The Failure of 'Dark' Fantasy

[userwhoquitthesite]

One of my pet peeves in gaming is the trend towards what is often called 'dark' fantasy, meaning a fantasy setting with a strong visceral feel and often including or tackling subjects like sexuality, gore, murder, and even sometimes rape. I will admit, it is difficult to explain what turns me off about dark fantasy, so I hope we can explore the subject here a bit more.

I did not like Dragon Age: Origins --though that puts me in the minority here-- so my response to my friends when they told me about how bad they felt Dragon Age 2 was ran something like: "Well, considering how bad DA:O was, what did you expect?" Among the multitude of things I disliked about Origins was a scene at the beginning of the game, if you started with the Human Noble, like i did. You are asked to clear some rather large rats out of a pantry, and after, your character is splattered with enough blood to just be simply laughable. I turned the blood-effect off afterwards, but my misgivings about the game remained. Essentially, the game seemed to contain what it thought was 'dark' story elements in a way that would make it seem more mature to the player. This, as opposed to a more organic approach to its story and contents.

I have thought about getting the Witcher games on Steam and giving them a try, though I fear they may have much the same attitude as Dragon Age to their own content. Basically, if you add content in that is designed to shock or awe the player just for the that sake, then you have a long way to grow as an artist.

I suppose dark fantasy's main idea is to embrace 'realism,' but one interesting point is that the more qualified and educated a person is concerning Medieval culture, society, and literature, the less inclined they are to write "dark" fantasy. Tolkien was a professor of Medieval studies and literature and even fluently read and translated Medieval texts. Montey Python -Jerry Jones in particular- is tremendously well-versed in the subject. Jones even co-wrote a book detailing and offering theories on the death of Geoffry Chaucer. George R.R. Martin, on the other hand, has his degree in Journalism. So, much like modern military shooters, we see a trend towards "realism" from people that know very little about the reality of their subject.

I for one am weary of the way that fantasy -once a vibrant genre- is being treated lately in games and other mediums like literature. But, what are your thoughts?

This seems ill-informed and pretentious.
Firstly, if you think that shock has no place in art, then you have a long way to go as a consumer of art. True, there is such a thing as pointless shock tactics that serve no purpose (marylin manson's whole shtick), but plenty of art pushes the viewer's level of acceptability to make a point.
Second, you make a claim about behavior that you have no way of verifying and seems to serve no other purpose than telling us "By the way, I'm SO SMART you guys, I know about the REAL stuff!". Tolkien was NOT a fantasy author. He was a linguist and historian who invented a world that contained the languages he invented. He also wrote a fantasy series that is FILLED with "dark fantasy" paraphernalia, and if you read the books more carefully, you might remember that. The REASON the journey of the fellowship is so heroic is that it HAS NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS. Creatures who only wish to maim and devour all life are flooding the land, evil wizards and knights roam the country on mounts of the greatest power, unfathomable horrors wait just below the surface of the world, a dark god is reforming his seat of power and prepares to declare war on -and enslave- the entire world, we see a creature who is the spawn of a monster who ate some of the goodness out of the world, the party is torn about by ambition and resentment, two world leaders nearly ruin everything because they despair at the enemy they face, and its a quest to destroy an artifact that rots your soul with its very presence! Yeah, really upbeat, man.
Next up, "Terry" Jones of "Monty" Python has made a lot of work, and almost none of it is relevant to your case. His fiction is almost wholly for children anyway.
Now, let's tackle your actual objections. You are not objecting to the darkness of the fantasy, you are objecting to the "low" fantasy elements. Extreme violence, pointless sex, that sort of stuff, is "low fantasy", a genre we like to pretend died out when Gor and Conan fell out of fashion. And it's perfectly fine to not like that. But the problem with high fantasy (like eragon) is that it lacks substance for many people. As an example, I'll use the Inheritance Cycle. The first books are extremely light and sanitized (save one mention of rape thrown in by a teenager trying to be OMG SO GROWN UP) and the deaths and consequences of the events of the novel are kept far out of frame. Then, in the last two books, suddenly there is more danger and visceral action. It keeps us, the reader, grounded in the fact that people, regardless of intent or personal caliber, are prone to the same failings as the rest of us, and can be vulnerable. This allows the stakes to be felt more clearly than "There is an evil king and he is bad, so we will slay him and good will triumph over evil!"
Now, to be clear, I don't have a PROBLEM with high fantasy, and I have read stupidly huge amounts of it. But some people want the WORLD involved, and not just the hero.
Now, I still haven't read Martin's work, so it might be a giant pile of shit, but you can't attack an author's ability based on their degrees. Especially since journalism is (supposedly) about detail and critical thinking, and the man is writing a series about politics.
Oh, and the people that hated Dragon Age 2 were pissed because it WASN'T like the first game.

So, to sum up, you don't understand the difference between dark and low fantasy, fail to realize that different genres exist for different groups with different tastes, and throw up examples to try to sound learned on the topic but instead serve only to expose your lack of experience.
If you want to be "weary" of fantasy, try doing what I did and reading enough of it that it becomes difficult to find quality or original thought in the genre, because that's a damn good reason to be weary of something.

Meanwhile, I'm going to track down a copy of the last Wheel Of Time book so i can finally be done with that series

 

[InfinityX]

As I just posted, I agree. Too much random sex, death, and hate, all trying to scream "look at me! Im a mature game!" Also, I feel like Witcher 2 would not be as a popular game (game mechanics are shallow, Questing is annoying, Map and pathing is buggy) if it wasn't for the sex scenes, which is really disappointing since now other developers are going to think "sex scenes are better then gameplay".

Only thing I will disagree with though, is that Skyrim's "dark" scenes are not forced per say, but scripted. Its definitely more mature in the sense that the world is put together better.

You clearly haven't played The Witcher 1/2.

I have a girlfriend. I don't need to play a game for 3D characters having sex. I play The Witcher for it's complex and intruiging political storyline set to the backdrop of Geralt's quest for self discovery.

If you think people play this game for sex you're kidding yourself. It's not some Japanese dating simulator. The sex is literally 1% of the game experience.

Yes, I played Witcher 2 (havent got around to the first one though)

Have you seen any of the many reviews on the Witcher 2? (hint, almost all of them talk about the sex scenes) have you seen that any game that tries a sex scene gets compared to Witcher 2 scenes? How often when Witcher 2 is mentioned, that people talk about its sex scenes? its a lot more then 1%. Just because you and I don't need/like it, doesn't mean there are many others who do. It may not be as extreme as other games, but its still a heavy influence and selling point.

Also, there wasn't much self-discovery for Geralt, until the very end (even then not much was revealed). Most of the time, you were helping others with their politics and issues then your self-discovery. Personally, I don't find Geralt very interesting. He's bland, emotionless, yet perfect with whatever he does. Many times in the game I thought "Man, I would more interested in [x] if I was playing my own character, instead of this old lifeless man"

snip

It's there because having wenches and whores adds flavour to the world. It makes it feel like a medieval world. If there's a dirty world full of racism and political strife and rape and murder, having sex adds to the world you've built. You might know this, but sex is an important part of relationships. Hence why it's a key part of Geralt and Triss' relationship. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

Having sex adds to the world you've build? (also, that would be MUCH more then 1%) Its not that the sex is bad, its that there is sex everywhere. If sex is so valuable and important the Geralt and Triss, why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he find? dosn't that kinda makes the meaning of sex LESS valuable?

Also, why in this world full of racism, political strife, and murder, is Geralt the only good person? seems very out of place to me.

How is it integral to the plot? The plot is about Geralt trying to get back his memories and the stolen Witcher chemicals against a backdrop of political strife in Temeria. In TW1 Geralt gets the choice between Shani and Triss. I went with Triss since she seemed more pragmatic and as a sorceress she could look after Alvin and deal with his unpredictable powers more than Shani good. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

It was? funny, I thought the plot was with the Scoia'tael and Vernon Roche with everything you do to progress requires their approval.

As for the first Witcher, I can't really comment on it, but I'm not talking about Witcher 1 anyway.

You clearly have never played or understand the world. You may not be aware of this but in medieval Poland, there is no contraception. There's no pill, no morning after bill, no implants and no condoms. You might also not know since you obviously haven't paid attention to the game, that Witchers are STERILE and IMMUNE TO DISEASES. This means having sex with a Witcher, such as Geralt, won't make women pregnant, or at risk of STDs such as syphilis. That's why women are throwing themselves at Geralt. That's not even adding in that Geralt just kills whoever he wants and can offer protection to women and acts chivalrously whilst most other men are misogynists. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

Not paid attention? or Not proving well enough information/significance? Maybe we did hear about it, but why would we care?

Again, this goes back to the point of "more then 1% sex scenes" So now we have a man, that any women in this world dream of having, cannot get pregnant or STDs from, and happens to be the "protecting" man in a world where others treat women as crap. Women throwing themselves at Geralt. think about that sentence. You sure that the game wasn't focusing on fantasy sex?

Its a fantasy sex game, not a dark, mature game.

 

[endtherapture]

As I just posted, I agree. Too much random sex, death, and hate, all trying to scream "look at me! Im a mature game!" Also, I feel like Witcher 2 would not be as a popular game (game mechanics are shallow, Questing is annoying, Map and pathing is buggy) if it wasn't for the sex scenes, which is really disappointing since now other developers are going to think "sex scenes are better then gameplay".

Only thing I will disagree with though, is that Skyrim's "dark" scenes are not forced per say, but scripted. Its definitely more mature in the sense that the world is put together better.

You clearly haven't played The Witcher 1/2.

I have a girlfriend. I don't need to play a game for 3D characters having sex. I play The Witcher for it's complex and intruiging political storyline set to the backdrop of Geralt's quest for self discovery.

If you think people play this game for sex you're kidding yourself. It's not some Japanese dating simulator. The sex is literally 1% of the game experience.

Yes, I played Witcher 2 (havent got around to the first one though)

Have you seen any of the many reviews on the Witcher 2? (hint, almost all of them talk about the sex scenes) have you seen that any game that tries a sex scene gets compared to Witcher 2 scenes? How often when Witcher 2 is mentioned, that people talk about its sex scenes? its a lot more then 1%. Just because you and I don't need/like it, doesn't mean there are many others who do. It may not be as extreme as other games, but its still a heavy influence and selling point.

Also, there wasn't much self-discovery for Geralt, until the very end (even then not much was revealed). Most of the time, you were helping others with their politics and issues then your self-discovery. Personally, I don't find Geralt very interesting. He's bland, emotionless, yet perfect with whatever he does. Many times in the game I thought "Man, I would more interested in [x] if I was playing my own character, instead of this old lifeless man"

snip

It's there because having wenches and whores adds flavour to the world. It makes it feel like a medieval world. If there's a dirty world full of racism and political strife and rape and murder, having sex adds to the world you've built. You might know this, but sex is an important part of relationships. Hence why it's a key part of Geralt and Triss' relationship. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

Having sex adds to the world you've build? (also, that would be MUCH more then 1%) Its not that the sex is bad, its that there is sex everywhere. If sex is so valuable and important the Geralt and Triss, why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he find? dosn't that kinda makes the meaning of sex LESS valuable?

Also, why in this world full of racism, political strife, and murder, is Geralt the only good person? seems very out of place to me.

How is it integral to the plot? The plot is about Geralt trying to get back his memories and the stolen Witcher chemicals against a backdrop of political strife in Temeria. In TW1 Geralt gets the choice between Shani and Triss. I went with Triss since she seemed more pragmatic and as a sorceress she could look after Alvin and deal with his unpredictable powers more than Shani good. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

It was? funny, I thought the plot was with the Scoia'tael and Vernon Roche with everything you do to progress requires their approval.

As for the first Witcher, I can't really comment on it, but I'm not talking about Witcher 1 anyway.

You clearly have never played or understand the world. You may not be aware of this but in medieval Poland, there is no contraception. There's no pill, no morning after bill, no implants and no condoms. You might also not know since you obviously haven't paid attention to the game, that Witchers are STERILE and IMMUNE TO DISEASES. This means having sex with a Witcher, such as Geralt, won't make women pregnant, or at risk of STDs such as syphilis. That's why women are throwing themselves at Geralt. That's not even adding in that Geralt just kills whoever he wants and can offer protection to women and acts chivalrously whilst most other men are misogynists. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

Not paid attention? or Not proving well enough information/significance? Maybe we did hear about it, but why would we care?

Again, this goes back to the point of "more then 1% sex scenes" So now we have a man, that any women in this world dream of having, cannot get pregnant or STDs from, and happens to be the "protecting" man in a world where others treat women as crap. Women throwing themselves at Geralt. think about that sentence. You sure that the game wasn't focusing on fantasy sex?

Its a fantasy sex game, not a dark, mature game.

Jehsus christ can someone who has played The Witcher tell this dude how wrong he is because I seriously don't know where to start on the amount of things that are wrong with his argument.

The Witcher 2 isn't based around sex. It's based around a political story and a quest for self discovery in a mature fantasy world. Unless you're 13, or some born again Christian who sees sex as the focus of everything whilst simultaneously condemning it, then you won't see it as a "fantasy sex game". You're literally insulting everyone who plays the game as some horny teenager virgin who only plays it to see 3D boobs...

Pathetic.

 

[InfinityX]

Jehsus christ can someone who has played The Witcher tell this dude how wrong he is because I seriously don't know where to start on the amount of things that are wrong with his argument.

The Witcher 2 isn't based around sex. It's based around a political story and a quest for self discovery in a mature fantasy world. Unless you're 13, or some born again Christian who sees sex as the focus of everything whilst simultaneously condemning it, then you won't see it as a "fantasy sex game". You're literally insulting everyone who plays the game as some horny teenager virgin who only plays it to see 3D boobs...

Pathetic.

No I just see people like you, who cannot make a good counter argument/discussion and instead of having a civil discussion, you instead go off on a tangent and start attacking the poster.

don't go out and say Witcher 2's sex is an important feature and is "world building" then go out and dismiss it saying you should ignore it. I know Sex isn't the main feature, but its a selling point. Its still a major feature of the game. While there is a political story, its (to me) muffled by the obvious, looming sex-fantasy, The very bland characters, and a poor character development. Its why I make my point that the Witcher's "dark" fantasy is poorly done.

You've explained why YOU like the game. YOU don't play it for the sex scenes, but YOU are just YOU. Unless you polled the entire playerbase that played the game, YOU cannot make the assumption that everyone plays it for a political story and ignores the sex scenes.

Also, I find "mature" is subjective and I wouldn't call Witcher 2 a "mature" game. Unless you're willing to debate what "mature" means (which I think some posters were doing).

If you like the game, more power to you, but don't go around saying that whoever disagrees with you is a 13 year old.

cause that what 13-year olds do.

Don't be a 13-year old.

 

[Fox12]

"Of course, now we have come to terms with colonialism and the fact that it was pretty bad, this -in turn- again warps our perspective of the middle ages, forcing it into something like a double-distortion. Since the Enlightenment and Victorian- eras lauded the middle ages, we must then condemn the middle ages by extension."

It's interesting that you think that. I'm graduating from a Christian college where we discuss in great detail the middle ages and what they were (and weren't) like. It's on the rosy side definitely, but I for one have always been OK with that because I'm sick of people blaming the "Church" for all the ills of the time.

It was confusing and scary. Like most periods in history.

Good topic, I'm greatly enjoying reading it and giving my two cents on Tolkien and "dark fantasy".

An interesting point, there are definitely a lot of misconceptions about the "dark ages," a term most historians don't care to use anymore. The church, for instance, was largely responsible for preserving knowledge and education in a post Rome Europe. Now, of course, it largely gets a bad wrap, and it in vogue to associate faith with ignorance when the the truth was quite the opposite.

There's no denying that medieval Europe could be a dark and scary place during certain periods, but it was nowhere near as bad as some make it out to be. No, knights weren't perfect heroes riding into the sunset, but medieval society wasn't all bad either.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Good post. If we look at the last generation, the Dark Fantasy thing took over. I'd say it's fine, but it's overdone.
It's way overdone, and there aren't any significant variations on the "dark" theme.

I still say that Mortal Kombat has something to do with all of the gore and "darkness". That game was actually terrible compared to Street Fighter II. The character animations and general feel was horrible, but the draw was the gore. We discovered that gore can sell a game through Mortal Kombat. I've never gotten into Doom, but I imagine one could say the same thing.

When something sells, corporations will use and reuse the idea. How many SMB, Halos, etc do we have? How many different versions of Street Fighter do we have - including Darstalkers, Guilty Gear, Marvel vs Capcom, etc? It's been overdone ad naseum. The same can be said for all the Tolkien clones - "Dark" Middle Age-y games have been the rage for a while now, and I don't see that changing for a few years. My only hope is that the gameplay keeps getting better.

 

[Fireaxe]

DA:O was not dark fantasy despite what BioWare wanted to claim, it wasn't really darker than Baldurs Gate which was a fairly standard High Fantasy with ridiculous things like monsters exploding if you hit them hard enough.

The Witcher was a dark fantasy with dark themes but didn't really attempt "realism" so much as a more violent and gloomy story.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Based on comics, we'll look back at the grim/dark era of storytelling 15-20 years from now and find it quite giggleworthy.

There's a balance to be had between Nursery Rhymes, and (to borrow a term) "misery porn", and presumably, it'll swing back around in the not too distant future, or at least out of the current trend. Various critics and analytical types will often denote these phases in media as a reflection of social circumstance in real life, with people's choices reflecting their current worldviews.

I mostly agree with you here, but I am worried that this swing towards gritty/dark fantasy is only getting started now, and we have awhile to go before we come out of it. While critics are starting to push back against this, I see no real signs of the industry and the artists starting to change as yet. So, I hope you understand my concern.

This seems ill-informed and pretentious.
Firstly, if you think that shock has no place in art, then you have a long way to go as a consumer of art. True, there is such a thing as pointless shock tactics that serve no purpose (marylin manson's whole shtick), but plenty of art pushes the viewer's level of acceptability to make a point.
Second, you make a claim about behavior that you have no way of verifying and seems to serve no other purpose than telling us "By the way, I'm SO SMART you guys, I know about the REAL stuff!". Tolkien was NOT a fantasy author. He was a linguist and historian who invented a world that contained the languages he invented. He also wrote a fantasy series that is FILLED with "dark fantasy" paraphernalia, and if you read the books more carefully, you might remember that. The REASON the journey of the fellowship is so heroic is that it HAS NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS. Creatures who only wish to maim and devour all life are flooding the land, evil wizards and knights roam the country on mounts of the greatest power, unfathomable horrors wait just below the surface of the world, a dark god is reforming his seat of power and prepares to declare war on -and enslave- the entire world, we see a creature who is the spawn of a monster who ate some of the goodness out of the world, the party is torn about by ambition and resentment, two world leaders nearly ruin everything because they despair at the enemy they face, and its a quest to destroy an artifact that rots your soul with its very presence! Yeah, really upbeat, man.
Next up, "Terry" Jones of "Monty" Python has made a lot of work, and almost none of it is relevant to your case. His fiction is almost wholly for children anyway.
Now, let's tackle your actual objections. You are not objecting to the darkness of the fantasy, you are objecting to the "low" fantasy elements. Extreme violence, pointless sex, that sort of stuff, is "low fantasy", a genre we like to pretend died out when Gor and Conan fell out of fashion. And it's perfectly fine to not like that. But the problem with high fantasy (like eragon) is that it lacks substance for many people. As an example, I'll use the Inheritance Cycle. The first books are extremely light and sanitized (save one mention of rape thrown in by a teenager trying to be OMG SO GROWN UP) and the deaths and consequences of the events of the novel are kept far out of frame. Then, in the last two books, suddenly there is more danger and visceral action. It keeps us, the reader, grounded in the fact that people, regardless of intent or personal caliber, are prone to the same failings as the rest of us, and can be vulnerable. This allows the stakes to be felt more clearly than "There is an evil king and he is bad, so we will slay him and good will triumph over evil!"
Now, to be clear, I don't have a PROBLEM with high fantasy, and I have read stupidly huge amounts of it. But some people want the WORLD involved, and not just the hero.
Now, I still haven't read Martin's work, so it might be a giant pile of shit, but you can't attack an author's ability based on their degrees. Especially since journalism is (supposedly) about detail and critical thinking, and the man is writing a series about politics.
Oh, and the people that hated Dragon Age 2 were pissed because it WASN'T like the first game.

So, to sum up, you don't understand the difference between dark and low fantasy, fail to realize that different genres exist for different groups with different tastes, and throw up examples to try to sound learned on the topic but instead serve only to expose your lack of experience.
If you want to be "weary" of fantasy, try doing what I did and reading enough of it that it becomes difficult to find quality or original thought in the genre, because that's a damn good reason to be weary of something.

Meanwhile, I'm going to track down a copy of the last Wheel Of Time book so i can finally be done with that series

Maybe, but at least I don't use caps.

Jehsus christ can someone who has played The Witcher tell this dude how wrong he is because I seriously don't know where to start on the amount of things that are wrong with his argument.

The Witcher 2 isn't based around sex. It's based around a political story and a quest for self discovery in a mature fantasy world. Unless you're 13, or some born again Christian who sees sex as the focus of everything whilst simultaneously condemning it, then you won't see it as a "fantasy sex game". You're literally insulting everyone who plays the game as some horny teenager virgin who only plays it to see 3D boobs...

Pathetic.

Woah there. Look, we all have different thresholds when it comes to sexual content, and what is too much for someone else might not bother you or me. I don't think that is any reason to accuse someone of not playing the game. Overall, I am pretty likely to play the game from all the good things that were said about it here, and people have really helped out. But I actually appreciate a dissenting opinion, too.

Good post. If we look at the last generation, the Dark Fantasy thing took over. I'd say it's fine, but it's overdone.
It's way overdone, and there aren't any significant variations on the "dark" theme.

I still say that Mortal Kombat has something to do with all of the gore and "darkness". That game was actually terrible compared to Street Fighter II. The character animations and general feel was horrible, but the draw was the gore. We discovered that gore can sell a game through Mortal Kombat. I've never gotten into Doom, but I imagine one could say the same thing.

When something sells, corporations will use and reuse the idea. How many SMB, Halos, etc do we have? How many different versions of Street Fighter do we have - including Darstalkers, Guilty Gear, Marvel vs Capcom, etc? It's been overdone ad naseum. The same can be said for all the Tolkien clones - "Dark" Middle Age-y games have been the rage for a while now, and I don't see that changing for a few years. My only hope is that the gameplay keeps getting better.

Haha I'm glad you brought that up, I hadn't though about the Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat thing in years. I remember having some pretty vicious fights with my friends over that subject as a kid. I always loved SF, when they were into MK. They even called it "childish" and things like that. . . It really wasn't until MK 3 that the fighting mechanics were even in the same ballpark as SF. Though, I will admit my loyalty to SF may have had as much to do with my crush on Chun-Li. . .

 

[Terminal Blue]

Now, let's tackle your actual objections. You are not objecting to the darkness of the fantasy, you are objecting to the "low" fantasy elements. Extreme violence, pointless sex, that sort of stuff, is "low fantasy", a genre we like to pretend died out when Gor and Conan fell out of fashion.

This is actually very true, and a point I've overlooked because I was never into the ultra-machismo of stuff like Gor and Conan.

But honestly, if I was a time traveller from before everyone started calling Dragon Age and the Witcher "dark fantasy" and you asked me to define what I thought "dark fantasy" was, I guess I'd assume it was fantasy with gothic fiction or horror elements. The idea that fantasy with tits and blood equals "dark fantasy" does seem really, really weird.

I mean, when Boromir took an arrow to the knee everything, I'm going to assume he had some blood in his body at the time and that quite a lot of it may have left his body during this process. Dark much?

 

[Sateru]

I for one am weary of the way that fantasy -once a vibrant genre- is being treated lately in games and other mediums like literature. But, what are your thoughts?

It's rather hard to find true "dark" fantasy. There is always a method of how it should be done, how far one should go, and the manner in which one is introduced to it. Berserk always calls to me as a perfect example of dark fantasy. There is a beauty in how some scenes are played out, the grittiness of war, the savagery of man, but it's not always black and white. There is always shades of gray that seem to coat the world they live in. Heroes can be darkened into villains, and villains can appear like saviors. There is always a disturbing quality about our world, and that's what is shown in dark fantasy RPGs. That's the hardest part to show though, because we always want an idealistic, or pragmatic view of fantasy. The world we wish for fantasy to be, or the world we believe it must be. A good fantasy world should be able to demonstrate both, and show us the unpredictability that the world we live in has. :T

I like Dark Souls for it's attempt in Dark Fantasy, and it works perfectly. However, it comes off as hollow at times. I love the bleakness of the world, the lore, the atmosphere, the characters, and everything about it, but... There is something missing about it, something I can't put my finger on that simply makes the experience somewhat incomplete. There is no "life" in it. You go through killing the enemies around you, but you get no feeling that they're more than just creatures that stand in your way, that exist for you to kill. Just like how the characters you meet feel sort of lifeless... they don't move, don't do much, and just... seem to exist for nothing else but to provide idle gossip.

Dragon Age wasn't a terrible dark fantasy, I enjoyed it except... I love being a Mage so I always try to play that role. They tried to make a sort of fight between the two sides of Mages and Templars. However, it always seems to paint that no matter which side you choose... you find that both sides turn out to be exactly how the other sees them as. Mages are all evil corrupt creatures that delve into Blood Magic just to save their own skins, and Templars are all just oppressive jackasses that are looking for any excuse to commit total cleansing of the Mage class.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

It's rather hard to find true "dark" fantasy. There is always a method of how it should be done, how far one should go, and the manner in which one is introduced to it. Berserk always calls to me as a perfect example of dark fantasy. There is a beauty in how some scenes are played out, the grittiness of war, the savagery of man, but it's not always black and white. There is always shades of gray that seem to coat the world they live in. Heroes can be darkened into villains, and villains can appear like saviors. There is always a disturbing quality about our world, and that's what is shown in dark fantasy RPGs. That's the hardest part to show though, because we always want an idealistic, or pragmatic view of fantasy. The world we wish for fantasy to be, or the world we believe it must be. A good fantasy world should be able to demonstrate both, and show us the unpredictability that the world we live in has. :T

I like Dark Souls for it's attempt in Dark Fantasy, and it works perfectly.

A number of people have brought up Berserk, though I haven't seen it. I have not played Dark Souls, either. Could you elaborate on what you like about them, and what makes them differ from games and shows that use visceral aspects in a misguided way?

Yeah, my problems with "dark" fantasy are not really generic, but rather that it is often symptomatic of a deeper laziness on the artistic level. If there is some dark fantasy that is truly done well, I wouldn't mind seeing it or playing it.

 

[Sateru]

A number of people have brought up Berserk, though I haven't seen it. I have not played Dark Souls, either. Could you elaborate on what you like about them, and what makes them differ from games and shows that use visceral aspects in a misguided way?

Yeah, my problems with "dark" fantasy are not really generic, but rather that it is often symptomatic of a deeper laziness on the artistic level. If there is some dark fantasy that is truly done well, I wouldn't mind seeing it or playing it.

It's rather hard to lump them up in a concise manner, not to mention, I'm terrible with describing things, but I will try.

For Berserk, it's set in the medieval ages so you can already guess that things aren't fantastic. XD
It shows you the humanity of the main characters, makes you invest interest in outer characters, fleshing them out to a degree. Each character in that manga is dynamic, not static. They evolve, they grow, they bend and are either tempered or broken by the events that come before them. At it's darkest, it shows just how frail even the strongest man can be in the bigger picture.

I loved that for Berserk, they showed that there was more sides to a dark fantasy story than just the grit of it. A true dark fantasy can make the main character seem strong, unstoppable, and like stone. At the same time, you get to see that strong protagonist break down, become weak and powerless against something far greater than him, find love, grow a kinship with his friends and comrades, and watch him suffer as that gets threatened and nearly stolen from him. There is no big goal for the hero, you find that in the case of Berserk, they have simple motives for the most part (Not counting Griffith cuz he's definitely got big goals and motives there, but you see how far he goes for them, how low he will go to keep his target in sight. Even in that case though, he falters, and falls.) There is a humanity that you see in each of them, scars that they demonstrate, fears they struggle to overcome.

In some aspects, it has it's own internal laws and rules, but at the same time you see that no one is truly safe in Berserk. Everyone gets hurt, killed, or worse than that.

As for Dark Souls, I really enjoyed the lore of it. The story, how you're placed in the middle of it, the strength of your character, how you shape them to be, the way you are beaten down, striving to overcome obstacles and threats ahead of you. You don't start out as a big unstoppable beast, and everything in the game can kill you if you aren't careful. The world you're put in is a dying world, one struggling to keep itself going despite the insurmountable odds stacked against it. Deep down, you get a sense of futility about this mission you're given. To stave off the inevitable, hold back the darkness despite the fact that it will inevitably consume everything in it's wake. They don't say that you're going to stop something, you're going to rekindle the flame once more, but it's going out... in time, it will vanish with a whisper, and the darkness will creep back to resume it's role.

In the end... I guess the biggest thing I enjoy about both of those two above is the fact that you don't ever become something greater than what you already are. You don't become a king... a powerful mage... the savior of a kingdom. The strength they're given is just to keep themselves alive. Hell, you know that in the case of Berserk, no one in that world is destined to live a long, and happy life. Even in Dark Souls, the same rings true. You're motivated by your own reasons, and watch your story move forward.

Sorry if that's kinda confusing... I tend to not describe things well. T-T

 

[InfinityX]

A number of people have brought up Berserk, though I haven't seen it. I have not played Dark Souls, either. Could you elaborate on what you like about them, and what makes them differ from games and shows that use visceral aspects in a misguided way?

Yeah, my problems with "dark" fantasy are not really generic, but rather that it is often symptomatic of a deeper laziness on the artistic level. If there is some dark fantasy that is truly done well, I wouldn't mind seeing it or playing it.

It's rather hard to lump them up in a concise manner, not to mention, I'm terrible with describing things, but I will try.

For Berserk, it's set in the medieval ages so you can already guess that things aren't fantastic. XD
It shows you the humanity of the main characters, makes you invest interest in outer characters, fleshing them out to a degree. Each character in that manga is dynamic, not static. They evolve, they grow, they bend and are either tempered or broken by the events that come before them. At it's darkest, it shows just how frail even the strongest man can be in the bigger picture.

I loved that for Berserk, they showed that there was more sides to a dark fantasy story than just the grit of it. A true dark fantasy can make the main character seem strong, unstoppable, and like stone. At the same time, you get to see that strong protagonist break down, become weak and powerless against something far greater than him, find love, grow a kinship with his friends and comrades, and watch him suffer as that gets threatened and nearly stolen from him. There is no big goal for the hero, you find that in the case of Berserk, they have simple motives for the most part (Not counting Griffith cuz he's definitely got big goals and motives there, but you see how far he goes for them, how low he will go to keep his target in sight. Even in that case though, he falters, and falls.) There is a humanity that you see in each of them, scars that they demonstrate, fears they struggle to overcome.

In some aspects, it has it's own internal laws and rules, but at the same time you see that no one is truly safe in Berserk. Everyone gets hurt, killed, or worse than that.

As for Dark Souls, I really enjoyed the lore of it. The story, how you're placed in the middle of it, the strength of your character, how you shape them to be, the way you are beaten down, striving to overcome obstacles and threats ahead of you. You don't start out as a big unstoppable beast, and everything in the game can kill you if you aren't careful. The world you're put in is a dying world, one struggling to keep itself going despite the insurmountable odds stacked against it. Deep down, you get a sense of futility about this mission you're given. To stave off the inevitable, hold back the darkness despite the fact that it will inevitably consume everything in it's wake. They don't say that you're going to stop something, you're going to rekindle the flame once more, but it's going out... in time, it will vanish with a whisper, and the darkness will creep back to resume it's role.

In the end... I guess the biggest thing I enjoy about both of those two above is the fact that you don't ever become something greater than what you already are. You don't become a king... a powerful mage... the savior of a kingdom. The strength they're given is just to keep themselves alive. Hell, you know that in the case of Berserk, no one in that world is destined to live a long, and happy life. Even in Dark Souls, the same rings true. You're motivated by your own reasons, and watch your story move forward.

Sorry if that's kinda confusing... I tend to not describe things well. T-T

Actually, that's a good description of both. Especially for Berserk. I would also add that the world itself is well done too, where the environments has good blend of hope and salvation, but with characters having a looming despair from war and ominous presence to it. Its worth checking out at least.

Also great last quote, even with Gut's Ungodly Strength, he still shows weakness and can be defeated in other ways.

 

[Drakovicz]

It is a bit weird, talking about failure of Dark Fantasy while using Dragon Age as an example, as Dragon Age is still fairly firmly entrenched into high fantasy genre. You are still a chosen one, you still fight against ultimate evil, most of problems still have a "perfect solution".... True, the world is not entirely pleasant and there is a bit of gray, but Dragon Age is hardly the first work of high fantasy using those tropes. Like Lord of the Rings.
There are only few "true" dark fantasy RPGs around - Dark Souls, Dragon Age 2 (yes really! no one said that dark fantasy RPG must be good), Planescape: Torment, Witcher series, maybe Blackguards from what I heard about them, and probably some others I forgot.


Also "dark fantasy" is kind of a nebulous term, similar to terms like "RPG" or "porn". By that I mean that while everyone has fairly good idea what is someone using that term talking about and can roughly recognize something as "dark fantasy" when he sees it, when it comes to an exact definition, everyone has its own, sometimes wildly different take on it. Heck, according to wikipedia, "dark fantasy" can also be used for a "horror in fantasy setting" genre which I suspect is something quite different than what we are discussing here. And to make it even more confusing, most of the tropes someone uses to define "dark fantasy" are usually also used to define "low fantasy".

I guess most people use it as a shorthand for "mature" fantasy, but a story doesn't have to be dark to be mature.


Also a response to some things in the Witcher 2 chat that I considered particularly weird:

Have you seen any of the many reviews on the Witcher 2? (hint, almost all of them talk about the sex scenes) have you seen that any game that tries a sex scene gets compared to Witcher 2 scenes? How often when Witcher 2 is mentioned, that people talk about its sex scenes? its a lot more then 1%. Just because you and I don't need/like it, doesn't mean there are many others who do. It may not be as extreme as other games, but its still a heavy influence and selling point..

Not very often at all? Reviews mention the sex-scenes, true, but that rarely took more than one fairly short paragraph in multi-page review, and besides mentioning things like that is kind of their job. As for actual discussion well... I don't think I EVER experienced any serious talk about Witcher 2 sex-scenes, and participate or at least occasionally read at least half-dozen of various gaming forums. The mentions about them I encountered are either ridicule, a warning to new players interested in picking up the game or at the very most, mentioning them when the topic is, or turned into discussion about sex-scenes in video-games. (Funnily enough, I don't think I saw the last one happen outside of escapist)

However I wont dispute that sex was one of the selling points in marketing of Witcher 2, but it is also unfair to single out Witcher 2 in this instance. Marketing says "Sex sells" and if a work of fiction contains something at least somewhat titillating it will be inevitably made into one of the center-pieces and selling points when advertising said work of fiction, regardless if its video-game, movie or book (or heck even music). Witcher 2 is not the worst or even particularly noteworthy example of this.

.....(also, that would be MUCH more then 1%) Its not that the sex is bad, its that there is sex everywhere. If sex is so valuable and important the Geralt and Triss, why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he find? dosn't that kinda makes the meaning of sex LESS valuable? .

There are 8 sex-scenes in Witcher 2. If we are charitable then lets say that each one takes at least 2 minutes. With the exception of the implicit sex scene at the beginning of the game where Geralt wakes up next to naked Triss, all of them are optional. They are also mutually exclusive due to being on different paths, so you wont encounter more than half of them in one playthrough. One playthrough of Witcher 2 is roughly 20-30 hours. So ''If'' you discover every single sex-scene possible and ''if'' you participate in every one of them, then the sexual content of the game would be roughly 8 minutes. Thats 0.006% of the overall content. So really endoftherapture ridiculously over-exaggerated when he pegged sex as 1% of the experience.

Also "why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he finds" is a good question. In both games, there is 1 sex-scene that is mandatory, and in both games it is with Geralts love interest. Outside of that it is perfectly possible to play Geralt as chaste, or at the very least completely devoted and loyal to his partner, without missing any content. So when someone asks "why does Geralt cheat on Triss" or "why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he finds" or "why does Geralt have sex everywhere" the only answer that comes to my mind is: because you decided to play him that way.

You sure that the game wasn't focusing on fantasy sex?.

Yes, I am fairly sure. If its focusing on fantasy sex, its doing a disastrously bad job at it.

Its a fantasy sex game, not a dark, mature game.

No it isn't. Infact I have a hard time comprehending how could someone come to a conclusion that Witcher 2 is fantasy sex game.

You've explained why YOU like the game. YOU don't play it for the sex scenes, but YOU are just YOU. Unless you polled the entire playerbase that played the game, YOU cannot make the assumption that everyone plays it for a political story and ignores the sex scenes..

Yet you (oh, sorry - YOU) can apparently make the assumption that almost everyone plays it for sex-scenes and ignores the political story without polling the entire playberbase t

 

[endtherapture]

It is a bit weird, talking about failure of Dark Fantasy while using Dragon Age as an example, as Dragon Age is still fairly firmly entrenched into high fantasy genre. You are still a chosen one, you still fight against ultimate evil, most of problems still have a "perfect solution".... True, the world is not entirely pleasant and there is a bit of gray, but Dragon Age is hardly the first work of high fantasy using those tropes. Like Lord of the Rings.
There are only few "true" dark fantasy RPGs around - Dark Souls, Dragon Age 2 (yes really! no one said that dark fantasy RPG must be good), Planescape: Torment, Witcher series, maybe Blackguards from what I heard about them, and probably some others I forgot.


Also "dark fantasy" is kind of a nebulous term, similar to terms like "RPG" or "porn". By that I mean that while everyone has fairly good idea what is someone using that term talking about and can roughly recognize something as "dark fantasy" when he sees it, when it comes to an exact definition, everyone has its own, sometimes wildly different take on it. Heck, according to wikipedia, "dark fantasy" can also be used for a "horror in fantasy setting" genre which I suspect is something quite different than what we are discussing here. And to make it even more confusing, most of the tropes someone uses to define "dark fantasy" are usually also used to define "low fantasy".

I guess most people use it as a shorthand for "mature" fantasy, but a story doesn't have to be dark to be mature.


Also a response to some things in the Witcher 2 chat that I considered particularly weird:

Have you seen any of the many reviews on the Witcher 2? (hint, almost all of them talk about the sex scenes) have you seen that any game that tries a sex scene gets compared to Witcher 2 scenes? How often when Witcher 2 is mentioned, that people talk about its sex scenes? its a lot more then 1%. Just because you and I don't need/like it, doesn't mean there are many others who do. It may not be as extreme as other games, but its still a heavy influence and selling point..

Not very often at all? Reviews mention the sex-scenes, true, but that rarely took more than one fairly short paragraph in multi-page review, and besides mentioning things like that is kind of their job. As for actual discussion well... I don't think I EVER experienced any serious talk about Witcher 2 sex-scenes, and participate or at least occasionally read at least half-dozen of various gaming forums. The mentions about them I encountered are either ridicule, a warning to new players interested in picking up the game or at the very most, mentioning them when the topic is, or turned into discussion about sex-scenes in video-games. (Funnily enough, I don't think I saw the last one happen outside of escapist)

However I wont dispute that sex was one of the selling points in marketing of Witcher 2, but it is also unfair to single out Witcher 2 in this instance. Marketing says "Sex sells" and if a work of fiction contains something at least somewhat titillating it will be inevitably made into one of the center-pieces and selling points when advertising said work of fiction, regardless if its video-game, movie or book (or heck even music). Witcher 2 is not the worst or even particularly noteworthy example of this.

.....(also, that would be MUCH more then 1%) Its not that the sex is bad, its that there is sex everywhere. If sex is so valuable and important the Geralt and Triss, why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he find? dosn't that kinda makes the meaning of sex LESS valuable? .

There are 8 sex-scenes in Witcher 2. If we are charitable then lets say that each one takes at least 2 minutes. With the exception of the implicit sex scene at the beginning of the game where Geralt wakes up next to naked Triss, all of them are optional. They are also mutually exclusive due to being on different paths, so you wont encounter more than half of them in one playthrough. One playthrough of Witcher 2 is roughly 20-30 hours. So ''If'' you discover every single sex-scene possible and ''if'' you participate in every one of them, then the sexual content of the game would be roughly 8 minutes. Thats 0.006% of the overall content. So really endoftherapture ridiculously over-exaggerated when he pegged sex as 1% of the experience.

Also "why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he finds" is a good question. In both games, there is 1 sex-scene that is mandatory, and in both games it is with Geralts love interest. Outside of that it is perfectly possible to play Geralt as chaste, or at the very least completely devoted and loyal to his partner, without missing any content. So when someone asks "why does Geralt cheat on Triss" or "why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he finds" or "why does Geralt have sex everywhere" the only answer that comes to my mind is: because you decided to play him that way.

You sure that the game wasn't focusing on fantasy sex?.

Yes, I am fairly sure. If its focusing on fantasy sex, its doing a disastrously bad job at it.

Its a fantasy sex game, not a dark, mature game.

No it isn't. Infact I have a hard time comprehending how could someone come to a conclusion that Witcher 2 is fantasy sex game.

You've explained why YOU like the game. YOU don't play it for the sex scenes, but YOU are just YOU. Unless you polled the entire playerbase that played the game, YOU cannot make the assumption that everyone plays it for a political story and ignores the sex scenes..

Yet you (oh, sorry - YOU) can apparently make the assumption that almost everyone plays it for sex-scenes and ignores the political story without polling the entire playberbase t

Amen.

Also TW2 wasn't marketed as a game about sex. Look...no sex on the back of the box:

Look at the trailer, lots of stabbing, blood, action, swords, monsters and magic.
This game is not a fantasy sex game, It's a fantasy action game. Not to mention that 2/2 of your "survey of people have said they don't play it for the sex (100%), and The Witcher 3 trailer also has no sex in it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqQ3LeBgGDM), so I think you're the one here obsessed with "fantasy sex".

 

[InfinityX]

snip

Disclaimer: Since the post(s) are talking about the sex scenes, I'm going to stay on topic about that, Its not all I think about for that game

1) Really? I see it all the time, people comparing the sex scenes in other games to witcher 2's. Maybe its not mentioned much on the escapist, but I've seen it a lot on other sites, Reviews (user and professional), and with those I talk to IRL.

and while the Witcher 2 doesn't fully market its sex scenes, It instead markets the "Adult content" that is tagged with it.

2) Keep in mind, some of those can be replayed multiple times.
But you're right, and I'll agree that "sex everywhere" probably was a poor choice of words.
What I should of said is that the game focuses on sexual themes. I'd still argue that, while gameplay wise, the actual amount "sex scenes" is very little, the game still has a large focus (> 1%) on sexual themes.

you may find the content minor or "mature" and if you can block out the adult content, then you'll probably wont find it a big deal. I, however, find that (IMO) excessive sexual content and themes takes away from the game, and for me, that's hard to just push aside.

3&4) I still find it a try-hard "dark" game, and with the options to have such vivid sexual content, I do find it leaning more towards a sexual fantansy. I have a hard time comprehending how upset some people get from my opinion.

5) I wasn't trying to imply the opposite extreme that everyone plays it for the sex. I was trying to say that there is no way to poll everyone in the player base to make a statement that there is only one type of playerbase for this game, I was saying that there are people who do play it for the sex scenes, as well as there is players that can ignore it.

snip

yes, because putting nude pictures and old men having sex on the game cover and trailer video would go so well... >_>

 

[Drakovicz]

1) Really? I see it all the time, people comparing the sex scenes in other games to witcher 2's. Maybe its not mentioned much on the escapist, but I've seen it a lot on other sites, Reviews (user and professional), and with those I talk to IRL.

Yes I mentioned that I saw that kind of discussion too, but that is in a topic about sex or sexual content in video games and Witcher 2, as a video-game with sex scenes in it is a valid example, as are Mass Effect or Dragon Age series. That does not mean that sex-scenes are the first thing that come to peoples mind when someone says "Witcher 2".

2) Keep in mind, some of those can be replayed multiple times.

The only one that can be replayed multiple time is the prostitute one. Which is by far the shortest, most pointless and most obvious one.

What I should of said is that the game focuses on sexual themes. I'd still argue that, while gameplay wise, the actual amount "sex scenes" is very little, the game still has a large focus (> 1%) on sexual themes.........I, however, find that (IMO) excessive sexual content and themes takes away from the game, and for me, that's hard to just push aside.

Two things:

1) How exactly does "more than 1%" equal "large focus"?

2) What are in your opinion sexual themes of Witcher 2 and how does the game focuses on them? Because I am drawing a blank here.

3&4) I still find it a try-hard "dark" game, and with the options to have such vivid sexual content, I do find it leaning more towards a sexual fantansy.

I noticed something in your earlier posts, which left me quite flabbergasted: You consider Witcher to be a "try-hard dark" and "sexual fantasy" yet you like Berserker and consider it neither?

I have a hard time comprehending how upset some people get from my opinion.

I feel that a certain level of hostility seeps naturally into a discussion when there is such a massive discrepancy in experiences of playing the game that it looks like the people arguing played completely different games.

5) I wasn't trying to imply the opposite extreme that everyone plays it for the sex. I was trying to say that there is no way to poll everyone in the player base to make a statement that there is only one type of playerbase for this game, I was saying that there are people who do play it for the sex scenes, as well as there is players that can ignore it.

I have hard time seeing anyone playing Witcher 2 for sex scenes to be honest. They are a very small part of the content and it takes such a massive time to get to them. I mean it takes like 5-6 hours to get to the first sex-scene that is like 2 minutes long and is about as raunchy as your average sex-scene in a Hollywood movie.

 

[Xdeser2]

DA:O is not dark fantasy, it was stuck with that for its marketing. Yeah, there are some dark plot points, but thats not something that ruins the game, and the gore is super easy to ignore.



I dont have a problem with a game where Elves, Dwarves and Humans dont like each other because of race, it seems a bit more believable than them just loving each other. Besides, both the Witcher 2 and Dragon Age Origins do a good job justifying it with lore and history.

 

[The Random Critic]

Dark Souls wasn't really a dark fantasy from my tiny taste, the theme/plot/character it's trying to present is just nihilistic and depressing. (which is why I love it.)

And part of the reason why they attempt so hard at getting rid of interaction/having everything turn against you fits the overall mood of the game.

That aside, I do want to point out that Hollywood has plenty of sex scenes in comedy movies. Does it make it all of them Dark comedy? I wonder? If there is massive gorn in a slasher movie, does it make a Dark Slasher movie?

I don't personally play Bioware games for the sex scenes (I skip them if I could), I play it for the combat and characters dialog. (But I'll be a little honest, it's mostly for the party base combat. I'm talking about Dragon Age and what-not)

 

[InfinityX]

Yes I mentioned that I saw that kind of discussion too, but that is in a topic about sex or sexual content in video games and Witcher 2, as a video-game with sex scenes in it is a valid example, as are Mass Effect or Dragon Age series. That does not mean that sex-scenes are the first thing that come to peoples mind when someone says "Witcher 2".

Maybe? I guess it just comes down to the discussion which brought it up. Im sure if you go into a forum about political events in video games, and you mention the witcher, I would think the first thing being thought of is the political events. Likewise, go into a forum post about adult content, and when the Witcher 2 is brought up, the sex scenes would be the first thing that comes to mind

one thing I will point out (and its merely just one point), is that in Angry Joe's video of Witcher 2, the first thing he shows is about the sexual content. Whether or not you consider him a valid source is another matter.

2) Keep in mind, some of those can be replayed multiple times.

The only one that can be replayed multiple time is the prostitute one. Which is by far the shortest, most pointless and most obvious one.

Oh I know, it was just a minor point to bring up

What I should of said is that the game focuses on sexual themes. I'd still argue that, while gameplay wise, the actual amount "sex scenes" is very little, the game still has a large focus (> 1%) on sexual themes.........I, however, find that (IMO) excessive sexual content and themes takes away from the game, and for me, that's hard to just push aside.

Two things:

1) How exactly does "more than 1%" equal "large focus"?

The 1% was used because of endtherapture's post. I was pointing out that I felt that sexual themes make up more then 1% of the, which he claimed it doesn't.

2) What are in your opinion sexual themes of Witcher 2 and how does the game focuses on them? Because I am drawing a blank here.

Spoiler: some themes

Its been a while, but that few that comes to mind:
-the prostitutes (obviously)
-the random lets-have-sex-in-the-conveniently-placed-hot tub when you fall down to the ruins (right before you fight letho for the first time)
-One of the last missions in Flosam, where you go to the governor's (or mayor?) office to save vex.
-Including right after, with the elven girl that was having a child from the governor.
-When in the Arena/gladiator sidequest, the last contestant is vex. Basically, I saw as you beat her (she was an easy fight), then you get the option to have sex with her. Left a bad taste for me, I would liked to seen more character development with her.
-The scene where you get thrown into LSD and see dick trees everywhere
-The king, when he attacked Roche's group and raped Vex

and that's mostly with Roche's side. I'm sure there's more if you go side with Iorveth.

-and I'm not 100% sure, but the NPCs making light sexual remarks every time you pass by them, which got annoying fast.

some of them are major points in the story, and can't really be pushed aside.

3&4) I still find it a try-hard "dark" game, and with the options to have such vivid sexual content, I do find it leaning more towards a sexual fantansy.

I noticed something in your earlier posts, which left me quite flabbergasted: You consider Witcher to be a "try-hard dark" and "sexual fantasy" yet you like Berserker and consider it neither?

I personally find Berserk a good "dark fantasy" because it does the setting well, with more likable characters. Also, it probably helps it was an anime/manga instead of a interactive RPG game. While Berserk has, admittedly, more violent sex scenes, It never felt out of place, nor was is a random insert to be "mature". There was a build-up and when things happened, it was explained or foreshadowed. Another point was when knights and infantry men die (the ones with no characteristics), there's still a weighted impact (though still very little) to the characters.

As for why I don't consider Berserk a sexual fantasy, its mostly because its more of telling a story and character interactions themselves, rather then having the ability to control what (or who) guts does.

5) I wasn't trying to imply the opposite extreme that everyone plays it for the sex. I was trying to say that there is no way to poll everyone in the player base to make a statement that there is only one type of playerbase for this game, I was saying that there are people who do play it for the sex scenes, as well as there is players that can ignore it.

I have hard time seeing anyone playing Witcher 2 for sex scenes to be honest. They are a very small part of the content and it takes such a massive time to get to them. I mean it takes like 5-6 hours to get to the first sex-scene that is like 2 minutes long and is about as raunchy as your average sex-scene in a Hollywood movie.

While I don't doubt there are not many people who play it Solely for the sex scenes (but I'm sure there are), I see it more as people really enjoy it as a alternative focus, having fantasies about it, while still enjoying the other aspects of the game, as opposed to ignoring the sexual content altogether and playing for the story.