-snip-

Welp, I'm sure won't miss the agenda pushing leftists here.

I might migrate to reddit myself, but CD projekt red forums doesn't sound so bad.

Perhaps the blame lies with others for leading it to that point to begin with. 

 

Besides, at least she didn't want to kill Mythal. You can talk to Morrigan about that.

Sorry, but can you elaborate?

All City Elves and All Dalish are essentially repeating the same archetype to me. Just executed in different ways. I think if you don't like Sera, there's a chance you probably never liked the main gist of City Elves. Which is kind about individual freedom and identity. While Dalish are always talking the lost past. Like they can't imagine a life without finding it.

 

Even the Warden City Elf was named "Tabris" -- the angel of Free Will. So even if you didn't play that way, the writers were shooting for it. Fenris gets into similar issues, but in a different way. He's lost his memory, and is trapped into thinking like a slave. So he's at a loss at finding a new home yet. But that's what he wants.

 

Sera is just asserting similar things. She lives in the present and just wants to be "Sera". She just knows it. She's confident about it, more or less. I guess that's a bad thing if you emphasize loss and victimhood.

Or just maybe, Sera rather mocking and disrespectful attitude to anything she doesn't agree with is what pisses off the players. "Hey, so, Mythal was not a real godess Lavellan? Why don't I take a ***** at your beliefs while I laugh at your face. I don't respect you at all*

It's what a dictionary would say. I didn't invent the definition.

 

I'm actually very fine with differing opinions, I don't mind them at all. I'm not fine with people acting aggressively when completely uncalled for.

No, smarty, the dictionary explains what feminism is, or tries to at least. It doesn't define that everyone that shares an similar ideal to it is one. 

I'm also fine with differing opinions, logical ones at least. What I'm not fine with is a bunch of teenagers arrogantly going about acting as if their opinions are facts.

It was your own words, not mine. You felt I should use my time worrying about rape victims, I say do whatever the f**k you want with your time, even if it means attacking 20 year olds on the Internet for stating that they think both genders are equal in worth.

No, you said anyone that thinks similarly to you instantly becomes a member of your group. Wich is a ridiculous assertion. If you can't take this kind of criticism, perhaps you should consider keeping your generalizations to yourself.

Seriously, why don't you worry about the true terrors in this world rather than a girl on the Internet saying she is a follower of gender equality. Jeez. And people wonder why there are wars in this world..

Why don't YOU worry about the true terrors in this world, rather then obsess on how many non whites are present in video games. Free speech doesn't mean immunity to criticism. This is a forum were people speak their minds, not your safe space were everything goes your way.

Why would you think that I don't care about women who are oppressed in the Middle East? I'm very perplexed by this post. I have no idea where you got all this from. If you're a humanist then you're also a feminist. Feminism is believeing that no gender is worth more than the other. Wouldn't we all agree to that? All I'm saying is that I would be sceptical towards a person declaring himself or herself "not a feminist", and here you are, lashing out at me in anger and making false claims about me for simply stating that I am a feminist.

Just listen to yourself, how blindly ignorant. I'm not a feminist, and never will be. I despise their movement. It's utterly arrogant to try labelling people to your ideology because of a shared view or other. Not too different then saying that every patriot should be called an xenophobe. I'm angered because I'm sick of your kind trying to define the world and the people in it by your authoritarian ideals.

"So I personally don't judge people by their ideological positions. It never works. I prefer to evaluate them by the kinds of choices they make and their by their actions as well. Only then it's possible to have a good notion of a person's true beliefs." I can agree with you here to a point. If a person is saying that he or she isn't a feminist, though, for example, I', going to be a bit sceptical. I guess it's usually a case of not wanting to be labeled, or hearing about "feminists" who hate men. It could also mean that someone thinks you a lesser person because of your uterus of lack of it. I'm sure you would also be sceptical towards a person calling himself or herself a racist.

*disgusted noise* The world doesn't spin around your little movement you know? Rather then being dragged in a separatist group, I would rather worry about true opprossion against woman, like asia, and the middle east, were they get raped, multilated, executed and denied education because of their barbaric societies. "But hey, that western man wears a shirt I find sexist. Let me be triggered about that instead"

I'm a humanist. Feminism can go back to the black hole it crowled out from.

And for last of course there is a lot of diversity in dragon age games. Bioware is pretty much married to tumblr.

Fiona from the books at least had guts. She was the kind that would fight for her ideals to the bitter end. In the game she was reduced to a wimp to will make one bad deal after the other out of desperation, prefering to sell her people into slavery to Tevinter rather then fight the templars head on.

the most logical bet is that the Inquisitor will be your boss in DA4 and the new protagonist is their agent operating in Tevinter. Someone that "Solas doesn't know".

But then you get all the complaints from people about, "Bioware, you're stepping on my roleplay!" Usually the same folks that don't want the PC to be voice acted. (Not judging, just observing).

I'm frankly surprised that the Inquisitor had as much backstory as they did. That said, it was kind of clever to put that backstory as a tiny blurb of text at the very beginning of CC -- instead of a full origin mini-quest, so that people can click through not reading it and pretty much roleplay whatever they wanted. Sure, there's a little follow-up dialogue, particularly with Josie, but again, optional and easy to skip if you want.

Too many opposing constituencies and requirements make for bland, neutral, offend no-one. Or, at least, only offend the ones you intend to offend, e.g., with romances.

True, I suppose it's a matter of taste. I for one will gladly give away the ability to have certain headcanon if it means getting a richer story. Not to mention I'm more of a show, don't tell kind of guy. I prefer seeing my protagonist story firsthand. That's why I'm so attached to the Warden and Hawke, while the Inquisitor barely left a mark for me.

It's surprising how many people care about the Inquisitor. I mean, not like the game gave them a rich background or a memorable personality to get strongly attached to. When I first played as Trevelyan, my final thoughts on him were "well, you're nice my dear protagonist, and also incredibly dull". When I played a Lavellan that romanced Solas, it was the first time I felt any level of attachment to an Inquisitor, and that was only because she had a tragic romance with Solas. If it wasn't for that she would just be another boring protagonist that is more of a plot pusher rather then an well established character.

I'm for one am glad that we are likely getting a new protagonist. Hopefully BW will give them a lot more detail to their backstory and personality.

Well, what Gaider is basically saying in those posts, as I interpret it, is that they wouldn't care about Krem's personal views. He's more vague than he probably could have been, but let's look at this paragraph from the thread:

 

"Be careful how you picture the process of becoming aqun-athlok. If you picture someone announcing it, and suddenly the Tamassrans fall all over themselves to abide by that person's wishes, that's not really in keeping with what we've established about Qunari society...and neither is it something Iron Bull implies when he explains the existence of the term. From what you've said, I think the hitch is probably your perception of it as a choice."

 

Basically, what he's saying is that the Qunari assign you to what gender role you fit, not what your biology suggests and definitely not just what you want to be. What a lot of people are missing is that the existence of the aqun-athlok doesn't necessarily mean they just respect your decision to change your gender and live as that role if they don't personally think it fits. It's not necessarily the same as the trans movement in real life, which is how a lot of people are reading it. Your gender role is their decision, not yours. This isn't saying they care more about your personal identity than other societies. It's basically saying they care even less, as usual. 

But in that case, the Sten scene in Origins with the female warden should have gone completely different, while considering BW explanation on the issue. Rather then be weirded out by the female warden fighting as a warrior, shouldn't he simply treat her as a man, and then the confusion would only happen once she proclaims she is woman, and not a man? 

Whether you're happy about the decision or not is up to you, of course. 

 

What Gaider says is that Sten doesn't agree with the Warden presenting and identifying as a woman and still acting as a warrior, so it's a different situation, though. It's implied that, in the Qun, she would be forced to present as Krem does, as a man. There isn't an option to identify as male while choosing a female base, so it's not like they could make that dialog relevant. Although, he does also say that they had, in fact, not planned for the aqun-athlok back then, so there is that. Personally, I don't think it contradicts, but how you feel about the addition is subjective. As a general, I'm not that invested either way. 

I admit you make a fair point. The thing for me is, the qunari have aways been presented as an very anti-individualistic society that is very practical and very literal. So I simply see the qunari - as they were presented in DAO and DA2 - not caring at all about Krem personal views. I believe that if someone like Krem was introduced to the qunari, all they would care is that Krem is biologically a woman, and would need to work on their society as one, be it as a farmer, priest, artisan, etc. And if Krem were to protest about gender, the qunari would just see it as a simple delusion, sending them to a education facility untill their views were "fixed". 

He literally says in the thread "when we talked about..". It's obvious that he was a part of this decision. He was still acting as lead writer during the main game DA:I development period. It's absurd to think he doesn't know the truth about this and you do. You can keep thinking what you want, but I'm not going to continue this conversation with you when there's clear confirmation that you're incorrect. 

It can be true. but you know, writers themselves are not immune to bad writing. I personally find Gaider explanation of qunari gender roles ridiculous when I compare to the stuff Sten said back in DAO.

If Inquisition had deep side content, I didn't see it. I don't recall a single side quest of Inquisition's. Probably because they all felt like cheap assignments. I should clarify my word choice-

 

Main Quests- Naturally, the quests that move the story forward to game completion. Expect cutscenes.

 

Side Quests- Quests that have a reduced importance than main quests but can sometimes be related to the main plot. Oftentimes having cutscenes.

 

Assignments- Quests with no importance, can take them or leave them, hold no narrative weight. Most often lacking cutscenes.

 

Inquisition made everything outside of the main quest line feel like assignments to me. Like, "Why am I even doing this? Is this just to pad things out?" Hence my mention earlier of camera work for the narrative making things feel important.

Other then companion quests, most of the side content felt like very superfulous filler. Especially since their stories felt so generic. Hell, the entire descent DLC felt like a giant generic side quest.

The only side quest in the entire game that actually called my attention was the one called "the loss of a friend" in Jaws of Hakkon, were you discover an Inquisition soldier went on a rampage on some Avaar after his friend was killed, and then when you finally find him following the onslaught, you discover him behaving rather oddly, untill by talking with him further and further, you discover he became an abomination. That quest had a great atmosphere and good build up.

His romance wasn't all that romantic, it's a very gay conscious relationship with the no string attached sex, closeted and avoiding telling people that you guys are in a relationship when returning his item, and gay conversion. His relationship just seems pretty angsty and place too much emphasis on his orientation as opposed to just being in a romantic relationship for my liking. You don't see lesbian characters like Sera or Samantha having these angsty problem. 

I see your point. BW does have a thing for angsty romances. DA2 itself was an angst fest, with Sebastian and Isabela being closest to drama free. When I think about it, there is barely any well balanced romance in the DA series (for my taste anyway) they either feel too tame or too angsty. I didn't even liked the Cullen romance. I thought he was overly submissive and awkard. The only scene he ever talks back in a discussion is back at Haven if you recruit the mages or disband the templars. In the romance as a whole, he never shows that kind of backbone in a conversation.

I'm fine with Qunari, I just don't like the entire joke like aspect of the relationship. His relationship isn't romantic at all, you have to agree to BDSM relationship or he'd break up with you, can't walk after having sex with him, people walk in on you having sex, then treat marriage like a casual thing and absolutely like whatever. I want romantic scenes, I like for Alistair to give my male character flower while picking it and thinking of me, I like for Cullen to throw my male character on table after clearing it. What I like is romance. Why is it so hard for them to give romance to a gay romance?

Didn't they gave Dorian romance a dialogue option for the relationship to be more romantic rather then sexual?

I wouldn't be surprised if the opening sequence consists of the Ark departing right during the reaper invasion on earth.

They'll find a way.

Why do you think Gaspard has less men? Cullen says most of the chevaliers sided with him and we know the biggest reason Gaspard gained support from the nobility was because he race baited them about Celene forcing the university to teach their children elves and humans were equal. And of course he has a choice. Celene is one of the best rulers Orlais ever had and there is no reason to depose her. He plays the game because he's power hungry, just like every other orlesian noble.

Celene never had any problems to secure Orlais's borders before Gaspard started the civil war for no good reason, and Tevinter has other problems anyway (...and honestly, I find Tevinter the lesser evil compared to the qunari).

And Celene is not? She is no better then Gaspard. She merely wears a friendly mask that makes her look like the better person.

That's you. I think both should be wiped out, or at least subjulgated.

You do realize the Inquisition stops having any power after Trespasser right?

 

Also, you are fine with someone who is a blatant racist and plans on a war that will kill innocent people? Read the Stolen Throne and see how horrible Orlais was to Ferelden for why Gaspard is a bastard that deserves to die.

And? Why should that stop Gaspard from fighting Tevinter? 

Hypocrite. The mages get a lot of innocents killed for their cause, but you fully support their plight even so. I don't care he is racist or whatever else you accuse him to be. He is a pragmatic realist that focus on the bigger picture and puts the nobility at bay. He deserves a medal for not letting the game corrupt him like it did to many others.

Gaspard is a warmongerer, but he was never portrayed as as an unstoppable force or a military mastermind. As far as we know, his and Celene's forces were both pretty evenly matched and Gaspard wasn't winning the civil war or even coming close. It seems to me that Celene's generals are just as competent. And Gaspard may not like the game, but in the end he plays it as dirty, if not dirtier than Celene. And even if he wants to remove it from Orlesian politics entirely, there is absolutely no way he could possibly do that.

Also, my inquisitor couldn't care less about his birthright. Celene was Orlais savior after Florian's rule had brought the empire to the brink of collapse...and we're told that the country has never been quite so prosperous as it is now. Again, Celene has her problems, but she is basically a better ruler than Gaspard could hope to be in every way. She has supported the arts, opened the University to commoners and was working on opening it to Elves. Gaspard? All we know is that he wants to a start a war... either with Ferelden or some other nation. Cool? But war isn't going to help anyone, it's going to extend the civil war and cause more harm for Thedas as a whole. I think the country's wellbeing is more important than Gaspard's birthright.

Shouldn't it tell you something that a rebelious "usurper" is managing to fight the leader of the very empire to a stand still? He has less men and resources then Celene, and yet he manages to put a fight against her. And so are we forced to play the game. Gaspard tells you he desipises it, but if he wants to beat Celene he needs to go along with it. He doesn't play dirty becuase he likes it, but because he doesn't have a choice. There is a difference. In the end, is best to at least try fighting the game rather then just let the petty nobles do as they please, wasting time, money and lives on a worthless struggle that means nothing.

Good for Celene. But as far as I'm concerned, being a liberal leader doesn't condone Celene from being a corrupt bastard that is rotten to the very core. I honesly don't see what's wrong with Gaspard keeping Tevinter at bay. He restores Orlais to it's former might and through our influence, we point him at the right enemies.

Well, Briala was willing to prolong the civil war which resulted in death and suffering for many people (humans and elves) that are caught in the middle. She is no angel...but I guess nobody hanging out at the Orlesian court is.

But even with metagaming I can't think of any reason why my inquisitor would want to side with Gaspard. Celene was always a decent ruler who was peaceful and looked to strengthen Orlais via internal reforms rather than warmongering. And with Briala at her side, she would at least try to make the world a better place for the elves...and it should be more sustainable than Briala ruling through Gaspard as well.

Because Gaspard is a military minded men. He is the perfect ally for the times the Inquisitor finds him/herself in. He is also completely against the petty game, wich is a plus in my book. Not to mention the legitimate heir of the throne. Celene did stole it from him through her machinations.