What are your thoughts on the game's female characters?

@rethla: I said why. You and I just have a difference of opinion, and that's okay. But I explained it pretty explicitly.

I'll try one more time. In a roleplaying game, I go around collecting swords. I like collecting all the swords and see and I like comparing the stats on the swords, I like reading the flavor text on the swords and I like looking at how the swords are designed and evaluating their appearance. No matter how I collect these swords, I really never feel anything for the swords themselves, because they're just swords. They're a thing that you stab people with, or maybe hack some shrubbery with, or open a can of beans with. They're not a thing you develop a relationship with. They're just an object, something I collect because the developer put them there to collect.

That's what the designers did with the women in the first Witcher game when they boiled sexual conquests down to a collectible. Now, the named characters I would say have more emotional weight behind their stories, but there are many cards to collect that involve women that have no names and no real stories and the situations you need to put Geralt in to get these cards are kind of ridiculous. And in the end, you don't feel anything for these women, they're not people, they're a means to an end. A prize. So what is the point? It's not to feel a connection to these characters, it's just to fill out a score sheet.

That's what I found off putting about it. It's that the act of sex isn't about actually having a connection with a character in a game and building a story, it's just about collecting things. It's making women no better than swords or any other collectible to Geralt, and by extension the player. You fill your bag with loot and your virtual black book with trysts. I have no problem with sex scenes, I like them in fact if they are well done, which is a completely different discussion. What I take issue with is making the act of sex no different than clicking on a loot chest and getting a new sword.

Lore-wise, it's notable that sorceresses and witchers are sterile, meaning that their propensity to sleep around could partially be attributed to magic / mutation messing with their hormones.

So far (not too far in the game yet) I've found the characterization to be pretty convincing (even with the strong characters you get a good sense of how they're struggling). Gies' comment is not wrong regarding the world's attitude toward women, but it's pretty standard for the fantasy setting IMO (and CDPR is just following the books as far as that goes).

@ghostiet: @turambar: Not a gripe. An observation. I'm aware of the justification. The thread asked what I thought of the female characters in the game. Of the little I played, that was my perception of the female characters. Maybe as I keep playing I'll change my mind, maybe not.

@joshwent: posts like this are why GB just needs a damned "like" button already. Nothing to add. Really spot on my feelings.

I think its fine. Literally the most powerful beings in the world of the witcher are the sorceresses who are obviously all women. I think the female cast is treated well even Kiera who's decision to wear a incredibly revealing outfit is pretty well suited to her personality as she is incredibly vain person who values classical beauty very highly. Its also a tool she uses very frequently to use her wiles to get what she wants. She does just this to Geralt whom she seduces and then puts asleep with a spell so she can get the research papers from the isle and worm her way back into a potential life of luxury again. Like if you want to argue that Witcher 1 was sexist well you'd have more of a point as you literally god collectible cards with naked women as souvenirs of your sexual conquests. I think Witcher 2 and to a greater extent Witcher 3 paints its female characters especially the main cast in a much better light.

@joshwent said:

I dunno, I don't think it's that cut and dry. I agree that placing characters in sexist or racist peril isn't necessarily revealing of authorial prejudice, but there has to be a point to it all. Like, if the only function of women in your universe is to suffer at the hands of men and you're uninterested in examining the consequences of that, then you might actually be a sexist. To be clear, I'm not talking about The Witcher which I think is interested in that conversation, although it tends to come and go in fits and starts.

@jadegl: Well it seems to me your problem isnt actually related to the cards but how you aquire them which is my point. Theres considerable less "one night stands" in Witcher 2 and 3, In Witcher 1 Geralt and Dandelion practically hunts everything that moves but in later games Dandelion is the only one carrying that behaviour forth whereas Geralt is keeping himself together, at least when the player is watching..

It seemed fine to me. Sure, some of the characters are misogynist (Whoreson comes to mind here, in particular), but I don't think the world itself is misogynist at all. Geralt isn't, and Skellige certainly is.

There is little "point" to bigotry in our real world. So I don't think it's fair to put the onus on an artist to make occurences of it more deeply relevant in their creations.

The hate and violence that I and those close to me have experienced in life was always arbitrary and sudden, with little if no resolution and certainly not much to be learned from.

If we insist that artists need to be "saying something" with everything they create, and if they're saying the wrong things we can infer that they may believe those things themselves, we've significantly decreased the dynamic scope of art itself, let alone accurate depictions of how human beings actually act.

Still, I completely understand that a viewer may be put off by certain attitudes/themes/occurrences that they see in a work, and would therefore rather not consume it. If any gamer ever felt that The Witcher 3 was not just depicting a misogynistic world, but also innately misogynistic as a game, they have every right to that reaction and to not play it. And I'd never try to change their mind, as the beauty and difficulty of art is that it's more about what we take from it, rather than the creator's intent itself.

The trouble only arises when some conflate their reaction or the content of a piece with the intent. You just can't connect one to the other.

I don't know that re-creating an existing sexist standard of beauty is commentary unto itself. I think the game deftly deals with a ton of great issues, but it tends to both bemoan the fate of women in its world while simultaneously beautifying them for a presupposed male player. If you want to comment on how backwards the double standard is then show a sorceress who chooses not to change her figure with magic and show how that impacts her. Have women who don't fit the norm and show what happens.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts when you get further into the game. If you haven't seen Ciri yet, then you're barely scratching the surface of the story in the game. You meet female characters who don't seemingly exist as characters for Geralt to fuck. Gran, Ciri, the three sisters of the Crones all the ones I can think of early on off the top of my head. Even the female characters that Geralt can sleep with, serve a greater purpose than just being sex objects. The ONLY female characters that accurately fit that description are at the brothel. The female characters you encounter outside of that, all serve a purpose that's more than sex.

There's a few layers to the sorceresses beauties to read into, I think. Ultimately, you take it as you will...but considering the source, Andrzej Sapkowski, it's hard not to take it as commentary, if also a clever use of leveraging tropes of the fantasy genre. Andrzej Sapkowski created the Witcher in 1986 and the main series of novels, the saga really, began in 1994. Alot of what goes into those novels is addressing the tropes of fantasy storytelling. He even addressed classic slavic folklore, as well as classic fantasy tales like Sleeping Beauty, in his writing by putting a very different spin on things. You need to consider where these things started, and how I think he leveraged certain fantasy genre tropes to tell subversive stories, and say some really crazy shit that may or may not have been "okay" for the time (I'm American, so not sure about certain subjects like abortion were like in Poland). If having these tropes, like a stoic badass male lead and beautiful women who fill the universe (a VERY prevalent trope present in fantasy genres since fucking forever) can serve a purpose for the storyteller by ultimately allowing him to tell certain stories that would normally, especially considering the political climate an artist might be living in a certain time, without getting outright rejected by an audience, or shoved aside as some propaganda slinging loon.

That has always been my read on that stuff, as an artist. But, if you want to read into the fiction itself...there's some tragic shit to see about how, ultimately, women who cannot be used by their families are abandoned. It's a medieval-type setting, and so women (and children, really) are treated like pawns for political and social gains. A family that might be middle class can suddenly become an upperclass family if they have this beautiful daughter who can steal the heart of some young noble boy or something. But, the moment that young girl is shown to be useless to their family for that purpose, she can be outright abandoned. We're talking about girls with disabilities like missing limbs, limps, blindness, deafness, or illnesses, or even just being considered ugly by society's standards causes them to be ignored and viewed as worthless and they're literally abandoned. And so, you wind up having these people who have severe emotional, and psychological, insecurities that can be physically fixed by use of magic and they ultimately wind up being the most beautiful, attractive, and ageless figures in this universe (including the men, as well, who do use magic to look good, and stay young looking). The mages are, pretty muc outright, the celebrities of the Witcher universe. They live more extravagant lifestyles than the royals, and are so fucking elitists that it bleeds into actually likeable characters within that group of people. I've always read this as commentary about how fractured a person can be, despite the beautiful exterior. As time has worn on, I think it speaks even more volumes in a era where people use selective surgery to "improve" their looks with plastic surgery, and the culture of obsessing over beautiful celebrities who are ultimately just has broken, fucked up, and have as many issues as all of us who aren't famous.

As per the use of more beautiful sorceresses and ugly sorcerers (Stregobor from "The Lesser Evil" and Dethmold from Witcher 2), the truth is there are FAR more female characters than male characters mages. You're seeing the large volume of how many female characters there are. In The Witcher 2, for example, we had Dethmold who was a sorcerer. And we had Triss, Phillipa, Sile, Assire, and Cynthia. That's five to one, right there. Dethmold isn't indicative of the other sorcerers, even though he was a very minor character in the novels. But, by in large even in the novels there's just way more sorceresses that are major players to the fiction than sorcerers, primarily because the sorceresses are essentially fighting to bring about a feminist movement to the Northern Kingdoms by taking power away from the men who rule.

Like I said, there's a lot to read into and take away from this universe.

@firecracker22: Well that's good to know! I actually really like the Witcher games and I don't have a problem with like 90% of its depiction of women. It was largely a few costuming decisions, camera angles, and plot points that bothered me in the Witcher 2. I thought that Ves's outfit was ridiculous considering what her fellow soldiers were wearing. The culmination of her arc at the end of parts 1 and 2 felt exploitative and very damsel in distress. And I think that the male gaze is pretty dang strong whenever a woman disrobes in the game. The camera had a way of looking Triss and some of the other women up and down when ever they were on camera, but never did the same to Geralt. It just felt a bit skeevy.

I think the world is really well constructed on the whole. Its just a few nitpicks that took me out of the story here and there.

I feel like the game takes the tone of medieval culture realistically and also the writings of Andrzej Sapkowski into consideration when depicting women in this game. I was pretty surprised to see the cultural differences between people of the continent and Skellige for instance, Skellige pretty much being based off ancient Nordic culture. In Skellige, there are "Shieldmaidens" that guard towns (yet having a queen instead of a king ruling over the nation is a big deal for some reason?) and in the continent I have yet to see any warrior type women aside from elves or sorceresses.

The other female characters throughout the Witcher series have always had strong personalities and actions, yet they all seem to fall into cruel situations or onto the end of Geralt's pole.... which after reading the 1st set of short stories I felt a little odd, especially considering how Yennefer and Geralt fall in love. That whole situation felt a little love rapey, but thats just how the books were written I suppose. (I do love how you can get rid of Geralt's wish in this game, nice nod to the books and towards how relationships should be instead of forcing someone to love you basically.)

Throughout the whole game and my experiences with it, I don't feel there aren't any women characters that are written to pander towards a male crowd. Sure the visuals sometimes might be a different story, but at the same time, the world has clear explanations to why all the sorceresses flaunt themselves and I feel like many people cant blame the sorceresses for changing their bodies into attractive young women because of their appearances before the transformation occurs. Not to mention that all the romance options in the game never feel forced like they did in the 1st game.

Overall I feel the developers handled their female characters very well in comparison to other games that sometimes feel like they put zero effort into making them seem human.

When it comes to fiction, I think there's always a point (or, at least, a message), whether it's intended or not. If a creator decides to weave bigotry into their world, then they're either deliberately trying to address something thematically or using it as a plot device, character motivation or narrative flavour. The latter is where things get murky, because it's awfully easy to trivialise that behaviour if you don't have anything more to say than "shit happens". Which is their right, of course, but creators shouldn't be immune from criticism when they tread that path.

I dunno, it's kind of hard to discuss this kind of stuff in the abstract!

i feel like the lesson of something like the noonwraith is don't hurt/kill women or they will come back with vengeance. However, I left White Orchard so I'm not that far into the game.

Stendhal wrote 100 years ago:

Ah, Sir, a novel is a mirror carried along a high road. At one moment it reflects to your vision the azure skies, at another the mire of the puddles at your feet. And the man who carries this mirror in his pack will be accused by you of being immoral! His mirror shews the mire, and you blame the mirror! Rather blame that high road upon which the puddle lies, still more the inspector of roads who allows the water to gather and the puddle to form.

Interpret the reflection in the mirror for yourself.

You're right, of course, and I shouldn't have been so glib about it really. There's an obvious desire to titillate with some of these female characters.

I was thinking more of the books, I guess, where the reasons and the motives are discussed a bit more clearly, and that visual factor doesn't get in the way so much. The commentary around it, I feel, is that magic users all desire to install themselves in positions of power in the Witcher universe - but only the female ones have to use illusions to install themselves in those positions. The men manage just fine without. It's the reality of our world taken to an extreme - making it more immediately apparent and inviting you to make that comparison with real life. That qualifies as commentary to me?

@thomasnash: That certainly does. I just didn't see that level of nuance or depth in the second game during my playthrough and those distracting visual elements were really distracting. For one thing I didn't know that sorceresses modified themselves with magic so it just seemed like a ridiculous coincidence that all of the sorceresses were gorgeous. With that in mind it seemed like the game might just be going for pure sex appeal at the expense of tone or realism. However, given that greater context I think I can see the commentary, and its a good one. Thanks for the info!

Yeah, the sexualized aspects can be distracting I think. I agree wholeheartedly. But, I wonder if it's just a product of it's time. It's always been generally believed, even if it's not true anymore, that certain genres are directed at certain genders. The fantasy genre was always really just directed at males, with so many prevalent stereotypes about the guys who like nerdy stuff. That, and Europe aren't as conservative as we are in America about nudity and sex. It being an established universe kinda leaves them on the hook for everything, good and bad, that comes with it.

And yeah, I too had reservations about Ves's arc, too. I was on the fence about it, but wound up on the positive side because of Loredo. I thought there was some interesting commentary on how (via the agency of the player) one can view the exact same soul crushing crime committed by a nobody, and the other committed by a King. I've been thinking alot about it lately, too, in terms of society as well. Bill Cosby, for example. His fame and fortune have kinda served as a mean of protection for him, which I think is fair to say no matter which side you stand on. What ultimately bothered me most, and still does, was the sacrifice of an interesting and dominate female character. I don't know if I'd had felt differently if it had been a different, less fully realized, character.

It'd be an outright lie to say that the Witcher is female friendly, because there's stuff that makes me think it's always been directed at males. But, I would say there's alot there that serve the purpose of promoting rather liberal beliefs about things like sexism. There's also inclusions of themes about LGBT with gay characters. There was a particularly sad and tragic backstory early on in Witcher 3 about how anti-gay sentiments had completely destroyed the lives of an NPC and his partner.

This is probably a coup out for you none book readers but sorceresses in this universe all pretty much dress a certain way because of what they use to be like and the role they needs to play in court. Look around the game world and see the more normal looking peasantry women, those are what normal people wear in that universe (trumpets/hookers excepted).

To give none reader a little bit of context,(not game related) sorceresses are the ugly girls from a noble families that could not easily find a suitor, and so their family send them to magic school. As part of their training in polymorphy/healing they learn to "prettied up" which is why all sorceresses in the witcher universe are pretty. Most of them are also taken in as advisers to kings and queen. In an effort to blend in with high court (Triss dress a certain way normally and powdered up for court) as well as personal vanity(kaira is a self profess nymphomaniac), a lot of these sorceresses choose to dress a certain way either to draw attention or as a distraction for people who do not know better to lower their guards. Now people who understand how dangerous sorceresses are will never be taken in by their looks or the way they dress. Which is why, it is weirdly uncommon for kings/queens to have sorceress paramour. Now with that said, you can still feel put off by it but there are reasons for the way things are. Not just something random CDPR just did.

I advise you guys to read the book. I am not done with all the books yet but its pretty amazing.

@shinjin977: As you and other pointed out, the choice of having the sorceresses be that way is not innocent and is in line with the lore (that I admittedly don't know much about). I still don't know if it'll change my whole opinion on it, but it does change the context on which I'll judge the game. I appreciate that you took time to explain to me how it is set up in the books. Thank you for that.

@thatpinguino: My memory of the second game is pretty hazy to be honest. I feel like the main way that stuff comes in to play is pretty indirect in the games - you see a lot of resentment towards sorceresses (particularly from Radovid) for having the amount of influence they do (I feel like I remember that a key part of the plot in 2 was trying to dispossess the lodge of this power to weaken the northern kingdoms?). There's some stuff around this in 3 as well, revolving around Phillipa Eilhart.

But that doesn't really amount to any of what I've said, so much as it points in an oblique way to those kind of dynamics in the world?

But yeah. You're not at all wrong. I think that the most charitable thing you can say about the games might be that CDPR are trusting that the players are as into the source material as they are!

@firecracker22: I love the gray areas in the Witcher and I agree with you that the game is largely progressive in its politics and nuanced in its characterizations. I actually recorded a video on how great I thought it handled moral ambiguity. I just wish that the games were a little better about representation.

It sounds like I'll have to pick up the Witcher 3 now. Those stories sound really interesting.

@shinjin977:All of the explanations from book readers give so much more context to this stuff than the games did, at least for me. It makes me wonder how much subtext I'm still missing from those games.

On the other hand this disconnect between the experiences of players who play the games with different levels of focus or attention to side content really highlights one of the interesting issues with interpreting games. It can be really hard to find a common experience among players of expansive games because it is possible to miss huge chunks of context or exposition. How you interpret a character or a moment can change so much based on how you play or what you do that it can make discussions difficult without a lot of prefacing. You almost need to explain your playstyle and what sidequests you saw in order for another person to really understand where you're coming from on a game as deep as The Witcher.

@shinjin977: Huh. I don't know that it would change my opinion on Keira, Yennefer or Triss but I kind of wish they had explored this stuff in the games rather than just use it as an excuse to sexy up their leading women.

@conmulligan: Talking about changing of opinion, here is something you guys would know if you read the book "The Last Wish" that is actually in the game. It is named after the real book "The Last Wish" which tells a story of how geralt first met Yenn. In it you learn that Yenn was originally a hunchback but Geralt still loves her despite that. A bit off topic but I was fully expecting the game to go into that whole thing, my biggest complain about this game.

That's because most of the characters you are mentioning are also Sorceresses who have appearances to keep up (society expects them to look like that) and literally use magic to make themselves look that way. Sorceresses in the witcher world (and sorcerers and witchers for that matter) are also sterile and cant have children. So they really don't have have any big reason not to just screw anyone they want as they can mostly use magic and alchemy to beat any disease and have 0% chance of having a kid.

That said the Crones are female, powerful characters in the Witcher world, and they aren't very attractive either. Always an exception to ye olde rule. Of course there is Ciri too, if she bothered actually mastering her powers and completing her Witcher initiation she would probably be the most powerful individual in the world.

@quantris:I don't think their hormones are effected but let's also be honest. If a person has magic powers that could make them extremely attractive, immunize/remove any disease they could catch, and they were 100% sterile and knew it how many in that scenario would just go around and have sex with whoever they wanted that was willing? I bet lots of people in that scenario would whacked out hormones or not. The only thing really stopping you is personal moral code and or standards of who you will get physical with. Also don't forget, in all seriousness, sex can be a lot of fun especially when it is consequence free, and most people like having fun.

I'm not sure how anyone could read this game as misogynistic. Beyond the events of the second game (in which a entirely female secret society topple multiple kings in an attempt to create a magic kingdom), this game establishes multiple strong female characters, such as: (note, these marked spoilers are from the Witcher 3 and are pretty fucking big)

1. Ciri, the linchpin of the entire game,
2. Yennefer, formal royal adviser and one of the most powerful characters in the games, who has a major role in defending Ciri from The Wild Hunt's attack on Kaer Morhen. She also takes very little of Geralt's shit, coming off as quite cold sometimes, and normally takes the lead in their adventures together.
3. Triss, adviser to King Foltest, member of the above mentioned secret society who single handily takes it upon herself to evacuate Novigrad's mage population, as well as helping to repel the Kaer Morhen attack.
4. Keira Metz, another sorcerer who easily outwits poor Geralt (at least she outwitted me!) and can also be convinced to defend Kaer Morhen.
5. Philippa Eilhart, who is responsible for murdering King Radovid if you chose to complete a certain mission.
6. Cerys An Crate, who can be made queen depending on your choices and is known for out-brawling her brother, a man who (with your help) later slays an ice giant.
7. Ves, while she may dress inappropriately for her chosen profession (poor Roche even calls her out on it), is a very capable fighter who refuses to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others (a mission is based around that fact), and can also be convinced to help you defend Kaer Morhen.

There's probably a bunch more that I missed, but those seven are big parts of the game who (outside of Keira who is way into quick hook ups) are absolutely not just there for eye candy or as sex objects. You can have a romance subplot with Yen or Triss, but it goes far deeper than just fucking to gain a trading card or whatever, and the love triangle between those two and Geralt is handled quite well (and can be quite funny: Yen tossed the bed at Kaer Morhen out of the tower in my playthrough, since Geralt and Triss had used it together, leading to some snarky quips between the two of them).

Frankly, I'm not even sure the world is misogynisitc; to me, it seems like 99% percent of women and 95% of all men in this game have it really fucking bad, with the only people staying afloat are either rich, powerful, or magical (and as the game goes on, even the magical ones are being put to the torch), and the game happens to focus quite a lot of its attention on the females that are doing alright for themselves. I'd challenge anyone to find a fictional world in which this many powerful women play this much of an important role in the story. Often I feel that Geralt is a bit of a sideshow to their dealings and machinations, getting pulled along by their plots and plans vs leading them by the hand.

@shinjin977: They do go into detail about the wish itself, though.

@whitestripes09: "That whole situation felt a little love rapey, but thats just how the books were written I suppose."

It can give off that vibe, but I never interpreted it as such on Geralt's part. Geralt in the books has a very particular bone to pick with the concept of fate, and I always interpreted his wish as another childish attempt to challenge it (the fact that you can undo it in the game and yet keep on loving Yennefer is a nice nod to that) - similarly to his equally petty decision to invoke the Law of Surprise with Ciri, and twice no less.

Stop giving Polygon pageviews.

I think this article by Erik Kain from Forbes brilliantly describes how the world of The Witcher is a lot more complex than some are giving it credit for. It also points out how sometimes feminist arguments can be problematic without attacking or belittling feminism or feminists. Definitely worth a read given our discussion: Here it is

Well, truth be told feminists can be just as divided as anything else. I identify as feminist, and find other feminists whom I disagree with on things. You get people on the same spectrum who are just on different sides of it. Alot of feminists are happy with Mad Max: Fury Road, for example. But, FF saw it as a sexist film. So, like anything else there are different views about where we stand.

But, I'll go back to my original post and just say that it's kind of sad to me that something that is so pro-feminist getting criticized for being anti. I'm reminded of Joss Whedon mentioning how we can turn on eachother even though we're for the same thing, in the end.

All I can say is, The Witcher 3 has excellent writing, it has both strong and weak women like in real life. It has also lots of awesome men who are bad asses and men who are just straight up losers, again like in real life. There will be sexualized and highly erotic women, because like in real life those exist, and I think they went out of their way to create a realistic gritty and fucked up fantasy world. So yes, certain aspects are probably misogynistic. Just my point of view, but what is more important and god damn fact is that Keira Metz is awesome and I like her way better than both Triss and Yennefer.

You have to remember though, CDproject red did NOT create the witcher universe it is based off novels just like game of thrones. It's not a convenience to explain it, it's cannon in the novels from my understanding.

Anyway, back to others in the topic i don't think the argument is "The witcher 3 is a misogynistic world" it clearly is, NPC's will randomly joke about beating their wives while you walk around. However, it's like saying the movie Roots is racist because it depicts slavery? I can't think of a more fantasy example at the moment though, but a piece of work depicting something deplorable doesn't make the work itself deplorable. Maybe it's not perfect in the way it does it, but it clearly attempts at commentary through fantasy. Is there a double standard with the male and female mages? yeah, probably. However it seems to reflect the world the witcher is set in as well asreality itself, and does a pretty good job at it in my opinion.

I will throw this out there but in the books particularly all the big bad ass magic users are female (and the same is pretty much true in the games) except for one guy in the books who is basically the best of the best sir, and the guy who is one of your main antagonists in Witcher 1. The guy from the books gets referenced in the games a couple times but anyone who doesn't know the books is likely to miss it, and he doesn't appear in the games of course (or at least he hasn't yet haven't quite finished Witcher 3). So there is "sort of" a double standard when it comes to the magical world where women seem mostly dominant.

The world of The Witcher is a shitty misogynistic place, the game isn't misogynistic. I think many of the women in this game are doing well for themselves based on the world they live in. The main women characters seem to be strong.

I really need to pick up these books up one day.

@karkarov: Very true. All the badass mages are all women. There's only two male mages I can think of that are of any real note to the saga and only one of them is a major character, and of considerable talent. The most badass mages, even ones that aren't focal points of the stories, are women for sure. I'm up to "Baptism of Fire", and even someone like Francesca who isn't really seen, save for a short cameo-like scene where she meets Geralt, is clearly carving out a pocket of dominance by becoming a ruler, and with her reputation, you know she's a badass. The position of power, in terms of magic, seems entirely concentrated on women. Which seems to make sense when you consider the creation and mission statement of the Lodge of Sorceresses.

I think the major sticking point with this "debate" is that some of us understand this is a video game fantasy world written in about a society from 800 years ago. A society where people took the church's word as infallible law, burned people at the stakes, and never heard of democracy, think disease is cause by evil spirits, etc. The people complaining seem to think that people though and acted the same in Geralts era and just don't have cars and iPads to make them more like "us". Hey guess what? Women didn't have it that easy back then. They could get married off as property for the god/husband in a peasant family for a couple goats or married off at birth in a noble family and pump out a male heir.

Just play the game and don't read into it too much. Just count yourself lucky you only found two brothels(optional) in the Witcher 3's 52 square miles.

It feels misogynistic in the way that pretty much every quest that involves women is about how they fell hopelessly in love with someone, or something like that. The spectrum of female side characters, as deep as Velen at least, feels much narrow than the male ones, which I think is pretty blatantly misogynistic, and not in a way that 'fits' with the world (thus is more the developers being misogynists, not their characters). That being said Keira's a pretty awesome character, and all the main ladies are pretty fleshed out, though in more ways than one. Sometimes their costumes feel like they were designed by thirteen-year-old boys...

@cabelhigh: what about the run in with the female elf who was being harrassed by a group of human males? Standing up for her and seeing her reaction pretty much called the player out for a "hero complex", only seeking to save a woman for the instant gratification of the moment without caring, or considering, the larger issues about how to make society better.

It was subversive.

And Kiera's cleavage is actually canon, straight from the novels, for what it's worth.

@firecracker22: Oo haven't got to that part yet - though I do love how often the game calls you out for trying to be a hero. I feel like one or two moments of subversion don't, at least so far, break from the lack of variety for roles for women in the side quests. Like, dudes can be werewolves and hunters and guardians of their village - so far most women have been hopelessly in love with some man, which eventually led to their doom.

And yeah, I read up on some of that stuff and think it's pretty funny. Still, cleavage is cleavage. Though the sex scenes are amazing.

@cabelhigh: True, but I wonder if it's just because of the society. Usually, in the Witcher the more powerful and most liberated women are the ones who have broken from society. Sorceresesss, or Elves or maybe a Golden Dragon. Outsiders of the main society, really. But, the sidequests aren't as fleshed out as the main quests...though, they still feel miles ahead of other games sidequests where we get no cutscenes or dialogue. Could get better, though, since there's so many sidequests. I'm 90 hours in, and still have plenty to go.

That moment with the female elf was in Oxenfurt, I think. It wasn't a quest, just a cutscene and decision moment for Geralt. It was a small moment, but it kinda blew my mind.

I felt the same way about a NPC in White Orchard who gave some backstory (if you pressed him for it) about how anti-gay sentiments in town ad completely ruined his life and his partner's. There's moments like that, I think maybe even the Bloody Baron quest, were it feels like there's commentary of real world issues.

@firecracker22: Woah what? Completely missed the homophobic quest. That's so cool they included something like that.

I'm not making this post as an agreement or disagreement to what you've said, I just want to point out something that stood out to me...

think disease is cause by evil spirits

Evil spirits do exist in the world of The Witcher and do cause problems, but oddly enough people know that natural diseases aren't caused by evil spirits, or at least the educated know. There's discussion of mutations in The Witcher - Geralt himself is a mutant - and Triss quite clearly talks about cancer and cells in The Witcher 2. A society that knows enough about biology to discuss cancer probably has a pretty solid idea of what causes diseases and stuff.

I know it was an offhanded comment and this post is kind of off-topic, but I thought it was worth bringing up. The world that The Witcher takes place in looks and feels like medieval Europe, but there are major and notable differences.

I'm not incredibly far into the game (I don't think) but I'm not loving the women in this game. I have no real issue with people in the world being misogynistic as it's a brutal and uncaring world and it's going to be populated by some unsavory characters. I've just found that the bigger female roles have lacked a lot of weight or depth to their characters, this might be because I haven't played the previous two games and thus am missing out on some context for them?

Not sure, but then again I feel the same about some of the male characters in the game so it might just be me looking at The Witcher with too critical of an eye.

SO hot.

That seems a strong assesment if you didn't play much of the game. I don't know what "incredebly far" means to you, could you eleborate? Which of the characters did you meet? Why do you think they lacked depth?

@2headedninja: I just got to Skellige, about level 17ish. I feel like I'm about 1/3rd of the way through the game? I would consider that not incredibly far.

So far I've met Keira, Priscilla, Triss, and Yen - as far as females who are given a bit more focus. I think my biggest complaint is that it all seems a bit "Oh hey! It's Geralt, we love Geralt, we'll help!" I don't really know why they'd help him, what they'd benefit, what they fight for, what they're fearful of. Just... anything about them that goes into making a well-rounded character. For the most part they just seem a bit purposefully obtuse and mysterious. Though, the more I type this out the more I realize it's a complaint I have about the game as a whole. With the only character I've really appreciated the writing on so far being the Baron.

Again, I'm sure a lot of this stuff is answered in the previous two games, and I don't dislike the game for it as I realize it's a price to pay when jumping in at the tail end of a series. This is just my opinion, and I'm definitely not calling the writing in the game bad by any means, I'm just picky when it comes to characters.

@cabelhigh said:

Yeah, it was the hunter, Mislav, you met in White Orchard early in the game during "The Beast of White Orchard" quest. There was a conversation he had with Geralt where he referred to himself as a "freak". Geralt can try to get him to open up by saying he's called a freak by people as well. Mislav tells Geralt about an affair he was having with the son of the Lord of White Orchard, but the stable worker had walked in on the two and ratted them out the Lord. Mislav was fired, and publicly outed, and got shunned by the rest of the community. His partner, the son of the Lord in town and heir to the title, was so embarrassed and ashamed that he committed suicide.

Geralt's reply of, "I'm sorry..." seriously felt about as heartfelt as could be to me.