to you becoming a monster yourself. A world that's far more enlightened in terms of both natural science and social science then the real medieval world was. I am not saying the world is "wrong", but I do occasionally feel it is rather lazy since it introduces a lot of elements that we know have radically changed society and some that would do it in extensive ways (magic) and yet seems content to occasionally flip the "but middle ages!"-card when it wants to be "dark and gritty".

Fictional worlds are reality with extra bits added. These extra bits change what the authors want them to change and nothing else. The changes to reality that they made in the creation of The Witcher (or any magic fantasy) setting could keep an entire Social Sciences department at a University busy for years trying to theorise the impacts that they'd have on society.

A big change to society in a fictional setting needs to be kept quite simple, like the example I gave of RJ's WoT. The world needs to be pretty much the same as ours so that we can understand its characters. Because if it isn't, the characters are going to be wildly different to us with indecipherable motivations. Interesting as an intellectual escape, but not for a good monster slaying romp through the countryside.

 

[kurupt87]

Fictional worlds are reality with extra bits added. These extra bits change what the authors want them to change and nothing else. The changes to reality that they made in the creation of The Witcher (or any magic fantasy) setting could keep an entire Social Sciences department at a University busy for years trying to theorise the impacts that they'd have on society.

A big change to society in a fictional setting needs to be kept quite simple, like the example I gave of RJ's WoT. The world needs to be pretty much the same as ours so that we can understand its characters. Because if it isn't, the characters are going to be wildly different to us with indecipherable motivations. Interesting as an intellectual escape, but not for a good monster slaying romp through the countryside.

That's sort of the issue though, authors are perfectly willing to change the very nature of the world we live in by introducing powerful magic, science, and entirely different planes of existence, but constantly maintain societal norms at basically the exact same level as what is typically regarded as "medieval." The changes aren't simple by any means, and their effects on the world wouldn't be either, but all the time the effects are limited to "and now there's monsters" and "some people use magic now" rather than actually exploring what might happen when there are supersoldier programs and women happen to be the best wielders of magical superpowers.

The changes they make like bringing in magic would have far reaching consequences. Like, I have no idea how much would be affected. You just have to live with what the author wants it to affect, and their reason for why whatever it is that has changed is changed in the way it is. Or is not.

They do a pretty decent job of explaining away why magic wielders don't rule everything in The Witcher. Magic wielders are sterile in almost all cases, so you can't guarantee who has the trait. The spark manifests early and is extremely dangerous, to the point that in most cases the magic wielder either kills themself or bakes their own noodle and becomes the mad village witch. They have to be lucky enough to bump into an existing magic wielder who wants to take them under their wing, or have family/village that aren't afraid of them, are rich enough and love them so much that they'd travel to get them to one (I only even know of one) of the magic academies in the world.

And then, if they perfect their art and survive long enough to become a force to be reckoned with, they will be something like the Lodge of Sorceress'. A group of the world's most powerful magic wielders who the King's and rulers of all nations fear to trifle with.

The thing is that I fail to see how greater gender equality, or even the gender with greater access to magical superweapons being in power, would somehow create such a radical break from our world that the audience simply couldn't comprehend it. In fact, shouldn't that make them slightly more comprehensible considering we're supposedly living in a time of unprecedented gender equality? Why are social norms that would more closely resemble the sort of society we're supposed to have today somehow less understandable than a society that is intentionally meant to be different than ours by harking back to medieval times?

You missed my point. It's the magic that would change the world, not the gender shift.

To go back to my example of RJ's WoT universe, he kept it simple.
1. There is magic in the world.
2. The magic that men wield is different to the magic women wield.
3. Men destroyed the world using their magic and go mad using it.

That is a simple enough explanation for why the society in that universe is a matriarchy rather than a patriarchy. It is the big thing that he changed about his society, it is the hook. The interesting thing, the difference. And the only real difference, everything else is perfectly relatable.

How those simple things would actually change the world is, I am sure you know, going to be monumentally complicated.

For fantasy it boils down to this thing that I said to Gethsemani:
In a primitive society, where daily life is a struggle, where education is an option for the rich; there needs to be a reason why men would not subjugate women using their physical strength when it is just so damn easy.

This difference in size between men and women is important. If you're a woman you know that men are physically intimidating. If you're a man you may not, not giving it the attention it is due.

I am 6'6" and 16st. Women like that, big manly guy. Men are nervous around me, they are not used to feeling physically inferior just due to size. The women are.

 

[kurupt87]

For fantasy it boils down to this thing that I said to Gethsemani:
In a primitive society, where daily life is a struggle, where education is an option for the rich; there needs to be a reason why men would not subjugate women using their physical strength when it is just so damn easy.

You know what might do that? A world in which magic exists and women seem to be more adept at using it and the radically different gender dynamics that would bring. After all, men didn't suddenly shrink and yet we live in a society where we're supposedly gender equal and against the subjugation of women by men, and we don't even have magical super powers that women are just naturally superior at.

1. We live in an advanced (compared to our past and fantasy settings) society - this means we spend our lives happy and content. We have our troubles sure, but we never need to worry about food. Or about wild animals. Or heat. Or the weather. Or measles. Generally, our greatest enemy is boredom.

2. Our society is old enough that it has had centuries of very smart people debating morals and ethics, with society adapting and changing as those ideals change slowly over time. We have just gotten around to realising that the boobed members of our race don't deserve to be treated like 2nd class citizens, go us!

3. We have had a free education, a social contract and a rule of law that applies to all. We know how we should act, we know why and we know what'll happen if we don't.

Those are three key differences between our society and the default fantasy/medieval society.

Magic is also incredibly rare, it's not all women; it's a few women lucky enough to survive to adulthood. And why would you think they would be possessed of our modern liberal outlook on life?

So how about societal norms, laws, and big armies that have a massive advantage over other armies because their sorceress can teleport people around and set everything on fire for reasons why men wouldn't just inherently subjugate all women everywhere forever.

How could you trust this magic wielder? They wield magic, you have no idea what they can do. They'd be terrifying to the peasantry, another bully. They'd be terrifying to the nobility, a threat that cannot be controlled.

The same reason why the Mages are locked up in Dragon Age and Magneto is the bad guy in X-Men. The mutants are better than normal humans, they are more powerful. If they end up in charge, it would be a dictatorship. They must serve, they cannot rule.

 

[MishaK]

2. Our society is old enough that it has had centuries of very smart people debating morals and ethics, with society adapting and changing as those ideals change slowly over time. We have just gotten around to realising that the boobed members of our race don't deserve to be treated like 2nd class citizens, go us!

The Witcher universe has an advanced understanding of science, knowledge of magic, and knowledge of alternative realms of existence, which means that the only reason why morality and ethics needs to be locked in a wholly medieval mindset is because it was arbitrarily decided that it must be.

3. We have had a free education, a social contract and a rule of law that applies to all. We know how we should act, we know why and we know what'll happen if we don't.

Somehow I imagine medieval peasants knew how they should act and what would happen if they didn't; the rule of law didn't burst into existence with the Enlightenment.

Those are three key differences between our society and the default fantasy/medieval society.

This is sort of the problem, though, where we're just instinctively conflating fantasy and medieval societies despite the vast amount of differences that exist between the two.

Magic is also incredibly rare, it's not all women; it's a few women lucky enough to survive to adulthood. And why would you think they would be possessed of our modern liberal outlook on life?

So incredibly powerful women who seem to be confident enough in woman's ability to think and rule that they started a secret society aimed at controlling nations wouldn't have the "liberal" outlook on life that women shouldn't be seen as inherently inferior, submissive property to the closest man?

How could you trust this magic wielder? They wield magic, you have no idea what they can do. They'd be terrifying to the peasantry, another bully. They'd be terrifying to the nobility, a threat that cannot be controlled.

The same way you could trust someone with lots of power and influence through conventional means, though you seem to be limiting your view of this by treating magic users as somehow relegated to an advisor or minor noble role, rather than, say, queen or empress.

The same reason why the Mages are locked up in Dragon Age and Magneto is the bad guy in X-Men. The mutants are better than normal humans, they are more powerful. If they end up in charge, it would be a dictatorship. They must serve, they cannot rule.

Except dictatorships are exactly what pretty much every single fantasy series, including the Witcher series, has, they're just exclusively run by men because gender roles are the one thing that cannot be changed in fantasy and are given nicer names like "kingdom" or "empire."

No offense, but that's tl;dr: write a totally different book. Nothing wrong with that, but don't present the book you'd have written (but didn't) and would publish instead (but didn't) and would rather see made into a successful RPG series (but didn't).

 

[Gengisgame]

No offense, but that's tl;dr: write a totally different book. Nothing wrong with that, but don't present the book you'd have written (but didn't) and would publish instead (but didn't) and would rather see made into a successful RPG series (but didn't).

No offense, but if all you got out of someone criticizing generic fantasy settings and the excuses for why, no matter what other changes occur, the view of women needs to stay rooted in what is "realistic" and "historical" was that, I'd suggest you read it again.

Criticize away, that is fine, gaming should be all about what we want after all but just remember where here to discuss whether it's sexist or not.

We don't actually need excuses for why things are the way they are, we don't need to justify taste any more than you do.

Women will be sexualized, it's part of human nature, people also feel uncomfortable with sex, nothing wrong with that, just tired of people citing there dislikes as problematic, comes across as entitled.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I already mentioned the main character, of course you don't want the main character ugly, the main character is you. And unless a female NPC is very old, or literally a monster, they tend to be quite attractive. At the very least miles over every single other male NPC.

Yeah but Geralt is ugly. That's one of the reasons I can't get into The Witcher.

Says you. I've shown pictures of him to pretty much all of my female family members. (About seven people total. Not NEARLY enough for a scientific consensus, but I'm not trying for that.) It was pretty unanimous that they considered him pretty damn sexy. I know at least one of them bought the second game because of that.

Despite what Willis told you, not everyone digs bishis. Quite a number of women are attracted to men who actually look like men, and Geralt fits that description pretty well. Muscular, deep voiced, tall, scars that add to his looks (Makes him look "dangerous" I believe was the term they used), overall he's very rugged.

 

[The Madman]

The Witcher universe has an advanced understanding of science, knowledge of magic, and knowledge of alternative realms of existence, which means that the only reason why morality and ethics needs to be locked in a wholly medieval mindset is because it was arbitrarily decided that it must be.

Somehow I imagine medieval peasants knew how they should act and what would happen if they didn't; the rule of law didn't burst into existence with the Enlightenment.

I'm sorry, but you're defining the Witcher universe and your expectations of it by American standards and from an America-centric viewpoint. It is not an American or even English game, it is Polish, and steeped heavily in Polish and Eastern European history and folklore. It's no secret The Witcher universe is set in a fictionalized version of early Eastern Europe and Poland. Here, watch this quick video on Polish history, you'll probably even be able to recognize the era in which the Witcher Universe loosely would take place and even much of the imagery and iconography:


The Witcher isn't just a series of games: it's a bestselling series of books, comics and more in many parts of Europe, not just Poland, for exactly this reason. It's a fantastical reflection of their history. Fantastical yes, but a reflection nonetheless. Nilfgaard black, Redania red, Temeria torn between them? The powerful foreign religion slowly encroaching on existing 'pagan' territory? It's not exactly subtle imagery at times, fantasy elements or not. And while it might not be pleasant in many ways, it is highly poignant for a great many people.

You might not be a fan, but the Witcher setting has its place.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I'm sorry, but you're defining the Witcher universe and your expectations of it by American standards and from an America-centric viewpoint. It is not an American or even English game, it is Polish, and steeped heavily in Polish and Eastern European history and folklore. It's no secret The Witcher universe is set in a fictionalized version of early Eastern Europe and Poland.

Let me preface by saying that you make a great point and effectively highlight a great part of what makes the Witcher world unique (Witcherverse?). However, it has no bearing on the critique that LifeCharacter, myself and others have levied against the inconsistent portrayal of advancement within the world of the Witcher. The main problem with it is that the scientific level in the Witcherverse is somewhere between modern day and very late Renaissance (c:a late 17th century) depending on the exact science discussed. This holds true for both natural and social sciences. At the same time the actual level of technology is somewhere between late middle ages and early Industrial age (there are mentions of steam engines), with a heavy slant towards medieval technology. On top of this is the inclusion of alternate dimensions, magic, monsters and the confirmed existence of at least a few Gods.

Yet this world operates on a level of social progress that is essentially the Dark Ages with Dark dialed up to eleven. This is especially true in terms of how women are portrayed and how the feudal system plays out, with peasants and women being essentially without rights, which simply wasn't the cast after the 13th century.

This is not a deal breaker for me, as I find the Witcher in both game and book form to be compelling fiction. If nothing else, the Witcher ranks higher then ASOIAF in terms of how it treats its' named female characters. However, using the "it is historically accurate"-argument (which it isn't either, but that's another discussion) doesn't work when the world is as explicitly anachronistic and fantastic as the Witcherverse is.

 

[The Madman]

Let me preface by saying that you make a great point and effectively highlight a great part of what makes the Witcher world unique (Witcherverse?). However, it has no bearing on the critique that LifeCharacter, myself and others have levied against the inconsistent portrayal of advancement within the world of the Witcher. The main problem with it is that the scientific level in the Witcherverse is somewhere between modern day and very late Renaissance (c:a late 17th century) depending on the exact science discussed. This holds true for both natural and social sciences. At the same time the actual level of technology is somewhere between late middle ages and early Industrial age (there are mentions of steam engines), with a heavy slant towards medieval technology. On top of this is the inclusion of alternate dimensions, magic, monsters and the confirmed existence of at least a few Gods.

Yet this world operates on a level of social progress that is essentially the Dark Ages with Dark dialed up to eleven. This is especially true in terms of how women are portrayed and how the feudal system plays out, with peasants and women being essentially without rights, which simply wasn't the cast after the 13th century.

This is not a deal breaker for me, as I find the Witcher in both game and book form to be compelling fiction. If nothing else, the Witcher ranks higher then ASOIAF in terms of how it treats its' named female characters. However, using the "it is historically accurate"-argument (which it isn't either, but that's another discussion) doesn't work when the world is as explicitly anachronistic and fantastic as the Witcherverse is.

There's no denying that the setting of the Witcher is a bit of a mish-mash of different concepts of ideas. I guess that's what you get from a franchise that originates from a series of 'what-if' style short-stories which eventually spawned into a series of books followed by comics and other media eventually leading to the games series. If you've never read them I quite highly recommend reading at least The Last Wish, which is a collection of said short stories and actually make for a nice light read. I've been told the English translation is a bit spotty at times but I still found it very much enjoyable, no clue about other languages translations.

Anyway point being that the series if very much a sort of jambalaya of different concepts and ideas borrowed heavily from history and folklore both, different times and regions, but usually with some quirky twist to it. Thing is they're also still rooted in said history and legend, and as much as it might suck to say it sometimes aloud, said history and legend isn't exactly egalitarian. In fact quite often very much the opposite.

However one of the twists mentioned earlier in my description of the Witcher settings origins is a bit of an egalitarian twist with concepts like the Lodge of Sorceress or Ciri. A sprinkling of egalitarian concepts in an otherwise unruly and brutal setting. Ciri for example as portrayed in the books is very much a free-spirit modern sort of ideal. She's strong willed, intelligent, capable, and even bisexual with a viewpoint on casual sex very much akin to her adoptive father Geralt. She's also in many regards the protagonist, another twist on the norm by making Geralt, the defacto main character, as more of an Obi-Wan figure than an outright hero himself. This is far more evident in the later books than it is in the games for the obvious reason that you play as Geralt in the games, but it is nevertheless an element of the setting.

It's for that reason I don't agree with the sexism complaint. The setting is very much a cruel one in which many cruelties take place but it doesn't endorse those things, instead it's more of a reflection. Not always a nice one but a fair one nonetheless given a bit of a twist through mixing them all together with a splash of modern-thinking.

But then that's also simply my opinion on the matter, and already more on the subject than I meant to say as so far in this topic I've generally tried to stay more factual than delving into the yes/no sexism debate.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

It's for that reason I don't agree with the sexism complaint. The setting is very much a cruel one in which many cruelties take place but it doesn't endorse those things, instead it's more of a reflection. Not always a nice one but a fair one nonetheless given a bit of a twist through mixing them all together with a splash of modern-thinking.

But then that's also simply my opinion on the matter, and already more on the subject than I meant to say as so far in this topic I've generally tried to stay more factual than delving into the yes/no sexism debate.

That's a fair stance I think and one I largely agree with. As I've said before in this thread and other discussions on the computer games (so far I've only read The Last Wish, but thanks for recommending it!), the Witcher games have a very clear progression from misguided machoism in the first game, with stuff like the sex cards and the creepy "it is not rape if the victim is a man"-subtext of Triss and Geralt, to a much more nuanced and egalitarian approach in the latter two games, the Witcher 3 in particular. This reflects well on CDPR and shows that, if nothing else, they have a solid process of analyzing the criticisms levied at their games and rectifying the problems those games had.

I've never liked to throw out the sexism card and my critique of the Witcherverse should not be taken as accusations of sexism, but rather of a weak point in a fantasy world that I otherwise enjoy quite a lot. Mostly in this thread, though, I've just been around because the "it is historical"-argument just bugs me in the context of fantasy fiction, especially in fiction as explicitly anachronistic as the Witcher.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

That thing about the Bloody Baron quest.

The thing about Geralt's responses is they're integral to his character. Geralt, at his heart is a pretty awesome dude. He tries to help people, he can even be a bit of a wide eyes idealist if he doesn't watch himself. But the thing is, he's been tempered by the shitty people in his world, he's been taught not to trust his good nature. This makes him a bit naive, but completely unforgiving when he realizes the person in question is in the wrong.

The closest comparison I can think of in gaming is Assassin's Creed 3's Connor Kenway. He's willing to put faith in everyone's good nature, but once he's betrayed he washes his hands of the situation.

Geralt is pretty much what TV Tropes would call a "Knight in Sour Armour" he fucking hates the world with all the edge of a glorious Japanese blade folded a million times, but he genuinely wants to put in the effort to make it better, even if that is by giving a genuine scumbag the tools he needs to pull himself out of the hole he's found himself in and make himself better.

But enough experience has rendered him cautious, reserved and judgmental.

Geralt isn't a hero, he's a monster-killer who pulls a good deed every now and then. He's a product of the world he lives in.

Both responses are perfectly consistent with Geralt's character, and gender shouldn't enter the equation.

 

[STARSBarry]

alot of interesting points have been brought to bare in this discussion, and as someone who is getting a little tired of people critically analysing everything that there is sometimes in ways the producers of the content probably never intended them to be looked at in the first place.

Its sexist if you believe it is sexist even if its not, everyone is entitled to there opinion on that matter and I am just as entitled to look at it with contempt and dismiss it or find some grain of truth in what they say, because everyone has a different take, the point im making is though that life is really no fun when you start looking at absolutely everything critically and from every possible angle.

The Witcher 3 is a very entertaining piece of software I think thats all there is to it really.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Heavily Pagan country is trampled on by imperialist forces while zealotry is given free reign to go all inquisition on anyone and everyone.
OF COURSE there is sexism. It's part of the narrative, the message, and the point.
I'm going to be honest, the Baron quest is one that can't be broken down into such simple concepts, however. There's a great deal going on, and neither side is portrayed as having been a decent human being.

I loved it because it was portraying something complicated for the sake of intrigue, not for the sake of moral grandstanding.

I think you're right that there was a lot going on. Beyond the domestic abuse issue it also includes the effects of war on one man and his mindset as well what his absence and the change in him (and his subsequent alcoholism) does to his family.

There's almost certainly more to it than I'm remembering, but even with my limited recall it's more nuanced and compelling than the vast majority of black and white storytelling in games, and I remember being thoroughly engrossed by it.

I already mentioned the main character, of course you don't want the main character ugly, the main character is you. And unless a female NPC is very old, or literally a monster, they tend to be quite attractive. At the very least miles over every single other male NPC.

Yeah but Geralt is ugly. That's one of the reasons I can't get into The Witcher.

What, this Geralt?

Spoiler

Effortless movie-star good looks I would say. Straight up man-candy.