a gay bad guy would probably offend less people then a gay hero.

you want to get people riled up? throw in a gay love scene in which two men kiss each other!

note, NOT two women, two women kissing each other is cool to most males.

you could always have a gay hero, a gay bad guy, AND a gay sidekick! shoot, make EVERYONE IN THE GAME gay! how many copy's would it sell? hard to tell.

me personally, I would play a game with gay people in it if the game is fun.


there, its my two cents. looks like the thread is dead after this last post. ...makes me the winner of the thread i should think! lol.

uh dude straight girls like seeing guys even doing each other just as much as straight guys like seeing girls doing it

have you seen fanfiction of harry potter?

cant say i have. you may have a point there, all i'm saying is its safer to go with heterosexual relationships when you show sex on screen. people lose interest with the gay stuff and some people are even repulsed by it, be it male gay or female gay.
I'm not saying what is right and wrong here, I'm just saying that's the way it is.

besides, witcher appears to be geared for heterosexual males mainly, due to the constant sex the hero has, and all those cards that show loose dressed women.

It's not gay sex that I want to see at all. It's simply 1 measly gay male side character who is decent (by Witcher standards) and isn't a monstrous douche. If THAT "repulses" people, just some friendly gay guy that Geralt doesnt want to kill or see killed, then they must be very unhappy, mean and nasty people.

I wouldn't mind if they showed gay people are beautiful people, for they are. but in a vedio game like witcher, pretty much EVERYONE is a dirt bag. even the main character, he commits adultury all that time and cares little for people he doesn't need.
have you played mass effect 3? I'm not real clear on the details, but there is some gay stuff in that that i think is very flatering to the gay crusade.

A lot of people think they pulled it off wonderfully, including those who admittedly take glee in watching a gay guy who dared show his face in a Witcher game get his balls cut off.

And I never declared that they had some sort of "quota" they had to fill (unless its about tits and woman ass. They seem to have a big quota to fill there). It would still be nice IMO if they had the balls (which I do NOT think they have) to put a non-slimeball gay guy in the game. Would it be a problem for you if they did?


Yes, this is true, which is why I put in parenthesis "by the Witcher standards". Because while pretty much everyone is to some degree a dirt bag, there are still people that are far more noble than others. I love Dandelion, for instance. And I really liked Siegfried of Denesle and his elven counter-part in Witcher 1, despite the groups they were affiliated with. As someone said earlier, they were better than the groups they belonged to. There are plenty others who aren't total jerk-wads as well. Just none that are gay males. Margot is a lesbian and while notes in her room reveal a certain something about her, her motives were not at all because she was some completely vile monster. In fact a vile monster of a human being is why she did what she did. It was also her intervention that helped save Geralt's friends.

I have actually played Mass Effect 3, yes, and they handled gay people very well in that game. I also like that they didn't make it look like it was some sort of nod to any "gay crusade" either. Steve was just a normal guy who happened to be gay. I loved it.

Sadly, the existence of pro-gay material in Mass Effect 3 does not make the negative stuff directed at gay males in The Witcher 2 any better. :(

Well I thought it felt contrived in ME3, Steve and his husband. And if they put another gay guy in TW3 - who apparently must not be a slime ball - then it will feel contrived in The Witcher as well. But if they can pull it off more power to them, I just don't see it as a priority.

Why did it feel "contrived"? A gay guy with a husband seems false to you? Weird.

As for pulling it off, you seem pretty satisfied with how they made Dethmold gay all of a sudden in Chapter 3 based on your rave review of the thing, so if they can do that well enough, I am sure they can handle making a decent human being who is gay appear in the game, so you probably have nothing to worry about in that arena.

"This game is not anti-gay, it is anti-war". Freely after Green Day.

Some facts.

1: Not many civilizations ever tolerated open homosexuality, and even those that did (i.e. the greeks) saw it as something of a vice, never as a virtue or a 'lifestyle choice' equivalent to heterosexuality, and especially to heterosexual marriage. I offer no opinion here on whether they were right to consider it so; I merely note that they did in fact consider it so, whether anyone likes it or not.

2: Medieval European civilization definitely took a dim view of homosexuality. Again, whether they were right or not has nothing whatsoever to do with the historical fact. If it pleases you to think they were backwards and barbaric for not sharing our modern views, then by all means, think so. In fact, that even makes things better from an artistic standpoint, since...

3: Witcher 2 depicts a fictionalized society that's pretty obviously based on medieval Europe. Some similar fictionalizations - e.g. LOTR - start with a decidedly romanticized view of medieval Europe. Witcher 2 goes to the opposite extreme.

As such: good openly gay characters are totally out of place in The Witcher's world. There aren't exactly many good people to begin with, quite including Geralt. If the common people of medieval Europe took a dim view of homosexuality, the grubby, mob-minded, pious-when-everyone-else-is-looking people of The Witcher's world are bound to be a great deal less tolerant of it (or anything else they consider out of the ordinary). And if a thing is broadly considered an especially disgusting deviancy, strongly discouraged by virtually everyone, who is going to practice it more-or-less openly and keep their heads in spite of it except especially powerful and self-conscious deviants?

You people are ruining the stereotype of homosexuals as artistically sensitive, and strengthening the one of them as a sort of heresy-hunting Taliban of the counterculture. Yes, the one gay guy in Witcher 2 is a bad guy. This is how the fictional world should be if it's to be thematically consistent. Quit demanding that good artists sacrifice the honesty of their art in order to promulgate messages you think people need to hear. The Witcher was never intended to be a pulpit for either side in the debate over homosexuality; quit demanding that it be made into one.

1. You don't get to tell me what to do.

2. I don't really care what stereotype you subscribe to concerning "we people" (as you call us), be it one where we are "artistically sensitive" or one where we are some sort of "heresy hunting Taliban". If you subscribe to any stereotype about gay people instead of judging homosexuals as human beings, on a person by person basis like any other human being you meet, then that is unfortunate, but its your problem and not ours. You won't succeed in trying to bully me into not expressing my own opinions.

3. The artists you speak of have NO problem putting lesbians in the game, like Margot, who wasn't entirely a villain herself and nowhere near the "monster/joltingly turned sissy wimp in chapter 3" that Dethmold was. Are depictions of lesbians "thematically consistent" with Medieval European civilization?

4. Who said anything about "openly gay" anyway? Why would the character have to be "openly gay" for Geralt to have found out about it?

5. Just because Medieval European civilization didn't tolerate gays didn't mean they were all heterosexuals in those days.

6. I wish people would quit pointing out how there aren't many good people in the Witcher series to begin with. I really do. I am well aware of this, but as I have pointed out before and as many others have mentioned, some people had greater degrees of nobility than others.

7. CDProjektRED put the gay guy in there, I didn't. They didn't have to make that choice at all and everyone would have been fine carrying on with business as usual. They chose to put him in there, and now some of us would like to see some balance. Regardless of what your opinions about it may be. But don't panic. I doubt they ever will do that, so you can relax and be happy that your game world won't be tarnished by the presence of a gay guy who doesn't get his balls cut off and isn't completely wretched.

8. I recognize some of your "facts" as opinions rather than actual facts. Especially your line of logic that because medieval Europe was a certain way, the game HAS to be that way as well.

9. Not once have I made ANY "demands", so please do not accuse me of doing so. I am merely expressing the fact that I would certainly love for them to include some balance to this game.

10. We will keep expressing our opinions about decisions made by the dev team or "good artists", even if you do not grant us your permission to do so.

Not sure i agree with your logic. That would explain why the homosexual character was looked down upon by others, or treated poorly by others (because "Medieval European civilization definitely took a dim view of homosexuality") but that doesn't explain why the homosexual character is a jerk.

You could easily have a situation where the homosexual character is awesome and nice, but he has to hide his sexuality and the other characters treat him poorly because they take a dim view on his sexuality.

"You people" are ruining rational thinking for the rest of us :)

The medieval Europeans, continuously pestered by actual monsters, are luckily saved by an eldritch mutant with super human abilities. These medieval Europeans mostly consist of humans, but the occasional elf or dwarf also makes an appearance. The non-humans, and the eldritch mutant, aren't very well tolerated because medieval Europeans are a bunch of pricks. Because these medieval Europeans dislike pretty much every group in the game, it would be quite unrealistic to have a group they dislike in the game, which is why adding a somewhat noble homosexual into the game is clearly impossible.

Let us also note that most of the peasants in the game are overweight, just like in medieval Europe. This is important, for realism is clearly the most deciding factor when it comes to game design. As everyone knows, realism means that even though even the naysayers admit there were homosexuals in medieval Europe, there cannot be homosexuals in video games, unless they're messed up Disney villains.

Verily, in this finely crafted video game, an oppressed person who still tries to act decently is out of place and couldn't happen. Take, for example, the elves and the dwarves that live in human settlements. They are oppressed and hated by so many, and that makes them all a bunch of monsters. It might not seem like it in the game, but that is because it is still realistic to have them try and get by, very unlike the case with the fabled gay guy.

Did that sound about right? Sounds like bollocks to me.

htown: Because nice people who go against the flow wind up dead. The real world is quite bad enough about punishing niceness; the Witcher's world cranks that up to 11. Eccentrics without real power pretty much don't exist in the world.

As for the eccentrics with power, not counting Dethmold: in both games so far, they've ranged from 'highly morally ambiguous' (Geralt) to 'priestess of a human sacrifice cult who sometimes does some okay stuff too) (Abigail), with most of the rest (e.g. Philippa Eilhart) falling a lot closer to the latter end than the former.

Sorry. Dethmold being a nice guy just wasn't in the cards.

Adzeth: I'd respond, but...heh...how about popping a Risperidone first.

DarkZephyr: Your use of the phrase 'thematically consistent with medieval European civilization' strongly suggests that the argument sailed way over your head, since thematic consistency with European anything was never suggested anywhere in the post. You can save yourself further embarassment by learning to read before throwing fits about what you erroneously believe others have written.

Allow me to simplify things for you. 1: The MEs had prejudices and fears people today consider unpleasant and backwards. 2: TW takes a lot of cues from ME, quite including then-popular prejudices and fears. 3: TW tends to amplify ME unpleasantness and backwardsness. 4: The question. Raymond. Is whether a 'nice' homosexual, especially of the male persuasion, would last long in TW. I suggest not. And thus: 5: If nice male homosexuals are unlikely to survive in TW, whatever male homosexuals do survive will likely be not-nice. 6: Art should have internal consistency. 7: Dethmold's character, offensive to modern sensibilities though he may be, respects that consistency, in a way it could not had he been a hero.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to imagine anyone who's okay with gays not being portrayed as studmuffin universe-saving heroes in absolutely everything as ipso facto a disciple of Fred Phelps, by all means, have fun. I'll be over here, appreciating TW2 as one of the most artistically thoughtful games ever made, an uncompromising look at our own world through a lens of fantasy.