I'm not sure what to think of the whole thing, his name rings bells but I don't feel like going around and reminding myself what this guy had written in the past. What I can say is that rhetoric is a tool, just like its mother: language. We are not just what we say, despite the importance of communication to humanity.

Aggressive language is usually due to emotional investment, but sometimes it can be just an act. Which is/was it for this guy? Whatever motivates/d him is ultimately inaccessible to anyone else. Though he says himself he searches conflict as a proxy for meaning...

The thing is, if the game is anything like the books, the message is not clear at all. It's a very, very nuanced and conflicted setting. Realistic even. I mean, the parallels to Communist control over Eastern europe are obvious, some of the connections to ecology likewise, and I particularly enjoy the tension between realpolitik and humanism that flows throughout - a very Polish tension that. Yet in the realm of individual human choice Geralt is a very specific lens of otherness through which humanity is observed, and usually left to its own. Having read Sapkowski's interviews, I see a certain core of apologia for freedom. But then again, that's neither a very original take on his work, nor any kind of definitive opinion of mine. Particularly when you consider the angles of sterility and futility that also surface throughout. He is an interesting author, and a pity how Polish translates badly to English, where it being Fantasy doesn't help, as Lem for example has made the cut into better translations already.

And all that is without casting judgement on the reviewers' ability to consider the work they are reviewing objectively at such levels of meaning...

Sadly, I have only read the first book in the series. I enjoyed it immensely, but I have avoided the others due to hearing the translation is pretty rough, just as you noted above. I fear they may not make much sense.

When I talk about messages though, I am not so much looking at the overall game and what it is working to convey if anything. I am mostly focusing on the smaller quests and situations the player encounters on their journey. Whether it is the intention of the developers or not, parallels can be drawn between in-game events and the real world. As I noted, one quest shows the how awful domestic violence can be while the prominent racism between certain groups could easily bring about discussion of how these attitudes are destructive.

Critics right now are obsessed with social/political issues and injecting their own agenda into their writing. If they really wanted to discuss this stuff in purposeful ways, they need to stop the call-out culture tactics and actually look at the game they are playing. They have ample opportunity with The Witcher 3 to tackle tough topics. Instead, it is just "look at how sexist and possibly racist this game is!" They are too busy nitpicking the little things and not paying attention to the actual stories.

Honestly, I rarely want to read about any of this stuff in a review anyway. I am usually only interested in how a game plays and that it isn't too buggy. Youtube Lets Plays are generally more helpful at this point than any written review. I just think if people really cared about these issues, there are better ways to approach the topic.

I do apologize though if I implied the series is purposefully sending out an overarching message of good and evil. I am certainly aware that the game deals a lot in grey areas and vague outcomes. The world is crappy and there is almost never a "right" solution to a problem. It is one of the reasons I love the game so much. It is pretty late at the moment and I am halfway falling asleep, but tomorrow I may work to clarify in my writing that the game itself is not trying to send an underlying message, just that analyzing the smaller stories can lead to interesting discussions if critics really cared about this stuff.

if you want to shill just add a "shilling" warning

All good points, lets not forget all this next time someone tried to come up with a 'narratives in computer games are irrelevant, I only want to hear about the graphics and the gameplay' argument though
- We seem to have gone from being accused of focusing too much on the narratives to not looking at and analysing them enough at this point!

i've never read his shitty self-absorbed reviews or anything gameranx until now. and ... i'll go back to not reading his shit again.

Well I'd never heard of this Cheong chap either but I welcome his comments and hope, after taking a healthy dose of sensible pills, he continues to attempt to affect positive change but in a more positive way - I hope he now realises it can't be done at the point of a gun, that you can strive for equality and inclusiveness without becoming a crusading zealot censor and you can point out the aspects of an otherwise excellent game that you find 'problematic' and still award it a decent score - that these things are not mutually exclusive and you don't have to and shouldn't run around screaming 'ban this sick filth' at the drop of a hat!
After all, The Merchant of Venice is still very much in the Shakespeare canon and regularly performed despite the obviously problematic stereotypical representation of the Jewish character 'Shylock', for example
I hope others wake up and learn from him, also and get this sharabang back on the right route!

Here's a post i did not entirely expect.

http://spjairplay.com/speakers/

SPJ Speakers have been chosen, but the other side is either woefully understaffed or keeping mum so they can have an artificial advantage above their debate partners.

In the same vein, Chaucer was certainly homophobic, Hemingway clearly misogynist and Dr. Seuss clearly racist. And still we (justly!) consider these authors to be great. I certainly do.

We can appreciate these authors while at the same time seeing their faults very clearly.
We can appreciate games while at the same time putting a clear spotlight on problematic details.

I'd love to play TW3, right now, but my rig is a far cry from up to it. I'm sure I'd smirk snarkily over the portrayal of women, and I'd gladly write up a critique focusing on that mostly, but it still wouldn't ruin the game for me.

Now Cheong is a funny guy, really. The reviews that supposedly opened his eyes and 'fixated' on perceived misogyny, these reviews explicitly laud and award TW3 with scores of 8/10 and even 8.5/10. They may not show particular skill at this kind of media critique, but still they are without any doubt critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable: the Sarkeesian motto.

Whatever "movement" Cheong might have been in, these reviewers certainly weren't part of it. And if he chooses to cut himself as formerly extremist off from the hate carousel, it's certainly very welcome, however strange his pretense may be.

And seriously, a 8 out of 10 isn't necessarily "lauding" the game given rating inflation. An 8 is a pretty low end score these days from a major developer, especially from Polygon. Remember, the same people who gave GTA V a 9.5...

And Vain, that reviewer certainly was part of it. You are just trolling once again, that review is the same Arthur Gies who did the Bayonetta 2 review.

Y'know, what's funny? How easily that could be flipped around to "why is it that all of the people whining about fictional portrayals of fictional characters are primarily balding middle aged white men with social degrees, writing about a hobbyist culture that they neither like nor understand?" This whole thing has always seemed funny to me from either side.

Although I don't like his style at all, at least he is bringing up a very important point that is so often forgotten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entartete_Kunst

History tends to repeat itself and only colors and names change, sad but true.
----------------------------------
"Ich fürchte mich nicht vor der Rückkehr der Faschisten in der Maske der Faschisten,
sondern vor der Rückkehr der Faschisten in der Maske der Demokraten."

"I am not afraid of the return of the fascists in the guise of fascists,
but of the returning to the fascists in the guise of the democrats. "

―Theodor W. Adorno
----------------------------------
No matter what he wrote in the past, I'm glad that he broke free from this destructive mind-set and hasn't joined "the other side". I think this way he is better suited as an example for his buddies to follow.

PS: It's sad to see that some people have completely left this thread due to the whole downrepping orgy and I'm talking about both sides here. We're all gamers, there's no reason for all this hatred.

And always remember:
"Wer denkt, ist nicht wütend."
"He who thinks is not angry." (also T.W. Adorno)

Please don't mention it. I understood your point about the diversity of situations presented, and how mature they are when compared to normal videogame content. I just chose to go into that tangent at a more meta level. Sorry for any confusion.
I'd say meaning rather than narratives honestly, as the intent isn't proven at all. Still, it's perfectly valid to dismiss narratives or communicated meaning in favor of the ludic dimension of games. Just like I don't need to understand lyrics to enjoy a song, I don't need a narrative of conflict to enjoy chess. And my insisting lyrics don't matter is not objectively wrong, just like it's not wrong to dismiss narratives in games (not just videogames). It's just a different focus, and I'd say mechanics are what define games, not narratives. Narratives are much more universal.