Should Blood and Wine be Eligible for GOTY?

@wynnduffy: If you are to play the Witcher 3, finish it before playing the expansions.

No, it's content for a game that came out last year, and isn't standalone, like The Last of Us' Left Behind. Yes, it has many hours of content, but that's not a good enough reason to let it be considered (though yes, if I could, I guess I would put it somewhere on my list). Considered as best DLC, yes, but best game? No.

@rahf said:

Thanks, I'll save it for after then. It's the biggest game I haven't dived into with my relatively new PC yet, saving for the holidays.

Can you actually play it "Standalone" or does it have leveled content? If it has a Dragon Age esque option to level you up to the content, maybe. But it's not the game of the year... it's the... content of the year possibly? It feels weird to say that new story ontop of an existing experience is a new game. Especially one that benefits so much from context of the original content of the game.

Would be interesting to have community choice for every category, then it would have a more clear cut place to get recognized.

@opusofthemagnum: i assume you can play it stand alone. I bought Witcher 3 goty last week and it asked whether I wanted to go straight for either of the expansions and if so that it would level and gear up geralt appropriately.

But where do you draw the line between say assassins creed revelations, modern warfare 3, telltale walking dead season 2 and something like blood and vine?

It's a no. It can't stand alone. DLC category sure. But not as a game.

If the taken king can be considered and this can't, that's really uncool.

Blood and Wine is definitely my GoTY, despite having almost 100 hours in FFXV as well. I do like Doom and Hitman a lot as well they just didn't grab me the way the other two did.

if it was a stand alone game that didn't require witcher 3 to play, then sure.

Still not getting any actual reason as to why it has to be a standalone expansion to count other than 'reasons.' If it's piggybacking existing content and still manages to be more compelling than new content then that's just all the more impressive.

You can select an option in the menu to start a new character at the recommended level and it gives you the gear and ability points required to.

No, it's DLC

@lawgamer: I feel way less crazy now. I did the same thing.

@betterley: "I'm sorry, but this post is complete trash. Are you joking? Because this sounds like a bunch of politically correct drivel that's completely off base."

If you want to talk with me, you could try being polite.

"Does the fact that prostitutes exist in a work fiction automatically make it sexist?"

Depends. Are there male prostitutes? If so, does the game handle them the same as their female counterparts? Are the female or male prostitutes given agency? What role do they play in the world's socioeconomics? Again: it depends.

"Yes, you can save prostitutes in The Witcher 2, but you don't have to have sex with them. The games are about player choice."

Saving damsels that then turn around and offer you their bodies as reward, is exactly the kind of sexist things I'd rather avoid playing or supporting.

"To call this series 'grotesquely sexist' proves you no nothing about the games or books."

I do in fact know little. But that's not a convincing sentiment. I know little of John Wayne Gacy, but I feel I know enough to condemn the man.

"In the Witcher 2 The Lodge of Sorceresses, which is made up of women, is perhaps the most powerful organization in the universe."

Ok.

"Spoiler quote"

Because of course it's the kings.

"This is just one example. Not to mention Yennifer, who's probably one of the most fierce woman characters in fiction."

I've never understood this line of reasoning. A strong woman can exist in a sexist universe.

"Don't just read what a bunch of feminists have to say about the series and take it as fact."

Your mudslinging doesn't help your cause.

"Are there sexist characters in the Witcher? Of course. Is the entire saga sexist? Absolutely not."

The player in the only game of the series I played (the first one) is a man given the option to have sex with almost every female character they interact with, and are rewarded for doing so with collectable, softcore porn cards. Apparently this trend of women as reward continues for our male lead in the sequel, with prostitutes offering themselves to the heroic player should they save their lives. I'm not interested in male power fantasy. It's repugnant to me.

"This isn't entirely true either. Yes, some women 'swoon' over Geralt, but others are equally repulsed by him. Geralt is, after all, a mutant."

You attributed to me a quote I never said.

To make the topic clear: DLC should not be eligible for game of the year, least of all for a game that treats the sexes the way The Witcher does.

Yes, if you say no ! you're a monster, also most ignored AAA GB game of 2015 :D. Americans only seem to care about games made on there hemisphere ! :D

Also what's the word "game" even mean these days ? DLC should be part of the word "Game". Since it's released in 2016, and it's part of a game it should be eligible.

No, in the sense it is DLC for a 2015 game. I think there's a case to be made that Blood and Wine can be nominated for things like best story or what have you. It's just not really a full "game".

@canadianmath: I understand you may want to perpetuate the discussion, but let's leave this where it lays. This is a suggestion to other forum members that may want to rail onward regardingthe male narrative.

OnT: I am still conflicted regarding its inclusion as a game of the year. It is building on top of an already established game, which has already had its year of glory. We already knew what it would look like technically -- a fantastic collage of breathtaking views -- and we definitely knew how it would play.

It was typecast before release. For all intents and purposes a known performance. And what a performance that was.

@canadianmath: I probably shouldn't continue this conversation as it's off topic of what this thread is for, but I can't resist. Does The Witcher have sexist tendencies? Yes, definitely. Is it outright sexist and irredeemable? No. The sad truth is that our world is sexist at heart, and that spills over into every aspect of our lives. This includes media/art. Is the answer to condemn everything with any notion of sexism? Just my opinion, but I don't think that would help anything. Personally I am 100% for calling out these issues for what they are: stupid and unnecessary. That's just me though.

And to answer your question, The Witcher 3 is 100 times better than the first game when it comes to female representation. It's, literally, a night and day comparison. It's inclusion of brothels with prostitutes feels like an afterthought; something they did because they figured it was expected of them. They do redeem themselves a bit by having a moment where they kick Geralt out once they are done, making him look pathetic in the process. It's still lazy and unnecessary, but besides that the game does a great job when representing women. I think you would be pleasantly surprised if you gave it a chance.

It's the most fun I've had with a game this year so I hope it can get recognition in some way at least

The Taken King was on last years game of the year list for a lot of people so yeah, I don't see why not.

Yes, they should Include the TW3 DLC, here is my reasoning why it should be included. (VERY MILD SPOILER WARNING)

1. Blood and Wine, while being dependant of the base game adds a independent story. What I mean with this is that the things they added here is completly encapsulated and is almost unrelated to the things happening in the main game.
2. It adds an entire region, which is also completly encapsulated from the base game also. The things happening in Blood and Wine are happening within that region. There is stuff added to the base game but it only serves to connect between the Main regions and Toussaint, which is the name of the new region they've added in the DLC.
3. Toussaint follows its own rules and doesn't add to the already existing ones in previous regions. So because it is an encapsulated experience, things happening within that region are unrelated to the things happening with the base game. With this in mind I believe that it counts as a different experience than the base game and even the other DLC. Only the gameplay is the same.
4. Blood and Wine does not add any significant changes towards the base game as most of it does it is to add an entire Story Arc (6-30 hours long, depending if you want to do sidequests and explore the world). Anything that is improved with the base game is added to the vanilla patch and is not related to Blood and Wine.
5. With all of this in mind, I go as far and say that the DLC is large enough to players not going back into the base game anymore. Blood and Wine can be seen as a less packed sequel to the Witcher in a similar vain that Half Life episodes. With the exception that Blood and Wine still requires the Base Game.
6. You do not require to have played the Base Game before Blood and Wine. In fact, the game gives you a head start so you can immediately jump in to the DLC content if you want to without even touching anything else.

So to counter these arguements, here are the ones against adding Blood and Wine to the GOTY list.

1. It is Base Game dependant, which means you have to download The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.
2. It requires a certain amount of knowledge to the Base Game (Blood and Wine is late game content)
3. It is called DLC...which can mean everything to "Spend 5 bucks to get cheat items so you can level up faster" to "Spend 20 bucks to get a entire new game which can stand in its own feet". The term itself is sort of detrimental of what this add-on is and what its meant to be.
4. The gameplay is similar to the Base Game.

So, whats the conclusion? Well, as I already wrote I think it should be added. If you're unsure if it should be added to the GOTY list, heres a small block of questions you should ask yourself with every purchase you're doing if you're buying Video Games.

"Does the DLC I'm purchasing add new experiences to my enjoyment I'm having while playing Video Games by providing me with new things/experiences? Or does this DLC only add to my pre-existing experience by enriching gameplay with new set pieces and/or stuff that only add convenience to me?"

If it is the former, it should count as a whole new experience while also acknowleding that there are DLCs that could stand on their own feet. It only doesn't because, well, it counts as DLC. The Label alone shouldn't tell if the contents of it are worthwhile or not. DLCs should always be judged individually like games.

To exemplify what I mean, you can compare The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and The Witcher 3: Blood and Wine in a similar relation to Gothic 1 and Gothic 2. The only exceptions are that Gothic 2 is not shorter than Gothic 1 and is also not "Base Game dependant" (I've written Base Game like in every of my sentences already.) on Gothic 1. Gothic 2 still requires you to have played Gothic 1, while I go as far and say that you could enjoy Blood and Wine as its own game without having touched anything The Witcher 3 has to offer.

EDIT: I knew that Blood and Wine got allowed to be included but I just wanted to add my own reasoning to the mix :P. Also this means that my GOTY list I've sended is inaccurate now but meh, nobodys perfect.

Considering a piece of DLC a valid game of the year contestant!? What madness is this?!!?

I don't care how good the add on is, it can run for best DLC at best.

Stop being so cray cray, peoples.

Normally I'd abject to any kind of DLC being included in any GOTY discussion but when that DLC is, for all intents and purposes, a separate game then it breaks that rule. Easily the best expansion I've played for a game. Everything feels placed and written to bring a adventurous romp to The Witcher. I get the impression CDPR were having so much fun making this. I will never forget taking drugs and talking to my horse.

my thing about goty in general is that we should just celebrate what we've been playing over the year. Maybe the newest *original* titles take a higher precedence because they represent what makes this year special in video games, but if it came out this year then why does it matter? I mean sure it's based on a game that was hugely regarded last year, but if you enjoyed immensely than you enjoyed it immensely, y'know? Then again, I think if we played a game like Super Mario World all year and enjoyed that immensely than we should talk about that too, so idk, maybe I'm crazy.

Well I put it at #2 on my list that I submitted