Arthuir Gies lied in his frigging review. That's an objective fact! For you to claim reviews are completely subjective is just as stupid as the concept of a completely objective review. You don't know shit about critique. Any quality review is going to justify their opinions with objective explanations. Striving toward objectivity and avoiding displaying one's personal biases is what is expected of any quality critic. The fact you are clueless about this, says something about you.

Let's take art and a painting for example. About as subjective a subject as one might review or critique.

One's review could be:
1) "It uses the colour blue and I hate blue, so it sucks." That would be a poor and non-objective review.
2) "I generally don't like blue paintings. I don't like this one either, but as blue paintings go, this one is alright." Here, the reviewer is attempting to get by his personal biases. He acknowledges this potential bias and by doing so, better informs the reader.
3) "It uses the colour blue and I hate blue, so it sucks." But the painting doesn't even use blue, so the reviewer is lying through his teeth. Clearly unobjective, because it is obviously untrue.

See the difference?

Now on top of that, even in art, one can talk about the degree of detail (an objective topic). One can discuss the variety of techniques employed. There are any number of objective statements that can be made about even a work of art.

And a good reviewer will strive to be accurate and true, put one's biases aside and do one's best to inform the reader of the various qualities of the work (both good and bad). The better one achieves the latter, the more objective the review is.

To just dismiss all of Arthur Gies mis-statements with a "reviews are subjective" claim is stupid and foolhardy.

Precisely what 'lies' are you accusing Gies of telling?

*edit* Just wanted to clarify that I wanted to pin down exactly which of the many accusations and things people aren't happy, and other accusation flying around with that you are using as the basis for calling Gies a 'liar' - what is the 'smoking gun' for you?

Since you seem intent on arguing from a position of ignorance regarding the series and individual game, I'm just going to spoil the whole thing for you and explain why he's lying in his review. Everything below is a huge spoiler for several parts of The Witcher 3, obviously, so the rest of you should avoid this wall of text if you haven't completed the game yet. You've been warned.

His claim: "There are several monster types devoted to murdered and wronged women whom Geralt is frequently asked to destroy, and other villainous characters are shown torturing or even butchering women to show just how evil they are."

The reality is that not only are there male creatures Geralt is asked to destroy (including this werewolf cursed to live eternally without being able to eat), but he doesn't actually have to take on a single contract beyond the griffin in the prologue. Even when he does, there are often multiple ways to solve these quests; in one notable case where the monster is a woman who was wronged, you can actually resolve the quest in two different ways, one of which requires zero combat. Either way, you help her to pass on instead of hacking her to death. I wouldn't call this one a lie so much as a conscious twisting of the truth, especially since only a small handful of contracts involve anything other than monstrous beasts of indeterminate gender. Beyond that, the faceless goons he slaughters by the hundreds? Exclusively male. Bandits and deserters? Exclusively male. Funny how he doesn't mention that.

The second part of the quoted text implies that women are tortured or butchered to show how evil certain characters are. When you first reach Novigrad, you see a witch being burned at the stake. Clearly an attempt to murder the woman to show how evil the witch hunters are, right? At least, that's the case according to Gies' review. The only problem with that is that immediately after, they burn a male (well, a doppler in male form) while announcing that he gets a slow-burning pyre to increase his agony. The sex of the characters is completely irrelevant, and there are plenty of examples of male mages being murdered or harassed. You even star in a doppler-friendly play later in the game, and this is enough to be attacked by religious fanatics. Yet more proof that this treatment doesn't revolve around whether you're male or female. A third example: a character you grow to love is brutally attacked and barely survives. I'm sure Gies saw this as yet another example of the world being mean to a woman, conveniently ignoring the fact that the beating she received was tame compared to what other people—males, even—had done to them by the same attacker.

His claim: "One sequence seemed specifically designed to see how long I could listen to a major female character have her fingernails pulled out before I ended the conversation to attack the individual in question. A later scene shows a villain literally surrounded by the bodies of murdered prostitutes."

Not only is this a plan that she concocted and that you protest initially, but she even goes out of her way to stop you and explain that she wants you to let it happen because it's what the situation calls for. She even chastises your lack of subtlety if you choose to butcher everyone to keep her from coming to harm (which is a 100% viable option; I didn't even make it inside before attacking the first time I played). Then there's the fact that the most brutal and lengthy tortures are actually visited upon men. As for the villain with the murdered prostitutes, that scene exists to create tension since you know that your daughter-figure Ciri was there but are unsure of her fate. Proof of this is that one of the prostitutes has ashen hair like the person you're looking for, and the camera focuses on this when you first enter the room. I don't have a screenshot of that, sadly, but I do have this one that shows Geralt's (and the player's) first thought after stumbling onto the scene. It's not "oh look dead prostitutes this is a bad guy," but a stomach knot of "I really hope the person I'm looking for isn't here."

He claims: In another, a character who admitted to beating his wife so badly she miscarried is given an opportunity to explain why she had it coming, complete with a sympathetic conversation response option to go with it.

If he had actually played the game, he'd know that the baron scuffled with his wife and blacked out, only seeing the miscarried child after he woke up, so the circumstances or even the existence of said beating is left uncertain. Beyond that, she sold herself into the service of some local witches in return for the miscarriage since she resented him and didn't want to have his child, so the miscarriage would have happened either way (and it's implied that they somehow used the baron to fulfill their end of the deal). The "sympathetic" conversation option is basically a "you both are horrible and deserve each other," and Gies is willfully misrepresenting the scene to make it seem like Geralt's going "lol bros b4 hos."

There's even more I could point out (and far more examples that back up the arguments I've already made), but surely this suffices for now. It's actually kind of amazing how much factually incorrect information he managed to pack in there.

Read the articles critiquing his review. Its all there. C'mon, you haven't played the game or read any of the books but you want to argue vs. a game developer who has played over 70 hours of the game? Or any of the other people in this thread who have read the books and played the games? Or even Ian Miles Cheung who seemingly got disgusted with his own side because of this review and the false exaggerated claims of misogyny?

There is absolutely no way to prove to you how wrong that review is, without you playing the game and seeing for yourself. Especially since you are willing to take Arthur Gies side vs. everyone and anyone else. And you take his side, just because...

Well, OK, a lot of that sounds quite reasonable, I guess I would actually have to play it and make my own mind up if I wanted to take this further

The only part I'd quibble is above - I don't get how the girl deciding that her getting tortured is the best way forward and her actively trying to convince you not to prevent it hurts rather than confirms and explains Gies statement

"One sequence seemed specifically designed to see how long I could listen to a major female character have her fingernails pulled out"

her deciding that that's what she's going to have happen to her certainly seems like it's one way to reach the situation Gies describes to me...

Are you dense? Arthur Gies is strongly implying that the developers intentionally stretched out that scene because they hate women and like to hear them be tortured...you know "misogyny"...

It's a lie by omission. He strips the scene of its context—her heroics and consent—and fails to explain that it's entirely optional, instead using it as evidence of the game brutalizing women senselessly and in a way that's "oppressively misogynist" (remember, he's using that paragraph to back up that characterization).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g [url=][/url]

*shrugs* so he implied the scene was "intentionally stretched out" where as, in reality, the player is disincentived from stopping it out of loyalty to the character being tortured and wanting to play the situation 'her way' and then, if you DO stop it aren't you being a bit 'Daddy knows best'?
Maybe your descriptions are just not getting the situation across - it does sound like an odd one!
I'd have to play it, you're right...

He's using cherry-picked examples, claiming women are getting brutalized all throughout the game, making it seem every other mission is about killing a monster woman and when they aren't getting killed they are there for just the window dressing.

Yet, his cherry-picked examples, the worst he could find, aren't so cut and dry. It's about context. His context is that the game is chock full of misogyny and should be avoided by those sensitive to it. Yet, this should be clearly not true to you from the vast number of people who say otherwise.

Hype, propaganda and agenda mongering is what he is doing. And heck, anyone who listens to him and doesn't buy the game will continue believing all the bullshit he says is true...it really is like a cult...

The entire series of books, you have a self-serving world where noblemen and noblewomen can do as they please. Superstitions are taken as fact. Races such as dwarves and elves are persecuted and some elves fight back "proving" they deserved persecution in the first place. And monsters are real.

Through it all, you have Geralt, monster hunter, a mutant who is trained to kill real monsters which seem to exist in out-of-way places, although with population growth, they are less far away (incidentally part of why the conflict started with the elves).

The books are filled with sub-stories about Geralt trying to make the best choices he can out of two bad options.

The entire series speaks about sexism, racism, religious persecution, class struggle, pride and power. Even many of the bad have reasons for doing what they do. It's not a black and white good vs. evil world. It's filled with greys although some greys are much blacker than others.

That is the world of the Witcher. I've never read sci-fi or fantasy that has even attempted to discuss these issues in such a real world way. When most sci-fi or fantasy discusses these issues, its spoon fed to you, black and white, good vs. evil, not the Witcher. Its a series that frequently dwells in the moral dilemma.

Yet, Arthur Gies chooses to turn the whole thing into his agenda mongering misogyny story...that is a crime!

Meh, I never doubted the game was awesome or we shouldn't be proud of our Polish buddies for putting it out
I just think a guy's entitled to his opinion, however wonky, I guess.
If it comes down to what skewed opinion and what's outright lies though, you're right, I'd have to play it to have an true feel for if he crossed the line or not...

So how far does your defense of people's opinions go?
So when Fox news calls Obama a Muslim and claims he is trying to turn America into a Socialist state?
Or the Holocaust deniers?
Or how about the people in this thread who find issue with certain people? Do we get to have an opinion?

Or is it you just support Arthur Gies opinion now because its pushing in a direction you agree with?

Because you keep coming back to this thread to argue with us and have claimed you do so "because we need opposition", yet when we have something to say about the Polygon review, we should leave him alone to his own opinion...

Because he's interpreting art, not people or world events
I believe that when art is released into the world in can be interpreted any number of ways, any one of which, as long as it's internal logic is sound, is equally valid.
Some novel interpretations are even fun - like BBC children's TV series 'Bagpuss' being an allegory for Communism, like the one mentioned here (the link to the source no longer works, sadly)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/bagpuss/trivia.shtml
A reviewer's job is to interpret art, have an emotional response (or not) and then comment on it, he can't be held responsible if his response happens to not be in line with anyone else's...
As long as he's honest, as I say, the conversation is getting to the stage where there's good arguments that Gies isn't being honest that I can't make my own mind up about without playing the game / experiencing the piece / whatever

Wait, just read that end bit - debate is healthy, but a 'burn the unbeliever who has sullied the name of our god 'The Witcher'' attitude is not!

He's not just interpreting art. He's not a random art critic.

He is informing the public about the qualities of the games he reviews. He receives the game pre-release as a service to the public, so they can be informed about it. His word goes out to thousands. As such, he has a responsibility to put his biases aside and write a review for "us", "the world". His job is to inform us of the qualities of the work not tell us his exaggerated opinions and lead the world toward his agenda. He has a responsibility to the objective truth.

If its wrong that Fox News can call Obama a Muslim knowing full well he's a Christian, then it is also wrong for Arthur Gies to unfairly push the misogyny angle where there isn't.

Unless you are claiming he has the right to propagandize?