Well, I think the problem is a bit more complex. First let me stress that I do not agree with the article, in my opinion "The Witcher" is a rather harmless game. But I notice a certain hypocrisy on both sides really. It has become an established strategy in the gaming business to reject any kind of social responsibility based on the adult rating. Let's face it - publishers and developers alike know very well that many games with such a rating will in fact end up in the hands of people that they were not intended for (they will usually transfer the responsibility to stores, parents, etc - to a certain extent rightfully).
If you look at the "adult elements" that "The Witcher" contains it's seems to be undeniable that these adress a young audience NOT an adult one… in other words: Who, but a 12 year old would get a boner by looking at pixel images of virtual medieval chicks? The same pretty much goes for collecting cards of the ladies.

On the other hand I have to admit that I simply cannot understand all the fuzz about "The Witcher" - especially not in terms of sexuality. "The Witcher" features a rather mild sexuality, but certainly not hardcore pornography. I seriously doubt, that the picture of a naked woman will negatively influence children of any age.

And rightfully so. It is not their social or any other responsibilty other than to make a product and to sell that product. It is up to the parents to decide whether or not they want their child to play that game or watch that movie or TV program or whatever. If you start telling businesses "Hey you can't make that because it might offend or lead to the moral degradation of our society" then game over man. Big brother wins, freedom loses. Ok that's a bit over the top but come on that's the parents job, not the industries. Case in point, my mom wouldn't buy Leisure Suit Larry waaaayyyy back when I was a kid because she didn't want me to play that game. Her choice to not buy that game. Does that mean that LSL shouldn't of been made because some kid somewhere might be playing it? I know I didn't play it because my mom did her job and didn't complain about it to anyone, she just didn't buy the thing.

That's what everyone seems to forget. There is a free market out there. If you don't like something then don't buy it period. Like I hate Silent Hill. I think it's disgusting and perverted. Plus it scares the hell out of me. Does that mean no one should sell it. Not on your life. Some people enjoy it and more power to them, I will not try to take that little bit of entertainment away from them because of my opinion or in the name of the children.

Parents job.

LMAO….Ever hear of Henti or nude mods? Not just 12 year olds are into pixel images of virtual medieval chicks or why are there so many nude mods for Oblivion, Morrowind, KOTOR (ok not that many for KOTOR but they have Bastila nude patch), Tomb Raider, The sims 1 and 2 and WOW. Those are just a few off the top of my head and yes, I did download them:biggrin: I'm human and even in cartoon form the female body is a wonderous thing, my friend. But do you see a trend here. Not just twelve year olds like a little sexiness in their game. Who wants to make a bet that when the modding tools are released for The Witcher that some of the first mods will be a nude one.

Now that is something I agree with 100 and 10%.

That's not the point. The problem is the double standard: games like The Witcher or Mass Effect don't have anything more explicit in them than what you see on prime-time TV, let alone T- (or perhaps even PG) rated movies.

In other words, I'll listen to that particular argument once it gets applied to Die Hard and CSI with the same amount of vehemence.

Come to think of it, getting rid of that silly baby-doll nightie would be a significant improvement.

LOL PJ, there is already a mod that does just that :)
http://www.thewitcher.com/forum/index.php?topic=8999.0
just, unless you want those three prmanently naked, read instructions carefully.

I don't have problem with guys review of Witcher. I don't agree with him but he has a right to his opinion. What I (and most of other Polish board members) have problem with is the: "Freed from the shackles of communism, Polish software developers feel at liberty to go as far as they want …" bit.

Sentence like this has no place (IMO) in a game review and is thoughtless at best and prejudicial at the worst.

No. If the vast majority of Jews are Zionists the terms can be used interchangeably.. When the word Zionist is uttered, almost every Jew is included. Please tell me how or why the terms should not or cannot be used interchangeably? Your examples are poor; a better example would be Middle-Easterner/Muslim. Or Arab/Muslim.

You make it sound like Zionism is purely just a political agenda, and the destruction of the only Jewish State in the world can be viewed dispassionately and have no other significance or implications. If you state you are left of center I’ll hazard a guess that you have an opinion on illegal immigration and you see racial implications and significance in that issue. But none when it comes to a group of people that have kind of gotten the short end of the stick (to put it very lightly) throughout recorded history? This isn’t sending a group of people that are in one country illegally back to their own country legally, this is the destruction of the group of people’s only country. The destruction of their country, their home. A specific group of people, whose vast majority of population throughout the world are for the continuation of that country. And you say the two can be separated, and the group and the idea of that group having a home can be/are separated have no racial or bigoted implications? Do you see what nonsense that is? Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Zionism is a Jew-friendly idea, Anti-Semitism is a not a Jew-friendly idea. Unless you believe the Jews are so stupid and savage that non-Jews know what’s best for Jews, and that super smart non-Jews working hand in hand with anti-Semitists to work towards the end of the Jews only home of their own is just grand and not another example of the Jews getting it in the rear again.

I see that and raise you one. Not only do I believe the Jews shouldn’t have a State of their own they can call home, I don’t believe they should have homes they should call home. Jews should move into the sewers because their owning houses along side normal-folk is just causing too much trouble in the world. The world would be a much better place if the Jews lived in the sewer. And no, this does not mean I’m anti-Semitic. I’m just really, really not pro-Zionist. Its just politics. I belong to a political group so its okay..

The example of Jihad/Muslim perfectly articulates a lack of knowledge of the Koran. I’m going to go out on a limb and say you are currently in college. When you have read the Koran in its entirety and studied the life of Muhammad we can talk about that subject, until then there is no reason to even try.

Unregistered wrote:
What is with this destruction fixation? How does not liking the slant of a game review equate to the destruction of all things Jewish? I come from a country that's been 100% behind the Zionist state since it's inception and that's being stigmatized in the Arab world for remaining invested in Israel and supporting its anti-Arab policies. I went to school in an all-Jewish community and respect and honor the Jewish culture and belief system. I have no desire to see the Jews lose their homeland, or anything else, and there's no doubt the Jews have been historically persecuted for their faith and culture, but that doesn't mean the Zionists are infallible and have made no mistakes, either.

You're not going to play the guilt card on a game review and make anyone feel anything but embarrassment for you on your lack of insight and proportion. You are mixing emotional issues and political ones.

This is so ignorant and false it's ironic. You've completely missed the point of the analogy and can't seem to get your mind out of it's prejudices long enough to read and accurately interpret simple concepts. Go to the Politics and Religion forum and read some of Prime Junta's posts before you mischaracterize him in this fashion.

I am not going to waste my time arguing with Unrestigered but very well said magerette!

Because the definitions are different. The definition of a Jew is something like "an individual that practices the Judaic religion and/or identifies himself with the Jewish ethnicity and culture," where as the definition of Zionism is "an individual who supports the cause of Israel as a specifically Jewish state, and the homeland for all Jews." Two concepts, two meanings, two words.

However, if the overlap was perfect -- all Jews were Zionists and all Zionists were Jews -- your case would be stronger… although even so, it would be entirely possible to espouse a cause of reforming Judaism to get rid of Zionism.

But that's a theoretical questions, since despite what you say, the overlap isn't nearly 100%, in either direction. There are non-Jewish Zionists and anti-Zionist Jews. If you conflate Judaism and Zionism, you define these groups out of existence, which is both inaccurate and offensive.

That's because it *is* a purely political agenda -- just like Banderism, Francoism, Fascism, Nazism, neo-Kharijism, Kosovar particularism, or any other integrist ideology that has its roots in a particular ethnic or religious group.

Another nice conflation there -- you're assuming that anti-Zionism automatically implies wanting to destroy Israel.

You know what they say about opinions. Everybody's got one.

Yes, I do say that.

Squirrels have whiskers. Saddam had whiskers. Let's hang all squirrels!

If you did actually believe that, I'd call you a disgusting racist and would want nothing at all to do with you.


As it happens, I have read the Qur'an in its entirety, and am passingly familiar with Islamic history and philosophy. If you were referring to my use of the term "jihadism," I only picked it out of courtesy, since I figured you might not be familiar with the term "neo-Kharijism."

As you might have realized I added an "(to a certain extent rightfully)"… somehow I don't like it that you cut that out. But nonetheless the question remains if it just the parents job. One can of course argue that way, but as said before, developers and publishers know very well that game stores, parents and all the other institutions involved in the process can simply not gurantee that the games will not end up in the hands of… I'm reluctant to use the word children, but let's say teenagers. From a logical point of view they might right, from an ethical and moral point they are not. I'm not someone who cries, "change the system," but I see the problems involved.

As I said, I don't consider "The Witcher" a game which is especially explicit (don't know mass effect). I don't get all the fuzz about it. So I was talking more in general terms here. And from such a point of view the argument of a double standard is a rather weak one. The opinion that some branches of the media might not take proper responsibility for their doings does hardly justify doing the same. The logical reaction would be to criticise both.
Again, I'm not saying that "The Witcher" is a game that falls into this category. And I don't want to lead the topic to another track, but in my opinion there are in fact games ("The Witcher" NOT being one of them), that MIGHT not be suited for children/teenagers. The research of media effects is a difficult one and hardly anything has been proven on that particular field. And there is a lot of hypocrisy involved here on both sides.

I won't deny that some adults might be attracted by stuff like that - after all it's not a secret that in general sex helps to sell stuff. But, I'd argue that the majority of grown ups with a certain cognitive complexity prefer the real thing to the virtual one. It's not the fact that games contain elements like nudity or sexuality, it is the way how these elements are implemented. In the case of "The Witcher" I'd say that they adress a young audience, and not an adult one. The fact that there are so many nude patches doesn't prove much since it is fairly safe to assume that quite a few teenagers and young adults play games like Tomb Raider, The Sims, KOTOR, etc.
For me nudity and sexuality in games is, as I already mentioned, basically not a problem at all, since I don't consider these themes as something threatening to children or teenagers. That's different when it comes to pornography - I somehow doubt that pornography is suited for children for example.
My problem really lies more in the area of violence (also a theme not overly explicit in "The Witcher") and here the justification of certain game developers or publishers goes very much into the direction of "we are not responsible"… so basically they are using the same methodology that I tried to explain in my first post.

I'm leaving your whole paragraph in this time. I just cut it out last time to save space, not to misquote you. It is not the developers or publishers job to make sure it stays out of the hands of the children/teenagers. It's the parents’ job and maybe the stores job. Have you been to best buy lately? When I went to America I got carded at a Best Buy because I was purchasing Painkiller Overdose. I'm 32 years old and now they're carding people for mature games. For gods sakes people are treating games like drugs and porn now. Hey you can only play painkiller and drink beer when you're 18 lol. I think that is a responsible act in part of the stores. What more do people want from the industry?

I think I agree with you…I'm a little lost on your point here but I think you mean the rating industry right? Like how in the US violence is ok but nudity is a big no no and in the UK nudity is ok but violence is a big no no. In my opinion I think UK got it right. What would freak a kid out more, seeing in graphic detail somebody getting their head blown off or a naked lady? If somebody says naked lady..then there is something wrong with that individual and seek medical help immediatly :)

LMAO…nice little underhanded shot at me :biggrin: I love the way you put it "majority of grown ups with a certain cognitive complexity prefer the real thing to the virtual one." Man that is good…you get in two shots for the price of one. Implying I'm neither grown up or intelligent. Well, I wasn't talking about sex now was I, kiddo. I also prefer the real deal there ;) but I am also not ashamed about liking the female form in all of its glory. I think you are quite mistaken with the number of people who enjoy what you consider childish or just for young adults. Go to Japan and see how many different comics they have for all ages, not just kids. Also, check out the download stats on nude mods or even that The Witcher already has a nude patch and the toolset isn't even out yet(didn't know about that nude patch, gotta login to The Witcher forum more often)


The more I read what you say, the more I like it :) I think we are quibbling over little issues. I'm for the free market and you think that the developers should be held somewhat responsible. The problem is when do you draw the line. People aren't dumb, they can decide for themselves and if the developer pushes it too far, just watch how fast that developer goes out of business. Manhunter and Manhunter 2 comes to mind. Those are pieces of garbage that I won’t buy. I don’t think it did very well in sales either, but I could be wrong since I don’t give a rat’s behind about it. Will I cry wolf and say that it shouldn’t be made or even sold? No, let “grown ups” decide for themselves.

Anyways, I like what you say about too much violence and having a problem with it because that is what I think too. But in the end the parents and people will decide what they and their children play or not play.

Well, if the system is working than we don't have to change something… in your case it obviously worked, so that's great. But we know that in many cases it doesn't. And even if it doesn't work I'm not saying that we necessarily have to change something. The problem is that the games industry is holding a "everything goes" mentality which is backed up by the "adult label".

Hey, you explained it much better than I did!

I'm sorry… my intention was not to offend you. I only said that a majority of grown up prefers one thing over the other. That does not mean that something is wrong with the minority. And I used the term "cognitive complexity" because it sums up several factors wich might play a role in such a process. That does not mean that people who like something different are stupid or anything of that sort. But it's a simple truth that not everyone who is 18 (or even older… mid 20s, mid 30s, etc) has an adult mind set. Again, I don't want to disqualify people here… there is nothing bad with having a "childish" mind… I think that it can be very refreshing at times.
I have to admit that I have almost no experience with sexuality in games. I researched violence in the media for 2 years at university, it never even crossed my mind that nudity could be an interesting field as well. That might have to do with the fact that in Germany, where I live, nudity and sexuality in the media is not a big thing. Violence however is heatedly discussed…
So, I'm only guessing here. You might be right that I am wrong when it comes to sexuality in video games. I just worked from the following assumption: How much of a factor is sexuality (or nudity, etc.) in the process of buying a game? If it is a factor that plays a big role then games with such elements should usually sell more copies than other games… but I'm not sure if that's true. But as I said, my experience there is limited. Probably there are quite a few intervening variables, for example that there market is dominated by the USA, the quality of games, etc.

Very true… and I really can only agree to what you wrote there. But again, I'm not so much aiming at changing the system from the outside. I just wanted to show that there is a certain hypocrisy involved on both sides. Let me give you an example:

In Germany there is a big discussion going on if something like media induced violence exists or not. A lot of conservative politicans consider video games (and other media) the devil's work and of course the media are responsible if a teenager takes his father's gun and shoots his classmates. On the other hand you have quite a few gamers (a lot of them organized in initivatives nowadays) who will tell you that something like media effects, especially media induced violence does not exist, that games are just fantasy and not the real world, etc. Usually these gamers work together with the gaming industry. Now, I don't want to discuss if or if not media induced violence does exist - let's just say there are a lot of controverse studies… in fact the topic is extremly complex. What I want to show is the ironic hypocrisy that is involved in the relationship between these gamers and the gaming industry. For years now the gaming industry has tried to widen the boundaries of how much violence you can show in video games (mutilation of dead bodies, etc.)… I would call that a natural process, since violence in video games is attractive to certain audiences. We know violent games usually sell quite well (if the quality of the game is ok). The ironic thing is that by pushing the boundaries the gaming industry inevitably provokes a conservative backlash that goes way beyond what is reasonable. The result will be that society will in fact begin to include rather harmless games (like "The Witcher") in a discussion which does not even concern them. In Germany, for example, World of Warcraft was for a brief time mixed up with the "violence in media" discussion (and let's face it - in terms of violence it really cannot get any more harmless than WoW).
So what many gamers don't see is that the gaming industry is at least partly responsible for the ongoing discussion. It is exactely the gaming industry's attitude that "in games everything should be allowed" that so to speak backs up the argumentation of more conservative forces in society.

In pronciple you are right, but Ionstormsucks argued from a European - German, to be exact - perspective where things are believed a bit differently. Not too much differently, but a bit.

Parents have the responsibilities - does this leave younglings to erase their minds from any sort of responsibility ?

Taken to an extreme point, I could argue that one could use this as kind of an excuse … "My parents just didn't notice, because I hid it", extremely formulated.

Young people who feel no responsibilities because [they believe that] their parents should be paying attention to what they do don't necessarily grow into people who are able to take responsibilities later on.

In my opinion, responsibility is a thing that must be taught.

I like Germany's way of thinking my friend. It seems like the US has got it backwards.

I started a new thread in the P&R section if you want to continue this discussion. I wanted to see how many people think I'm a crackpot ;)

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showt…9241#post69241

Aren't you putting coach before horses Alrik? How exactly is this responsibility supposed to be thought if not by example? Just like skavenhorde's mother did? What's the alternative? Not paying attention and than punishing kids for being irresponsible?

There are no guarantees in parenting but don't responsible parents have better chances to bestow responsibility onto their kids than irresponsible ones?

Of course there should be examples; but on the other hand the young birds must learn to fly, too !

tranquill
 

Here an Israeli commentator warns of pogroms coming in America in response to Jewish participation in liberal movements. A curious read.
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/on-ant…in-america.htm

Curious indeed! But it's place is in General Forms/ Politics & Religion tranquill. You will get much better response there :)