ferrhis-

Peanus farm

It's definitely my favorite game in that genre. It dethroned KOTOR for me, so that's a big deal. KOTOR was also my favorite game overall, so I guess that makes The Witcher 3 the best game I've ever played? Huh. For those arguing its "just another western RPG" I would counter by saying it provides good answers to the questions that genre has been asking for a while. It's not a paradigm shift, but the template it created is significant and will have a lasting effect on the genre. Namely on how to create an interesting open world environment and how to tell a complex, detailed story within that universe. Instead of walking the tired tropey lines of "hero out to save the world" the Witcher 3 puts you in the shoes of a compelling but relatively under powered protagonist. Geralt is constantly fighting with forces that are frankly beyond his grasp, from politics to supernatural entities, not to mention his own personal history. The game world is positively littered with jobs to do, people to meet, creatures to kill, etc.

For me Geralt has always been a conduit for reaching the infinitely vast universe of The Witcher. Instead of using the world to tell a story about Geralt, CDPR use Geralt to illuminate small pieces of the world. The game left me with the impression that I was just scratching the surface of Geralts world, and that's something I rarely get from other Western RPGS. The goal is usually to make the player feel "special" somehow, with the game world tailored to the generally overpowered player. Just compare the world building and story arc in TW3 to some recent games in the genre and you'll see the difference immediately (Mass Effect, Dragon Age Inquisition, Skyrim, etc).

edit: side note, I doubt this game will get GOTY talk here since basically nobody on the crew seemed to take the time to play it. It was really disappointing hearing Jeff rail on the controls and ignore literally everything else the game has to offer. Hopefully Dan will pull a Brad this year and convince everyone else that's its actually a great game.Though GOTY will probably come down to that Destiny expansion and CODBLOPS 27 or something like that...pity, but thats the way it goes.

@homelessbird: I think the difference, especially in film, is that most critics are clearly expressing their opinions without an expectation of change on the part of the content producers. For instance Leonard Maltin famously gave Taxi Driver a low review because he found the movie to be really depressing. He simply didn't enjoy it. But I hardly think he would suggest that Scorcese change his film making style or even worse feel sorry or guilty for making such a depressing film. In fact I bet Maltin would say "to hell with my opinion, keep doing what you do buddy." Because on the whole he has given Scorcese favorable reviews and obviously respects him as an artist. He made it very clear that it was his opinion and his opinion alone, not a sweeping statement on the state of film making as a medium or Scorcese as an artist. (If Maltin wrote for Kotaku, the headline would probably look like "Scorcese the sexist: his influence on the rise of misogyny in cinema.") On the flip side, some game critics have made it clear that they are bothered by the lack of ethnic diversity and a perceived degree of misogyny in The Witcher 3. If the argument ended there, that would simply be an individual opinion and we could all skip off into the sunset. But when it extends into "and I think there should be more (blank) in games" that opinion becomes a tool to enact change. And you can't have change unless...people change. There is a way to share your opinions without pushing an agenda of change. Book, cinema and music critics pretty much have that down at this point which is why these discussions are rare in those fields. (though they do happen, like in the case of Paul Simon's album Graceland).

And in regard to your second paragraph, I think any critique can be made to push a particular agenda. But that has little to do with the content of the argument and more to do with how it is framed and contextualized. For example, a big reason Anita Sarkeesian is so polarizing is because she tends to frame her arguments very particularly. Specifically she picks scenes from games that support her political opinions and omits scenes that do not. There are plenty of youtube videos that use her style to argue that games are sexist towards men or that they support animal cruelty, etc. None of that politicization is necessary however to discuss ones opinion of a game or medium.

Oddly or not, I don't find this issue complicated at all. I think the difference in opinion comes from our differing understandings of freedom of expression.

I was just watching a Milton Friedman video on equality. He was discussing economic freedom, but I found this one quote particularly relevant to this discussion.

"There is an enormous difference between liking to see a result and being in favor of a particular method of achieving that result. Because if I were wrong, if freedom led to wider inequality, I would prefer that to a world in which I got artificial equality at the expense of freedom. My objective, my God if you want, is freedom."

Hopefully this will help to elucidate the opinions that Austin finds so troubling. I am in favor, in general, of ethnic diversity in games. As long as that diversity is a natural product of free artistic expression. I would never want to limit the freedom of an artist in order to appease my particular tastes and opinions, or the tastes and opinions of others. This extends to the world of criticism. I can critique bugs, mechanics, and QTEs all day long. But artistic expression is another beast entirely. I believe critiquing artistic decisions (lore, worldbuilding, skin color & genitalia of the protagonist etc.) in the hopes that developers change to better suit me acts against my desires and reduces freedom of expression in the medium. It is my responsibility, not someone elses, to produce art that appeals to my particular worldview. In fact the personal and particular nature of art is what makes it so fascinating. I would argue further that the way to increase/decrease (insert buzzword here) in games is to promote freedom of expression unilaterally. Especially if I find the result of that expression to be offensive or in any way distasteful. The reason is I want myself and other potential artists to enjoy that same freedom in the event we choose to make games.