- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
The reactionary women-hating alt-right gamer-gate neo-nazi losers should just be ignored at this point.
“at this point”
You’ve paid attention to them at some point?
To be fair, this post is the first I’ve heard of people upset about it
The thing about them is that they are loud, directed, and often affect the first impression a game gets. If this wasn’t with The Witcher fame, the effect would be more notable, and oftentimes they don’t admit why they really have a problem with the game directly.
and oftentimes they don’t admit why they really have a problem with the game directly
I think in many cases they aren’t even admitting it to themselves. Self-delusion is kind of a recurring theme with them.
deleted by creator
No pre-orders. This should be the No.1 rule for any gamer.
You dont even know what you get, why would you pre-order?
deleted by creator
If pre-orders ever made sense, it was when you still needed a physical cartridge or disc and the game wouldn’t get patches anyways. But those days are long gone.
Eeew
deleted by creator
I really enjoyed cyberpunk 2077, I bought it a year after release on sale.
Now talk to several people who bought it day 1 😅
In all seriousness though, pre-ordering is bullshit
deleted by creator
People are complaining of having to stare at a female’s body while playing? They prefer looking at at male’s butt? That’s soooo gay!
I’m a straight male who is very secure in my masculinity. But I’ve gotten shit from people when I use female characters in games. Never understood why that’s a problem.
I usually play as a female character in games too. I prefer to look at pretty things.
Can we stop with this stupid and homophobic argument?
- This seems sarcastic. I can tell by the punctuations i am seeing.
- It’s abit gay tho
Lol yes, thank you. I’m of the opinion that using /s defeats the whole point of sarcasm… But at the same time I suspect the world is going crazy via misinterpreted sarcasm on the Internet… It’s a tough decision, maybe I should be using /s but then it’s not sarcasm anymore…
🤣
I don’t think sarcasm is the problem. The bad actors are. In fact i think sarcasm is more necessary than ever:
- If we don’t understand what is and IS NOT sarcasm, the opinions of bad actors won’t be laughed at. If they aren’t actively laughed at they’ll be encouraged by the idea that they’re being taken seriously.
- If people don’t learn to recognize bullshit with friends(in a safe environment) then they’re going to fail to differentiate the truth elsewhere where it can truly hurt them and those around them.
Poe’s law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
Poe’s law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious”.[4]
The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article.
The original statement of Poe’s law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]
Since when is Poe making laws? I thought he’s an X-Wing pilot.
Have you considered that the comment could, in fact, be a joke?
His point is that making it a joke is kinda homophobic. Like being gay is a joke.
the joke isn’t about being gay at all. it’s about reactionary people complaining about things being woke and gay but refusing to play with a woman on camera at all times. it’s using their inconsistency against them; not advocating for it.
It’s making fun of idiots that think like that, not gay people.
Yes
Why the downvotes though!? This is GOLD!
Americans telling Polish how to write their books and make their games, lol. Fuck off!
Them books are woke.
Tldr?
Females characters who live independently.
ehhhhhhh
I mean Ciri does but she’s a child throughout the books.
Yennefer and Triss are almost only as independent as their insatiable lust for Geralt lets them be. Kind of like Triss and Shani in the Witcher 1 but I’d argue they’re worse in that game than in the books
Thanks, I find the winky a much better option than the cold monotonous /s
I’ve said for years that one or more of the main characters should be prominent, but you play most of the game as a custom character and you get to choose your witcher school. So I’m sort of hoping that she’s the protagonist and main character in a similar way to how she is TW3.
Eh, idk. The Witcher universe has a framework for an RPG, but the books have always been about Geralt and Co. You could do something different in that universe, but I think the story and the games have some very strong structure that comes from the player being Geralt and living his story.
Witchers are a rare dying breed. Trying to shove another new generic Witcher in would force you into writing a whole new series of stories, and backgrounds, just for that one character, which would make it get lost in the mix imho.
I can’t play games anymore because of nonsense like this. I changed hobbies to writing Chinese poetry and watching ballet. The last Ballet I saw was Swan Lake in China. Absolutely beautiful.
I’m mad about Ciri being the main character, however the reason I’m mad is not because of her character or her being a woman. What I’m upset about is that I thought this game would take place in a completely different time period or region. Like maybe during the first witchers? Maybe in the future? But no, CDPR is just force extending existing characters and a story that clearly ended. Zzzzz
Quite the opposite for me. Having only random ass characters in the story would kill all my hype. Also I wished for Ciri as MC in the next game ever since I player W3, so for 10 years now.
My dream witcher game is set like 150 years in the future (early industrialized time period of the witcher universe.) And there could be tension as guns are invented and witchers aren’t needed as much. How great would that be?
Wanted to mention - The Season of Storms Witcher book has a short flash forward to around 150 years in the future, and they’re starting to burn fossil fuels. That’s where I got the 150 years.
Exactly my opinion as well, last game ended perfectly for a new story.
Yes. The games already retconned the ending of the books, which was pretty finalized. But whatever, the games were good. But now they’re just force extending an already forced extended storyline rofl. I was hoping for completely new characters in a completely new settings/time period. Such a fucking shame.
They made such a big deal about the witcher 4 not being about Geralt and being it’s own story, and now they’re just extending Ciri’s storyline. Pretty braindead decision in my opinion. It feels like they are just lazy and gave up on making a new character.
I think it’s risk aversion to some extent ?
It’s the same bullshit that has ruined hollywood. It’s safer to just reboot some bullshit or force a sequel vs. coming up with something new and original.
I’m not saying doing another Witcher game in general is a forced sequel. But using the same damn character is definitely a forced extension.
I’ve never read the books, but… It was clear from game 3 that she was going to play an important role in the future. The entire plot of the main campaign in Witcher 3 was about HER powers. The Wild Hunt wanted her, not Geralt.
Plus also she’s awesome anyway. What the fuck is wrong with people? Oh I can’t enjoy my vibeo game with a wahmen as main character, it’ll ruin my mood!
Honestly I’d rather be looking at a cute girl dashing around than an old man, even if I identify more with the latter. Video games are for exploring things. Fantasy worlds, dragons, wraiths… And the biggest problem with suspending disbelief is playing a character who isn’t the same gender as the player? lmao.
Maybe I’m just not enough of a gamer. Only been two and a half decades or so since I first touched a computer and played games.
I’m trying to remember the first game I played with a female lead and I think it was portal. And that woman didn’t speak. Strangely the next was transistor and she technically didn’t speak either.
Plus also she’s awesome anyway. What the fuck is wrong with people? Oh I can’t enjoy my vibeo game with a wahmen as main character, it’ll ruin my mood!
That’s what I don’t understand, like, have people not played the Horizon games? They’re awesome, they’re fun as hell.
People like Geralt, they like his brooding attitude. Making. Game about ciri means they don’t get a game with Geralt. And they really want another game with him for some reason.
Idk why they blame woke though
I’ve only played Witcher 3, and I thought it was obvious that it’s Ciri’s story being told from the perspective of the supporting cast, and that is an incredibly cool literary device.
Honestly the longform books take a similar approach, telling several very important people’s stories from the perspective of how their stories intertwined with Geralt’s and later Ciri’s
She is great in the books. One of the most unique characters in fiction imho. CDProjekt did really well adapting the continuation of her story in the games.
Tomb Raider. That’s all I’m gonna say.
Tomb Raider is not a woman protagonist game though, at least in the first game they wanted to have Indiana Jones but didn’t got the rights to it. So the developers replaced the assets with a female.
In whole series there is not much that makes her a woman, more like an American gun-maniac guy that looks like a girl.
The first game didn’t have much in the way of story. The focus was on the puzzles and adventuring. I don’t think that makes her less of a woman character. In a video game, the assets are the only difference, anyway. Not that women can’t be rough and adventurous and physical and like guns.
The protagonist is a woman.
I didn’t played the game or read the books but I think if you are playing a game that is called Witcher and the Witcher himself is missing that is a big issue.
Normally you would get a new game with a new title but big companies want to use the IP and think using a known title is always better than coming up with a new title.
As I said I didn’t played Witcher 3 so dunno if it makes sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if people are unhappy when their main character is missing in the game.
How in the heck would Ciri not be the main character after the events of Witcher 3? Did anyone actually think she wouldn’t be?
I mean, I prayed to the nether gods that we’d get a Letho game. He’s the perfect protagonist if they wanted to move away from the books and more firmly into their own OC. Always had huge main character energy, and would be perfectly suited for exploring the morally grey areas of the Witcher world.
anyone who has read the books was likely surprised that ciri wasn’t the main character of any of the games when they first started coming out :::especially since geralt dies at the end of the books :::
ciri was more the mc than geralt for most of the books. she’s the child of destiny. she’s the young character that grows up as we follow their journey. she’s the one that finds herself and shows major character development throughout the books. the only character development geralt goes through is accepting his bond with ciri.
the first two games never mentioning ciri was outright bizarre tbh. only even remotely possibly because geralt lost his memory. like, with where geralt as at by the end of the books the only thing you could possibly expect him to do on regaining his memory is frantically search for signs of his adopted daughter
to a longtime book reader my reaction to ciri being the protag of the next game was “FINALLY”
my only curiosity at this point is how much she’ll be like book ciri. does she know magic? in the books ciri goes to sorceress school and then gets trained in primal magic by unicorns and immortal space elves. can you fuck a horse? that was one of the more… questionable scenes in the book.
tangent: sapkowski’s politics occasionally bleed through in weird ways in the books. like three’s a scene where a woman finds out she’s pregnant mid way through a literal war that our band wades through on their journey to save the world. the party basically needs the woman to proceed. she does not want the child. i believe it was the product of rape. yet for some reason geralt and a literal fucking vampire convince her that abortion is wrong and she should keep it instead of drinking a potion about it. it was so randomly out of character for everyone involved. but hey, that’s catholics for you i guess… /tangent
i think they generally said that ciri lost her elder blood powers after the king of the hunt was killed right? otherwise I’m gonna be really curious how handle that as well. she should be sort of the world’s greatest sorceress otherwise. ooh, i wonder if she’ll make quips about cyberpunk and/or other worlds she’s traveled to. like, she spent Decent bit of time in Arthurian legend. she shows up briefly in Victorian London.
also, what will the world at large look like? they can’t do it like the last time where your previous save could alter the new game based on your decisions. you were simply able to do too much. they’d need to make like 3 entirely separate stories at the very least. like, who rules the north? are you the empress of nilfguard? is the church burning all the nonhumans at record pace? you can basically decide the entire fate of the northern realms and all of its people in multiple ways… unless it just takes place elsewhere. maybe we’ll be in zerrikania this time or some shit. there are many distant lands that the games never take us. it would be much more doable that way. then you’d just have to change dialogue and maybe swap out a few characters.
aaaanyway… yeah, anyone mad about her being the mc is a dumbass that doesn’t know shit about the story.
can you fuck a horse? that was one of the more… questionable scenes in the book.
Uhhh which book is that? If it’s the section I’m thinking of with Kelpie the horse, she’s entranced by its beauty and it’s rider/owner tries to use that to get into her pants (and ultimately died before he was successful) but I don’t believe she ever expressed sexual attraction at all to it by my memory from reading the books a couple of months ago.
the party basically needs the woman to proceed. she does not want the child. i believe it was the product of rape. yet for some reason geralt and a literal fucking vampire convince her that abortion is wrong and she should keep it instead of drinking a potion about it
The party is trying to find Ciri after her disappearance. Geralt and Cahir are having visions indicating that she’s presently in great danger and suffering (and at that she was!). Finding out while practically at the front lines of the great war that their incredible archer, Milva is pregnant completely derails their entire journey because she can’t ride, shouldn’t travel, and will need to rest in a safe area for a while (which they are at this point constantly far from anywhere safe), plus they can’t exactly bring a baby onto the battlefield they’re actively crossing. It’s one moral quandry wrapped in another. Ultimately Geralt and Cahir leave it to Milva’s decision, as does Regis the barber-surgeon/vampire who created the abortion potion.
Also it wasn’t rape. While guiding a group of elves to safety, they hid in a thicket for a night with Nilfgaurdians surrounding them and searching for them. The elves decided that since they were likely to die a horrible death at any moment that they should take the time they have to find what enjoyment they can, and Milva decided to join in. It just so happened they did not die that night and now Milva is carring a halfling for whom she does not know the fathers name (for safety no names were shared with the elves she guided)
i think they generally said that ciri lost her elder blood powers after the king of the hunt was killed right? otherwise I’m gonna be really curious how handle that as well. she should be sort of the world’s greatest sorceress otherwise.
She gave up her magic after trying to use fire as a source of power out of desperation while navigating out of the “Frying Pan” desert. She wanted to save Little Horse the unicorn after an unfortunate battle with a monster she hadn’t yet learned of, but no other sources were available. My understanding is fire as a magical source is all consuming so it is forbidden to pull from for safety reasons, but that was largely left up to interpretation.
Upon pulling from fire, she saw the imense power that presented her, the ability to rule the entire world, but also how that would hurt those she cared so deeply about, so she instead gave up her sourceress’ powers.
If you want anything to complain about in the books it should be Milva’s winging about being an illiterate farm girl that honestly was out of character and just seemed written in so she wouldn’t outshine the others
Edit: Cahir’s attraction to Ciri is also creepy as hell the way it’s written, but that might be intentional, since that’s at a point where she’s coming to realize that everyone wants something from her, everyone will tell her why she should want to give them what they want from her but nobody ever seems to care or ask what she actually wants.
I was under the impression that it wasn’t Victorian London, but The Plague Year. IIRC she, canonically, brings a blanket infested with plague lice from here to there, and ends up dropping it next to the ship Catriona, which is how the Catriona plague actually gets started. It was one of those “oh shit, yes, that explains everything” moments for me when I first read the books.
oh yeah, it’s been a while. details at foggy.
She does also extremely briefly travel to Edwardian or Victorian London (I forget exactly what year it was). It’s mostly depicted through a newspaper clipping from The Sun and a rebuttle from another newspaper calling out their quoted witness for trespassing and strongly implying he was inebriated at the time and being an unreliable source. It’s quite comically written really
hold up… ciri fucked a horse?
no, but she kind of wanted to… but it’s also way more fucked than that. please don’t make me type it out here. I’ll just say it involves violent rape while she’s still under age. it could be construed as a trauma response, but it’s debatable… I’m not convinced that sapkowski would have known what a trauma response was when he wrote that scene in the… 90s?
can’t actuality remember which book that happened in.
By [email protected]’s description I know what scene they’re talking about. It’s not great but it’s not as bad as they make out. Basically she ends up traveling for a bit with this really smarmy dude. Think incel used car salesman. He’s described as having greasy hair, he’s clearly not trustworthy and acts only in his own best interest, and is constantly trying to get into Ciri’s pants. But, he’s riding this incredible horse the likes of which Ciri has never seen before (and it turns out to in fact be a magical horse) and Ciri is just entranced by this incredible and majestic horse, and smarmy dude can tell, so he makes sure to use the horse to get Ciri to interact with him even though they both know she wants nothing to do with him and only gives him the light of day to see his horse.
Anyways smarmy dude and Ciri end up running from some bandits, smarmy dude is injured but plays down how badly, and basically uses this plus gifting her the horse she’s so entranced by to manipulate and guilt her into agreeing to sleep with him (from her perspective it’s been made clear how curious but nervous she is about sex, so she’s not entirely opposed, but it’s also implied up to this point that she’s far more into women than men) and then just as she’s starting to potentially enjoy the pity sex with the asshole but before either of them can actually get their pants off, he fucking dies!
If anything, Ciri’s the character whose story is wrapped up by the end of Witcher 3, she saved the world and fulfilled her destiny. Unlike Geralt or the sorceresses, she does get old too.
It’s definitely understandable that a lot of players would feel betrayed at having Ciri becoming the MC after 3 games of Geralt. People would riot if you made someone else than Lara Croft the MC of tomb raider. A better solution would probably be a character creator for a new generation of witchers. Ciri is too powerful to be the MC.
Isn’t the good ending geralt giving her a Witcher blade and calling her an official witcher? That to me sets up part 4. End of the day im glad geralt gets a rest. Besides they’re remaking 1 and 2 so the geralt fix will come
There’s plenty of different endings, but yeah that’s probably the one they’ll make canon.
The thing is Geralt is The Witcher, making Ciri the protagonist is a bastardization of the saga. Imagine that J.K rowling came up with a new book, titled it Harry Potter 8, and made the protagonist Hermione. To me this shows a real lack of understanding of their audience, people play The Witcher for the fantasy of being Geralt, of being a monster killer, of hooking up with every sorceress. But obviously IP sells, and they aren’t gonna change the title of the saga to something like “child of the elder blood”.
I wish them the best of luck, maybe they’ll pull off a fallout 3 and reinvent themselves. But I personally will be passing on this spinoff.
She is the main character toward the end. The story was great and I need to replay it
She’s not just the main character towards the end, she is the main character of the story. We play Geralt, who is a side character in Ciri’s story.
I never really thought about it like that. Is that how the book series goes? I probably should read those as well
kind of, it’s more like it starts a geralt’s story, but becomes ciri’s story. the first two books are all geralt. after that it’s about geralt and ciri’s relationship. then by the last book we barely even see geralt.
then after the series was finished he started writing more little stories from earlier in geralt’s life.
as i said in another comment. it’s downright bizarre that ciri doesn’t get mentioned until the third game. she almost makes more sense as the protag anyway.
Came here to say this. Anyone that’s played Witcher 3 should have already known that Ciri was going to be the protagonist in the next game. I can’t wait. Ciri is badass.
Someone who can tame unicorns and jump through time and space is much more interesting than a berserker monster slayer.
Well, unless you fucked up the choices near the end. Really not fond of CDPR’s habit of that.
Yeah, there were a couple of tiny decisions, any of which failed you out if you got them wrong, and several of them had deceptive descriptions during the QTE.
Any person who unironically uses “woke” is a complete douche canoe and can go get fucked. Change my mind.
Woke means being aware that an interaction with a cop is a life or death situation. Cops aren’t your friends, they’re not here to protect you. They’re a threat, motivated by cruelty and love of power. When dealing with a cop, you have to speak gently, keep your hands visible at all times, and declare your intentions for every action. Or you could die. You could still die even if you do all that.
I won’t. Nobody is able to define what “wokeness” really means to them because it’s mostly code for “subset of people I don’t want to exist around me”.
Surprisingly, that doesn’t sound very good when said out loud.
“Woke” has had a consistent meaning since its introduction into the English language almost a hundred years ago. It means “Aware of systemic racism.”
When blues legend Lead Belly ended a show in 1938 by saying, “Stay woke,” he meant: “Stay aware of systemic racism.”
When some chud on YouTube in 2025 says “‘Woke’ is ruining gaming,” he means that awareness of systemic racism is ruining gaming. For him.
And when an American politician calls himself “anti-woke”, he’s saying that he opposes the awareness of systemic racism. Not that he denies the existence of it, but that he’d prefer no one talk about it, so that it can continue.
When some chud on YouTube in 2025 says “‘Woke’ is ruining gaming,” he means that awareness of systemic racism is ruining gaming. For him.
I don’t think it even goes that far tbh. Especially for less political, more gamer-type “conservatives”, it just means “the other side”, forcing so many girls (1) into their game. Maybe it’s just to deflect having to admit to being a misogynist.
And when an American politician calls himself “anti-woke”, he’s saying that he opposes the awareness of systemic racism. Not that he denies the existence of it, but that he’d prefer no one talk about it, so that it can continue.
Yes, exactly. No sane person would call themselves “anti-woke”. Unless they’re successful in subverting its meaning to be “those we’ll put in concentration camps”. Oh wait, that still wouldn’t make you sane.
Don’t let the alt-right dictate what “woke” means
I would love to not let the nazis dictate how the swastika is used, but their perversion of the original meaning has permanently altered how it’s seen by the rest of the world. Claiming the moral high ground by trying to force something to mean what it no longer does is a pointless exercise.
It’s not about claiming the moral high ground, it’s just that you can’t have a word that can be used to mean its opposite, even if “sarcastically”. The word woke is just the past tense of wake, nothing else. It can be used to represent someone “waking up” from the hide-your-head-in-the-sand routine, or becomes able to see things from a new perspective. For the right, it doesn’t really mean anything, but they are pretty much using it as the new “sheeple”. Which doesn’t make any sense.
But the important thing is this: if someone is ridiculing people for wanting to be informed, involved in society, or generally just themselves, the only thing they’re actually insulting is their own intelligence and heart. If we let them have their use of woke as a generic mean insult, we lose sight of that.
More than swastikas, I think this case is closer to saying “you can use literally to mean figuratively because it’s common use” to which I also say no, fuck that.
But yes, swastikas forever symbolise Nazism. That doesn’t negate their original, positive meaning previously found in history, religion and culture. This is not an “achtually it’s ok to draw swastikas because they are actually good”. I’m just saying that context, and intent, matters. If you tattoo one on yourself as a westerner, you’re a Nazi - and it’s ok that everyone treats you like one. But should those original uses be stopped because it’s now “forever bad”?
Let Doechii do it for you 😛
I think that ship has sailed. That word is at the moment a clear sign the person using it is an asshole. It can be reclaimed, but right now I don’t see that happening.
Wrong way round. The unironic woke is the BLM socially aware activist.
It’s since around 2020 woke is mostly used as an insult by douche canoes.
Woke is now a synonym for Social Justice warrior.
A person or movement prioritizing moralizing outrage about minor grievances over actual effective societal change.
As my half Nigerian cousin likes to say on issues like white people wearing dreadlocks: “That’s something only white privileged women care about.”
Yes I agree with your interpretation of what woke currently means. I’m saying that this is actually using woke ironically an insult. An unironic usage has no negative connotations.
The best new use of woke is the woke right.
The author James Lindsay has defined it in similar terms, as “a victimhood-based identity politics” whose “victim groups are whites, Christians, men, and straight people”. He argues that the movement is “roughly intersectional” insofar as it is obsessed with identity politics and a grievance relating to anti-white racism. “Like their counterparts on the Woke Left,” Lindsay writes, “the Woke Right have accepted as fact that there’s a conspiracy against people like them and that their only real hope is to lean into the identity grouping and advocate for collective power under that heading”. In these terms, the “woke right” is a kind of ideological doppelgänger, whose members exhibit the same precisionist and absolutist tendencies of their leftist counterparts.
Pierce Morgan uses it more and more often against right wingers to great effect.
Right. The right wingers are arguing (usually without knowing it because they don’t understand words) for people to stay asleep and not think or question
They should do a Last Of Us prequel with Joel, but he dies in that one too due to time travel shenanigans.
Can we have a Joel from another universe be the one to kill him? Multiverses are so hot right now.
Everything should be woke actually. If you complain about wokeness I don’t think you deserve to enjoy things
