The Witcher 3's Second Playable Character Revealed

[J Tyran]

Insulting at the end of the day, adding a "man with boobs" character thinking it will deflect attention from their Whitey McWhiterson privileged male focused series?

Whats actually insulting is that statement. Do you go up to brusque women who have a bit of toughness to them and call them out as "playing at being men" or something to that degree? Very sexist and ignorant In my very honest opinion.

Also youd do well to know that in the witcher series witchers are outcasts and geralt as well is an outcast at times.

Well and extensively researched feminist studies have carefully defined the "man with boobs" concept, are you accusing them of sexism?

I believe you are using the authority fallacy here. It applies because media portrayal is subjective not objective. Ergo It doesnt matter what countless writers or "authorities" may have said regarding the trope because its very existance is due to a matter of opinion. The man with boobs differentiates itself from capable women in that that character "goes too far" to be strong and eliminates feminizing traits from that character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgqM6xeZHNM.

There really needs to be a logical fallacy for people misusing and accusing people of logical fallacies and completely getting them wrong... You even try to redefine it by trying to split hairs between whats objective and whats subjective which has nothing to do with it, anytime you have to further define something beyond its basic principles you're generally doing it wrong.

Further more you know little more about this character than I do as its not the "canon" version from the books, its whatever the developers want it to be with some rough guidelines from the novels.

Until you have played the game yourself you can get down from that high horse.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Insulting at the end of the day, adding a "man with boobs" character thinking it will deflect attention from their Whitey McWhiterson privileged male focused series?

Whats actually insulting is that statement. Do you go up to brusque women who have a bit of toughness to them and call them out as "playing at being men" or something to that degree? Very sexist and ignorant In my very honest opinion.

Also youd do well to know that in the witcher series witchers are outcasts and geralt as well is an outcast at times.

Well and extensively researched feminist studies have carefully defined the "man with boobs" concept, are you accusing them of sexism?

I believe you are using the authority fallacy here. It applies because media portrayal is subjective not objective. Ergo It doesnt matter what countless writers or "authorities" may have said regarding the trope because its very existance is due to a matter of opinion. The man with boobs differentiates itself from capable women in that that character "goes too far" to be strong and eliminates feminizing traits from that character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgqM6xeZHNM.

There really needs to be a logical fallacy for people misusing and accusing people of logical fallacies and completely getting them wrong... You even try to redefine it by trying to split hairs between whats objective and whats subjective which has nothing to do with it, anytime you have to further define something beyond its basic principles you're generally doing it wrong.

Further more you know little more about this character than I do as its not the "canon" version from the books, its whatever the developers want it to be with some rough guidelines from the novels.

Until you have played the game yourself you can get down from that high horse.

but? when you make a statement like "Further more you know little more about this character than I do as its not the "canon" version from the books, its whatever the developers want it to be with some rough guidelines from the novels." "Until you have played the game yourself you can get down from that high horse."

well then by that logic you too are on your own high horse and have no place by which to judge the character until thegame comes out too. Until the game comes out you dont know if she's just clint eastwood with tits or if shes her own thing.(though clint esterwoods with tits frankly sounds awesome to me but thats a different discussion.)

So yeah you made that statement with your admitted lack of knowledge of the character and should not have done so.

And I did not redfine anything. If something is subjective it can not be set in stone as a fact.(the video I posted mainly focus's on arguements based on fact and helps to differentiate from say, a panel of scientists and there resulting research, and your brother karl.)

In this arguement though the tropes existance is entirely based upon what you see as "going too far" with the whole tough tomboy act.

Not that that matters as you just admitted neither of us have the relevant information necessary until either of us play the game.

However, since your willing to just eye roll, snub your nose up and go, "meh typical sexism in the witcher game meh" I dont see it as too likely that you will play the game. But I could be wrong.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Nice trolling, J Tyran. You seem to have succeeded.

On topic: I love it. I haven't read the books, but playing as female was one of the things I seriously missed in the previous games. And if they define her character as well as Geralts, all the better.

Hell Id like a full game or at the very least a few hours of gameplay with ciri. that would just make my day!

edit: am I being trolled for real? lol

 

[J Tyran]

Insulting at the end of the day, adding a "man with boobs" character thinking it will deflect attention from their Whitey McWhiterson privileged male focused series?

Whats actually insulting is that statement. Do you go up to brusque women who have a bit of toughness to them and call them out as "playing at being men" or something to that degree? Very sexist and ignorant In my very honest opinion.

Also youd do well to know that in the witcher series witchers are outcasts and geralt as well is an outcast at times.

Well and extensively researched feminist studies have carefully defined the "man with boobs" concept, are you accusing them of sexism?

I believe you are using the authority fallacy here. It applies because media portrayal is subjective not objective. Ergo It doesnt matter what countless writers or "authorities" may have said regarding the trope because its very existance is due to a matter of opinion. The man with boobs differentiates itself from capable women in that that character "goes too far" to be strong and eliminates feminizing traits from that character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgqM6xeZHNM.

There really needs to be a logical fallacy for people misusing and accusing people of logical fallacies and completely getting them wrong... You even try to redefine it by trying to split hairs between whats objective and whats subjective which has nothing to do with it, anytime you have to further define something beyond its basic principles you're generally doing it wrong.

Further more you know little more about this character than I do as its not the "canon" version from the books, its whatever the developers want it to be with some rough guidelines from the novels.

Until you have played the game yourself you can get down from that high horse.

but? when you make a statement like "Further more you know little more about this character than I do as its not the "canon" version from the books, its whatever the developers want it to be with some rough guidelines from the novels." "Until you have played the game yourself you can get down from that high horse."

well then by that logic you too are on your own high horse and have no place by which to judge the character until thegame comes out too. Until the game comes out you dont know if she's just clint eastwood with tits or if shes her own thing.(though clint esterwoods with tits frankly sounds awesome to me but thats a different discussion.)

So yeah you made that statement with your admitted lack of knowledge of the character and should not have done so.

And I did not redfine anything. If something is subjective it can not be set in stone as a fact.(the video I posted mainly focus's on arguements based on fact and helps to differentiate from say, a panel of scientists and there resulting research, and your brother karl.)

In this arguement though the tropes existance is entirely based upon what you see as "going too far" with the whole tough tomboy act.

Not that that matters as you just admitted neither of us have the relevant information necessary until either of us play the game.

However, since your willing to just eye roll, snub your nose up and go, "meh typical sexism in the witcher game meh" I dont see it as too likely that you will play the game. But I could be wrong.

Well you see the difference between my posting and your posting is that I just expressed an opinion, you tried to paint yours as factual even to the extent of trying to claim logical fallacies where used.

Yes you could be and are totally wrong.

snipped

You wound me good sir, wound me! In all seriousness though please go edit your post, don't want to see you getting into trouble on my behalf after I just expressed an opinion (was it mine? You decide!).

 

[ForumSafari]

Wait, wouldn't Witcher's being entirely male make it a gender specific title by necessity? I don't actually have a dog in this fight (only played the first one and never really got into it) but I agree with the other poster, "Witcheress" sounds really dumb and seems like an unnecessary distinction.

It's a job that only one sex can do but it's not really a gender specific title, it's kind of like 40k space marines, a female space marine would be a female space marine and not a space mariness. Single sex job, non-gendered job title. Generally speaking jobs are only gendered if the sex of the person doing it affects the nature of the service provided whereas here a witcher is a witcher regardless of their sex.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Why do the majority of threads on this forum inevitably turn into a discussion about sexism/gender politics? People are too fucking oversensitive, and that goes for individuals on both sides of the issue.

 

[Azure23]

Wait, wouldn't Witcher's being entirely male make it a gender specific title by necessity? I don't actually have a dog in this fight (only played the first one and never really got into it) but I agree with the other poster, "Witcheress" sounds really dumb and seems like an unnecessary distinction.

It's a job that only one sex can do but it's not really a gender specific title, it's kind of like 40k space marines, a female space marine would be a female space marine and not a space mariness. Single sex job, non-gendered job title. Generally speaking jobs are only gendered if the sex of the person doing it affects the nature of the service provided whereas here a witcher is a witcher regardless of their sex.

Sorry I seem to have misinterpreted your original post. For some reason I thought that you were defending the distinction being made between Witcher and Witcheress. I agree with what you're saying.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Insulting at the end of the day, adding a "man with boobs" character thinking it will deflect attention from their Whitey McWhiterson privileged male focused series?

Whats actually insulting is that statement. Do you go up to brusque women who have a bit of toughness to them and call them out as "playing at being men" or something to that degree? Very sexist and ignorant In my very honest opinion.

Also youd do well to know that in the witcher series witchers are outcasts and geralt as well is an outcast at times.

Well and extensively researched feminist studies have carefully defined the "man with boobs" concept, are you accusing them of sexism?

I believe you are using the authority fallacy here. It applies because media portrayal is subjective not objective. Ergo It doesnt matter what countless writers or "authorities" may have said regarding the trope because its very existance is due to a matter of opinion. The man with boobs differentiates itself from capable women in that that character "goes too far" to be strong and eliminates feminizing traits from that character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgqM6xeZHNM.

There really needs to be a logical fallacy for people misusing and accusing people of logical fallacies and completely getting them wrong... You even try to redefine it by trying to split hairs between whats objective and whats subjective which has nothing to do with it, anytime you have to further define something beyond its basic principles you're generally doing it wrong.

Further more you know little more about this character than I do as its not the "canon" version from the books, its whatever the developers want it to be with some rough guidelines from the novels.

Until you have played the game yourself you can get down from that high horse.

but? when you make a statement like "Further more you know little more about this character than I do as its not the "canon" version from the books, its whatever the developers want it to be with some rough guidelines from the novels." "Until you have played the game yourself you can get down from that high horse."

well then by that logic you too are on your own high horse and have no place by which to judge the character until thegame comes out too. Until the game comes out you dont know if she's just clint eastwood with tits or if shes her own thing.(though clint esterwoods with tits frankly sounds awesome to me but thats a different discussion.)

So yeah you made that statement with your admitted lack of knowledge of the character and should not have done so.

And I did not redfine anything. If something is subjective it can not be set in stone as a fact.(the video I posted mainly focus's on arguements based on fact and helps to differentiate from say, a panel of scientists and there resulting research, and your brother karl.)

In this arguement though the tropes existance is entirely based upon what you see as "going too far" with the whole tough tomboy act.

Not that that matters as you just admitted neither of us have the relevant information necessary until either of us play the game.

However, since your willing to just eye roll, snub your nose up and go, "meh typical sexism in the witcher game meh" I dont see it as too likely that you will play the game. But I could be wrong.

Well you see the difference between my posting and your posting is that I just expressed an opinion, you tried to paint yours as factual even to the extent of trying to claim logical fallacies where used.

Yes you could be and are totally wrong.

snipped

You wound me good sir, wound me! In all seriousness though please go edit your post, don't want to see you getting into trouble on my behalf after I just expressed an opinion (was it mine? You decide!).

No that is not in fact the difference.

Ill break it down.

You stated your opinion as though it were fact

I stated that your opinion was wrong. I even used the original definition of the man with boobs trope to do so.

A discussion of the trope and the post where the trope originated from are here."http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=12971205520A16140100&page=0

And now were just debating on who is the bigger asshole I guess I dont know. So ill just concede on the basis of "agreeing to disagree" good day.

 

[T8B95]

EDIT: Reading the Eurogamer article, and they misidentify Ciri as an elf. This is false to the best of my knowledge, as her (very human) heritage was a fairly major part of her character arc.

She has the Elder Blood in her veins and the blood of Falka. Her son is destined to destory the world.

You are of course right. I was mistaken when I said that she was "very" human. Would it be more accurate to say that she's a human with Elvish blood?

Thankfully his new book didn't override the changes, being a prequel, but Sapkowski still comes off as rather sore about the whole ordeal.

It seemed to me that he was wasn't so much upset at the games, but rather so many people thinking it was a game first.

Yes and no. Yes in that he's annoyed that people think that it's a game first (even though the games are chock-full of little references to the books). No in that he definitely seems to me to have some ego issues otherwise. To quote him on the subject:

The game...is not an 'alternative version', nor a sequel. The game is a free adaptation containing elements of my work; an adaptation created by different authors. Adaptations - although they can in a way relate to the story told in the books - can never aspire to the role of a follow-up. They can never add prologues nor prequels, let alone epilogues and sequels.

Maybe it's time to set the matters straight. 'The Witcher' is a well made video game, its success is well deserved and the creators deserve all the splendour and honour due. But in no way can it be considered to be an 'alternative version', nor a 'sequel' to the witcher Geralt stories. Because this can only be told by Geralt's creator. A certain Andrzej Sapkowski.

If we level the field between books and their adaptations in other media, only the former can be the ones telling a story. There can never be a different relation between a book and its adaptation, other than the one that without the book the adaptation would not exist at all.

I will definitely skip any 'alternative ideas'. It'll come easily to me anyway, as I don't know any of them. And even if I knew, it would be funny and silly were I to write based on the game's suggestions. I suppose I have made myself clear when I said that I will never accept any ideas and concepts of 'complementarity plots' and 'building coherent stories'. A story can only be contained in a book.

You aren't supposed to know [what happened to Geralt]. And you will never know. Or at least until I write about it and I'm not sure if I'll find the will to do so.

I believe it is the success of my books that significantly affects the popularity of the games. That in reality, the games used this fact, as my success beat the games to the punch.

The translations of my books into most European languages - including English - preceded the release of the first game. Long before the game - and it's a known fact - I was a well known writer, even there, where there have been no translations of my work.

It's perhaps interesting to note that the "official" English versions of the book only started coming out in 2008, after the first game came out. All previous English translations were fan translations.

 

[mad825]

.......*sigh*

during special sections of the game's plot

This makes me think that Projekt has gone all Mass Effect. TW2 was suffering from irrelevance enough as it was.

What does this even mean?

It means that you should learn your games and also learn how to do comparisons.