Ok, I'm not going to say this again, I hope it catches on this time. It's not about sex, it's about using sex as a marketing tool.
It's an emphasizer that fits perfectly in the context, so it's ok.

I don't see the problem in it I really don't. It's not like they are plastering the images all over the world they are in Playboy and CD Projekt aren't the first ones to do it. Off the top of my head I know both Lara Croft and Bloodrayne have both appeared in the digital nuddy to promote the games to people who wouldn't normally play games. It's as valid a tactic to market a game as any other. It's just the same as any celebrity who Mr Heffner persuades to appear in the publication some of who actually want to do it. Let's be clear this is Playboy we are talking about not Hustler.

but using violence is okay?

I didn't read all the posts and I don't want to emit a judgement about specific vidoe games, but video games in general could use less violence and sex, like many indie games today...
Or use them both adequately by passing a message or showing realistic violence or sex more in the way of Saving Private Ryan than Rambo for example.

The problem is not the violence or sex itself, but the way you display it and the message you want to evocate.

(Sorry for the typos...)

Really?

So landscapes are now sexual. Architecture is now sexual. Sculpture is intrinsically sexual. And all this parses how?

Honestly this is like those who try to spin Dracula as sexual. Which apparently means they think mind screw horror, which is what's actually in the novel, is sexual. Apparently this means Dracula is into men and dogs, because that's what most of his feed/kills account for. Of course, they also obsess on the blood when the novel is actually rather explicit that Lucy is experiencing a weird condition where she shows the signs of Anemia but when they test the blood hemoglobin count is fine, if not in such explicit terms. The implication and that associated with the four transfusions she undergoes before finally passing away before the mid point of the novel is that she is losing vitalae which is most noted manifesting in her struggling to breath. Which the way some people spin it is apparently some weird disturbed sexual thing.

Do we really need this disturbed obsession with seeing sex everywhere? Freud is dead and buried even if you feel for some reason the need to one up the man, you won't be able to lord it over him.

Oh great, the pathetic, spineless fanboy cowards who are too scared to even voice their opinions anonymously on the internet are once again using the only form of communication left open to such pestilence: the down vote. It really is proof that society is over-protecting, given the continued existence of such people.

I don't even agree with MichaelPalin here, but he's not being offensive or abusive. In fact the only thing being abused is the broken number thing that GOG call a rep system. The only purpose this system has ever served is to remind me of the presence of the above mentioned vermin.

Dracula's brides give a blowjob in the book, man. Yeah, there's some very sexual stuff in there. But I do agree with you; the majority of art in history has not been sexual in nature, so it's silly and try to say every mountain's a breast and every building's a dick and every giant robot a....secret fantasy about naked....something. Even Freud would be laughing at you for that one.

This is the internet, that is pretty tame. Hell, people actually read Playboy for the articles now, it's not like you can't get better nekkid pics online.

I guess if it bothers you, you shouldn't make yourself uncomfortable, but it is a mature game and sex is part of being an adult. There are even some studies that suggest the hypersexualized men and women (both!) in video games is what makes us feel so good while playing them (and indeed, well afterward).

EDIT: Oh yeah, where can I get said calendar?
Umm, Bram Stoker's Dracula was sexual. When the chick was feeding on the vein in Dracula's chest it was considered perversion by Vitcorian standards. I think I'm going to have to side with the people who actually know the social history of the period on this one. You may have a point that not all art is sexual, but your example is terribly wrong.
Every issue of Playboy has a game of the month, as well. I think Portal 2 was this month's. I assume all the prudes will now cancel their pre-orders:)
Feminists do get a bad rep, because there's a subset that runs around being verbally abusive to men who largely don't deserve it would otherwise be on their side (or at least consider it). Instead the men get called rapists and abusers for asking legitimate questions about some of the more "out there" positions. So instead of debate and understanding you get a break down of communication and the term feminist means unreasonable psycho to many.

Yeah some examples:
Rape is just slightly less common with men victims than female (bet you didn't know that).
Rape is an accepted deterrent against men committing crimes.
Any family law attorney will tell you to run out of your house with your arms crossed in front of you if your wife/girlfriend is beating the shit out of you. You cannot even grab her arms to stop her, the man ALWAYS goes to jail in the US. It doesn't matter if you grabbed her arms to prevent her from hitting you with a baseball bat.
Men that I know have literally been chased out of their homes and locked themselves in the bathroom with their wives right behind them with a butcher knife or similar. I've never seen one go to jail or even be arrested, let alone have their children removed from them.

I'm not morally offended by sexuality. Given that I grew up with the internet it's quite the opposite. Kind of hard to be a prude when you discover the Japanese's love of tentacles at age ten.

That being said, I didn't care for how The Witcher treated sexuality at all. I found it absurd and distracting. The scene that sticks out in my mind is the introductory bit with Triss, a character they want to portray as reasonably respectable and strong. You know what harms that? Tirts the size of her head that bounce in ways the laws of gravity and motion do not permit at the slightest twitch of her model. You can't have it both ways. You can aim to please male gamers (and alienate female gamers) by doing that but you sacrifice any and all respectability that character will ever have. Or you present a respectable strong female character who is reasonably modest. And often those are the characters who get the most fanboy attention.

As I kept going, I collected a second "card", and I immediately felt shame. Here you have a female character who accepts the main character, treats him well, and is put into harms way to accomplish a mission. Not even an hour later into gameplay you can cheat on her with some random bimbo you saved. From a roleplaying perspective it ruined my experience. I wasn't planning on playing as a douchebag. I was curious to see what would happen and was rewarded by a whole lot of nothing.

I admittedly grew up playing dating sims/H-Games, so that scenario's not lost on me. But in those games there's usually some significance. It's a plot point. It'll come back at some point to play *some* type of role. Not in Witcher. I collected a card and never saw the woman again. It was a pointless scene for the sake of having it with no storyline developments or any advancement of character interactions whatsoever. It's only existence is for a male gamer to go "I BANGED A CHICK~! WHOO!" and have a pretty little card to add to a collection. GTA gets mentioned quite a bit, but when you nail a hooker? Things happen. You regain health and lose money. The situation *changes*.

It's base, shallow, adds nothing to the game, and simply exists to lure in male gamers by way of being "risque". It's like advertising a game on how violent or bloody a game is. A good game doesn't need that and it's completely pandering to the lowest common denominator.

I fail to see the problem with that calendar. It's just marketing, it doesn't have much to do with the actual content of the game.
The fact is that sex sells or at least that marketing people think so. This is why almost every modern book or movie contains some sexual content no matter how gratuitous or even out of place it is. That, imho, is far more annoying than just a calendar that has nothing to do with the actual game.

As for it "objectifying" women, a few years ago the French Rugby national team did a nude calendar, and it sold very well. They got money out of it (which was donated to charities btw), many women (and some gay men) got some nice eye-candy, but one thing it didn't do was "objectify" them. They went on with their lives playing rugby, nobody tried to rape them, and nobody mocked them about that calendar, in fact it actually caused a minor fad among sports team (both men and women) for a few years.

Tits are now tirts. Please pass that on for the good of the community :D

I had to laugh at that. Some weedy little rapist trying to knock out an enraged footy player... Bye bye testicles, hello orbit.

Anyway, back to the discussion.

I have to say that Hawk52's last comment was the closest to my moral compass. I DID feel shame at the first two "cheating on wife" fuck-cards but after that I realised it was simply part of the game and now I just try to screw everything just so I get the cards. *shrug* It's a freaking game. Who cares?

That penny arcade strip is gold. Perfection for this thread and in summary /thread.

Also, has anyone ever heard of "tongue in cheek"? This, to me, is what CDP were trying to achieve - making a subtle joke about how censorship works. And yes, it IS subtle - the best jokes are often the ones that have another, inner layer behind the "Oh so obvious" front joke. Think about it for a second.

Controversy sells. Did CDP SHOW sex? Did it even show a tit? (I'm not talking about boobs, I'm talking about TITS which are often censored to fuckery anyway) Answer: not really. It HINTED at it, in a mature way, and if you got erotic responses from that, then it is all from YOUR imagination, not theirs. If you're going to argue that showing a female FIGURE under some negilee is bad, then you're whacko. What about your mum? Shit, we should jail all mothers now.

This is a MATURE game. And advertises itself as such. You, as an adult, should be intelligent enough (and mature) to know that when it says "Strong violence, sex scenes and drug references", well, fuck me but you're going to get EXACTLY that.

Now, if you don't want to buy the Witcher 2 based purely on... Er, exploitation of some fucking pixels, well... I suggest you have a good hard look at yourself. And get a grip on reality.

It's a game, period. And as Delixe said, playboy.. well, man, (or woman) wake the hell up. PLAYBOY? It isn't Hustler but it isn't Women's Weekly either. If you're too stupid to even understand the fundamental difference in levels of blase vagina shots versus innuendo and glorifying the feminine figure then I have zero sympathy for your stance. Let's go and destroy all the renaissance sculptures and paintings!

*Please note that I am not trying to bring religion into this debate*

Which is somehow worse than using violence and the brutal subjugation of your enemies as a marketing tool?

In Rome, the massacre of thousands of innocents is trivialised to a simple case of moar money. Why is Triss as a sex object worse?

I'll just repeat: the massacre of thousands of innocents is trivialised to a simple case of moar money.

Because it'd be far better for the target audience to buy the game simply to crush the weak beneath their heel, subjugate and exterminate other cultures, and ensure that their chosen master race dominates all of creation.

Sorry for the sarcasm there, but see, the thing is violence, conquest, and warfare are used quite effectively as marketing tools. Why do people buy Street Fighter games? What was the focus of the recent Space Marine trailers? Why do Call of Duty games sell by the truckload? Could it not be argued that this trivialises warfare and violence?

Why is that acceptable, but using a half naked picture of Triss to advertise it to those that care about such things unacceptable? This is what I cannot fathom.