Interview More Cyberpunk 2077: Pseudo-Interview with Project Director Mateusz Kanik at GameTrailers

[Cowboy Moment]

I haven't played Witcher 2, but I definitely prefer the first Witcher's way of handling sex to say, Bioware's. Sure. it's kind of juvenile, but I prefer that to the creepiness of say, Mass Effect's treatment of relationships. If you remove the silly sex cards and cut down on the amount of encounters in general, I think it would be just fine.

Turning sex into a collect-a-thon is supergross. Witcher 2's body-slapping softcore sex scenes were grosser and more ridiculous than any sex scene Bioware's done.

As far as I can tell the sex scenes in Witcher 2 are about the same as in most M-rated B-grade movies out there. What's so gross about those? I mean, it's not Last Tango in Paris, but I don't see anything particularly awful about them either.

That's kind of besides the point though, since I was mostly referring to relationships, rather than the sex scenes themselves. In the first Witcher, relationships with most of the women you meet can be summed up as "You're hot, I'm hot, let's fuck!" - which, while juvenile and shallow, is still mostly normal and healthy, especially for teenagers. On the other hand, in most Bioware relationships mirror a therapist sleeping with his patient - lots of uncomfortable and creepy undertones, and the effort to make them "emotionally engaging" further amps up the creepiness.

To sum it up, they both allow the player to realize a juvenile power fantasy, I just think the one in Witcher is healthier. Sex cards were extremely silly though.

 

[Roguey]

As far as I can tell the sex scenes in Witcher 2 are about the same as in most M-rated B-grade movies out there. What's so gross about those? I mean, it's not Last Tango in Paris, but I don't see anything particularly awful about them either.

It's embarrassing juvenile shit.

That's kind of besides the point though, since I was mostly referring to relationships, rather than the sex scenes themselves. In the first Witcher, relationships with most of the women you meet can be summed up as "You're hot, I'm hot, let's fuck!" - which, while juvenile and shallow, is still mostly normal and healthy, especially for teenagers. On the other hand, in most Bioware relationships mirror a therapist sleeping with his patient - lots of uncomfortable and creepy undertones, and the effort to make them "emotionally engaging" further amps up the creepiness.

Viewing women as things to collect isn't healthy.

 

[Infinitron]

Yo, Roguey http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/dragoncon-after-dark.75672/page-3#post-2254075

You know what's a good reflection on sexuality in games? The first Witcher game. Geralt is a medieval-man who sleeps with women because wants to. That's it. The women are objectified and used and that's just the way the world is. The "commentary" on sexuality is at its most fundamental, simplest, best form: it is self-evident.

Is it Geralt who objectifies the women, or is it women who objectify Geralt, seeing him as nothing more than a walking penis they can fuck with no risk of pregnancy or STDs?

It's not like any of the women Geralt sleeps are unwilling or even reluctant. They might coyly put up some token resistance to his advances, but apart from Triss they're all happy to have a quick lay and then see Geralt gone from their lives with no further complications.

The characters themselves objectify one another -- as you said, Geralt is something of a stud that women want to sleep with. That is half the point. The game's objectification comes from the card collecting, but the concept itself is derivative of any man who "notches his belt" with every lay. It is not different from our world. Mafia II pulled something similar with the Playboy centerfolds. People screamed objectification, but that was the point -- it served the character, the time period, etc. I'm not saying these are bad things, I'm saying both games took sexuality a bit more seriously than BioWare has yet to. Neither game is gonna be some pillar of sexual commentary, I am not saying that, but at least there was some effort there to have the sex involved with the characters and story. BioWare, on the other hand, has sex for the simple reason to have sex. They push sex because "sex sells," not because they want interesting characters or some social narratives, and that's why it is ridiculous for this guy to be holding this panel. And why did he hold it? Because he has gays fucking one another consequence-free in a medieval-world more sexually liberal than the modern? Makes perfect sense.

 

[SoupNazi]

Viewing women as things to collect isn't healthy.

roguey talking about unhealthy treatment of women

my mind is blown

 

[Cowboy Moment]

As far as I can tell the sex scenes in Witcher 2 are about the same as in most M-rated B-grade movies out there. What's so gross about those? I mean, it's not Last Tango in Paris, but I don't see anything particularly awful about them either.

It's embarrassing juvenile shit.

Are B-grade movies embarassing juvenile shit in general, or just the sex scenes?

That's kind of besides the point though, since I was mostly referring to relationships, rather than the sex scenes themselves. In the first Witcher, relationships with most of the women you meet can be summed up as "You're hot, I'm hot, let's fuck!" - which, while juvenile and shallow, is still mostly normal and healthy, especially for teenagers. On the other hand, in most Bioware relationships mirror a therapist sleeping with his patient - lots of uncomfortable and creepy undertones, and the effort to make them "emotionally engaging" further amps up the creepiness.

Viewing women as things to collect isn't healthy.

Why not? People of both sexes do it in real life all the time, and nothing terrible happens. You might have had a point if the "collectable" women professed their undying love to Geralt and acted like dependent neurotics, but they just want to fuck him because they find him attractive. It's certainly not a good role model for children, but I don't think it's reprehensible or anything like that. The sex cards are just silly and embarassing.

 

[St. Toxic]

Sex is juvenile shit, bro, real adults never engage in sex.

 

[Hellraiser]

Sex is juvenile shit, bro, real adults never engage in sex.

Yes, just ask Crispy. He's a paragon of maturity

 

[Darth Roxor]

I really really really really want this to be a good cRPG, but it is CDProjeckt.... :/

And I really really really really wish you stopped posting this crap in just about every CDP-related thread that pops up. You are reaching WCDS levels.

 

[Roguey]

roguey talking about unhealthy treatment of women

my mind is blown

...what?

Are B-grade movies embarassing juvenile shit in general, or just the sex scenes?

I can't make a blanket statement about b-grade movies in general.

Why not? People of both sexes do it in real life all the time, and nothing terrible happens. You might have had a point if the "collectable" women professed their undying love to Geralt and acted like dependent neurotics, but they just want to fuck him because they find him attractive. It's certainly not a good role model for children, but I don't think it's reprehensible or anything like that. The sex cards are just silly and embarassing.

You, the player, encouraged to collect those cards, that's what makes it gross.

Of relevance: Lesi's thoughts on the Witcher before she became a CD Projekt fangirl/full-militant social justice warrior:

It's a really good game, and has kept my attention for much longer than any other recent titles, which is saying something. However, I can't help but constantly feel that it's such an appeal to testosterone in a nutshell: Geralt is a white-haired morally ambiguous badass (hihi, Russian author who wrote the books? I think Moorcock may want a word with you) who likely gets more sex than most players will ever get in their entire lives. He is a man's man in every way, rugged looks, stubbles, deep voice and all. Yes, thoroughly heterosexual, of course, of course; such a masculine manly man could not possibly be bi. While I enjoy playing it, I can't help but snicker a little at all the "buy me, pimple-faced fifteen-year-old (and older!) males who would like to play a wish-fulfillment fantasy writ large!" vibes that practically ooze from the game's every pore. Granted, most RPGs are about wish fulfillment, giving the player the role of some all-important heroic chosen one or suchlike surrounded by faithful minions followers, but this takes it to a new height with the sheer frequency of sex. (By the time you leave the outskirts of Vizima, you may have already banged three women raw. All redheads with perfectly pert breasts and perfectly pale-pink aerolae, naturally.)

Doesn't really detract from the gameplay or the story, though. I did get the feeling it's not a game designed with any expectation that women would ever play it, however.

Yeah. While Bioware may have spat out a few crappy titles and may be entirely too politically correct, they do actually acknowledge the fact that not all women play Barbie games and The Sims exclusively. It's not even the fact that Geralt is male; TNO from PS:T is male--and heterosexual, in this incarnation anyway--too, but I never got the feeling that PS:T sets out to appeal to hormonally charged teenagers with a hankering for badassery, vaginas and breasts. Even if TNO is quite manly (though I do recall an instance where he sheds tears, omg wut a[Censored]amirite). The Witcher is mature in that it deals with interesting, gray moral choices, but when it comes to the whole wish fulfillment thing, it's absolutely puerile.
...
I'm halfway between amused and exasperated, in an eye-rolling kind of way. I imagine some female gamers may even find the whole thing somewhat offensive.
...
I'm not offended, but only because I've given up caring about sexism/misogyny in videogames--or any other entertainment industry--a very long time ago. That and some male gamers do find the whole sex card thing quite tacky and juvenile, though of course they're the minority.

(She's wrong about PS:T and Bioware being "too pc" of course)

 

[tuluse]

Yeah Bioware's problem isn't being PC, it's creepy ideas about what romance should be and poor writing in general.

Compared to the Witcher, PS:T is a subtle as William Shakespeare, so I can see when contrasting them one would make that statement.

Also, I thought the sex cards were hilarious and assumed they were tongue in cheek.

 

[Kalin]

I would once again like to point out that no one forces the player to collect those stupid cards in the first place. Aside from a multitude of ridiculous bosoms and that one absurd vampire quest, the whole tasteless take on sex is largely optional content, usually even unlocked by tiny little fetch-quests. Questionable content, certainly, as the time and effort creating the silly system could have been spent on improving the actual game, though it is still not force-fed to the player.

The Witcher 2, on the other hand, pretty much pushes its disgusting content down your throat at first opportunity, taking CD Projekt tackiness to an entirely new level.

 

[Irxy]

The problem -- and granted they are drawing on source material from another person -- is that it's laughably oversexualized. I don't recall off the top of my head but I'm guessing there's the opportunity for around a dozen (possibly more) sexual encounters in the game? And it doesn't add anything to the atmosphere. Quite the opposite, in fact. Rather than create a 'mature setting' it only serves to make it comical.

In TW2 I think there are just 3-4 sexual scenes per playthrough, and I disagree that they don't add anything to the atmosphere - while some are useless crap (like the generic bordello fucks), scenes like Triss in elven baths, Philippa's lesbian act etc add to the aesthetics.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

You, the player, encouraged to collect those cards, that's what makes it gross.

The game didn't give you any bonuses for the collection, the only reason you'd want to collect them were larp reasons (or aesthetic ones of course )

 

[Roguey]

The game didn't give you any bonuses for the collection, the only reason you'd want to collect them were larp reasons (or aesthetic ones of course )

You get a) the satisfaction of finding and "solving" these scattered mini-puzzles and b) unlocking pretty art.

 

[Darth Roxor]

So you admit they actually serve no function and are completely optional?

THE OUTRAGE

 

[Roguey]

I don't know how you'd get that from what I said. People see a mountain, they want to climb it. Likewise, someone presented with a series of sex puzzles to solve with art as a reward would want to solve them.

 

[Hellraiser]

So you're offended that there are people that may actually want to collect those and that CDP is a SEXIST ENABLING COMPANY?

 

[Brotherman Bill]

The game didn't give you any bonuses for the collection, the only reason you'd want to collect them were larp reasons (or aesthetic ones of course )

You get a) the satisfaction of finding and "solving" these scattered mini-puzzles and b) unlocking pretty art.

Well, if they give satisfaction and are pretty then they add something to the game wouldn't you say

 

[Humanity has risen!]

What bothers me with dystopian stories is that it is nearly always set in a close future. Pondsmith looks stupid now. It should be Cyberpunk 2377. Sci fi authors always overestimate the pace of progress. I'd like a setting where humanity has actually reached a plateau and is slowly decaying, which would be realistic for once, instead of pulp comic fodder.

 

[Hellraiser]

What bothers me with dystopian stories is that it is nearly always set in a close future. It should be Cyberpunk 2370. Sci fi authors always overestimate the pace of progress. I'd like a setting where humanity has actually reached a plateau and is slowly decaying, which would be realistic for once, instead of pulp comic fodder.

The near future is picked because dystopias are less about the tech and more about how badly can society turn out if we ignore certain dangers. It's there to add the "it can happen, consider this possibility" factor.

Now sure, Pondsmith and the rest overestimated it with naming the original system/setting Cyberpunk 2013 and they admitted as much (they also underestimated some things, like the ultra high tech expensive cell phone in 2020 that can hold a whopping whole album of music). It's an alternative timeline ever since, because Japan rules the world (blame the 80s), the EU has mass drives (which it uses to remind kwa not to fuck with it) and the soviets still exist (but the central/eastern european satellite states are free). That and they moved it to 2077 in part to plug the tech disparity made by the bad predictions. And probably to retcon 203X out of existence.

But the entire fucking point of the Cyberpunk genre, was about how society and people change as a result of the advancement of computer technologies that were emerging when the authors were writing their stories or novels. They were mired with the zeitgeist of the time, indeed that was what made it different from just speculating on future tech (like was done since Verne or earlier) and where the "punk" part came from. The late 70s and the entirety of the 80s were the emergence of modern corporate culture and the global economy as we know it thanks to this technology.

They saw a society where big multinational companies had a bigger yearly cashflow than the GDP of third world states, they saw urban sprawl and urban decay while corporate towers rose in the center of major cities. They saw growing concerns over the state of the environment. And they extrapolated a vision from that where new technology doesn't really bring upon utopia, in part because of how our society looked back then (and still looks). It wasn't neo-luditism mind you, it was "hey sure technology improves our lives, but it has trapping and we must be aware of them as we're merely human". The human element was always important whether you are watching Blade Runner or reading Neuromancer (look at what technology did to Case).

Also if you expect plausible predictions on the pace of technological development you shouldn't be reading fiction, but forecasts by think tanks. Fiction is about exploring ideas and concepts or just plain entertainment. In the case of Science Fiction in general the point is not about making a plausible vision but a somewhat science-based "what if" scenario and building a story about it or around it. What if we were at war with aliens, what if you were sent back to the past, what if FTL travel was possible, what if robots were intelligent. Sure there are more probable and less probable scenarios, but even the most hard science fiction story or novel should not be read as a roadmap specifying what and when will be invented.

 

[evdk]

What bothers me with dystopian stories is that it is nearly always set in a close future. Pondsmith looks stupid now. It should be Cyberpunk 2377. Sci fi authors always overestimate the pace of progress. I'd like a setting where humanity has actually reached a plateau and is slowly decaying, which would be realistic for once, instead of pulp comic fodder.

Scifi authors overestimate as often as underestimate the pace of progress. They usually pick wrong branch of science to progress rapidly. You have all these short stories about permanent lunar settlements in 1990s, while still using terminal computers and wired phones. Technology advances at a rapid pace (just imagine what would would an 1910s person think about our world today) - we might not have jetpacks, but we have smart phones with enough performance to make ENIAC engineers weep.

 

[Azrael the cat]

What bothers me with dystopian stories is that it is nearly always set in a close future. Pondsmith looks stupid now. It should be Cyberpunk 2377. Sci fi authors always overestimate the pace of progress. I'd like a setting where humanity has actually reached a plateau and is slowly decaying, which would be realistic for once, instead of pulp comic fodder.

Scifi authors overestimate as often as underestimate the pace of progress. They usually pick wrong branch of science to progress rapidly. You have all these short stories about permanent lunar settlements in 1990s, while still using terminal computers and wired phones. Technology advances at a rapid pace (just imagine what would would an 1910s person think about our world today) - we might not have jetpacks, but we have smart phones with enough performance to make ENIAC enegineers weep.

Yeah, but we STILL don't have those flying skateboards that we were promised in Back to the Future 2

 

[Hellraiser]

Fuck flying skateboards I want a flying time-tarveling delorean with snazzy retro digitals displays like from a VCR

 

[St. Toxic]

The game didn't give you any bonuses for the collection, the only reason you'd want to collect them were larp reasons (or aesthetic ones of course )

The fact that they're in the game is encouragement enough!

 

[Humanity has risen!]

That's what I started thinking, that it stems from "See what could happen just around the corner?". But I don't see how this changes if it is set much farther in the future.

And I still think the "dude, it'll be AWESOME!" factor is the biggest motivator. That's why we were supposed to have flying cars and skateboards now, according to Back to the Future 2. Nerds and their power fantasies, figures. Not that there is anything wrong with it though.

And I really am skeptical about the pace of progress. I remember there was a book by Gary Kasparov and he is too. The low hanging fruit is gone, it costs leaps and bounds of money, manpower, time and resources to R&D New things, and we're running out of novel, useful and feasible things we can come up with. We're going to hit a wall with mobile phones due to size and power soon.

I understand this is what the genre is, but I don't like sheer enthusiasm (or fatalism) in human possibilities, it is too simple.