183 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

GodWood wrote...
Well for me it's because I'd prefer a character to be written as a character for the palyer to interact with and not a puttee for the player to mold.

The straight romances are already like that, considering neither morality, race, class, or prior decisions are taken into account when a PC can enter a romance.  It really has nothing to do with LIs also being open to both genders.

Why you have to make it an issue solely about sexuality, I don't know.

Modifié par jlb524, 25 septembre 2011 - 09:33 .

[GodWood]

jlb524 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Well for me it's because I'd prefer a character to be written as a character for the palyer to interact with and not a puttee for the player to mold.

The straight romances are already like that, considering neither morality, race, class, prior decisions are taken into account when a PC can enter a romance.

I would much prefer it if they did.

[jlb524]

GodWood wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Well for me it's because I'd prefer a character to be written as a character for the palyer to interact with and not a puttee for the player to mold.

The straight romances are already like that, considering neither morality, race, class, prior decisions are taken into account when a PC can enter a romance.

I would much prefer it if they did.

Well, they don't.

I'm betting they won't start anytime soon.

They used to do this a bit more (in BG2, your morality and race made a difference at least, though the romances themselves still consisted of 'choose the right reply and bingo!').  They've moved away from that since KotOR and all romances have been open to all PCs with the only limiting variable (if there even was one) being gender.  It seems unfair to me to ignore possible class or race issues with, say, the Alistair or Morrigan romances but then limit it to only one gender.

These romances and LIs are never going to behave 'realistically'...it's kind of absurd to expect them to.  They are 'gamey' and will be written for the PC (the phrase 'PCsexual' comes to mind).

The most complex romances I've played have been in fan made mods for games like BG2 or NWN.  Modders have the time to place a significant portion of their module's development resources into the romance aspect (if they wish).  BW doesn't have this luxury.  Considering a smaller percentage of players even complete a romance subquest, it's not their top priority to make these romances super complex or 'realistic'.  So, it kind of makes sense to me that they keep the romances open to all PCs so this small portion of the fanbase can at least enjoy the romance they want to play and in the way they want to play it.

Modifié par jlb524, 25 septembre 2011 - 09:50 .

[Gnaeus Trebonius]

whykikyouwhy wrote...
A dash and dose of realism in fantasy is fine, and is typically the case with stories in that genre.

How you feel about the role of women in the games is, of course, your perogative. I suppose I look at it from a few different angles -

1. The game is not meant to be historically accurate because, in the very least, it does not capture real world history. While it may draw inspiration from, it is not meant to carbon copy anything of our known past.

2. Women have already been established as equals (or near equals) in Thedan society, from the military to the Chantry. That is a given for this particular world-that-is-not-our-own.

3. The DA perception of women is vital to the story being told. Which is Bioware's tale to tell...and this is how they choose to tell it.

4. Fantasy video games that include women in strong, powerful, and equal roles allow for players, male and female alike, to have a more well-rounded gaming experience. It is a decision of inclusion on the part of the developers - an acknowledgement that gender has nothing to do with what kinds of games you play, what stories you like, or how bad*ss you are or may want to be.

As for Andraste, Joan D'Arc (taking all prophetic aspects out) rode into battle, no? Whether or not she actually drew a sword, she served in a military function. So therein is a realistic parallel which would give credence to how Aveline is portrayed.

Again, your preference. I, for one, appreciate how Bioware writes their women.

Again, I'm not asking for historical accuracy, but in the real world women are smaller than men and by the looks of it, the same physical conditions applies in Thedas as well. And bear in mind that "established as equals" doesn't necessarily mean physically equal, but if there is lore stating otherwise I stand corrected. Having said that, I'm not so deluded that I think that BioWare is suddenly going to come around and see things my way (but one can always dream). In my initial post I just brought up a game that I think handles it better. I'm not trying to impose my will on others and I'm sorry if it came out that way but to sum it up, the DA franchise is just turning into to much "Xena" for my taste.

As for Joan D'Arc, I am not disputing women's capabilities as leaders, military or otherwise, but I just find women serving as frontline soldiers in medieval style warfare stretching it too far, or absurd if you will.

Modifié par Gnaeus Trebonius, 25 septembre 2011 - 10:36 .

[Zanallen]

Gnaeus Trebonius wrote...

Again, I'm not asking for historical accuracy, but in the real world women are smaller than men and by the looks of it, the same physical conditions applies in Thedas as well. And bear in mind that "established as equals" doesn't necessarily mean physically equal, but if there is lore stating otherwise I stand corrected. Having said that, I'm not so deluded that I think that BioWare is suddenly going to come around and see things my way (but one can always dream). In my initial post I just brought up a game that I think handles it better. I'm not trying to impose my will on others and I'm sorry if it came out that way but to sum it up, the DA franchise is just turning into to much "Xena" for my taste.

As for Joan D'Arc, I am not disputing women's capabilities as leaders, military or otherwise, but I just find women serving as frontline soldiers in medieval style warfare stretching it too far, or absurd if you will.

The problem you are going to run into is that people are going to want to make female PCs and Bioware gives them that option. Making female characters always physically weaker than males is going to ****** people off and more than likely result in people accusing Bioware of being sexist and raging on the forums.

[whykikyouwhy]

Zanallen wrote...

Gnaeus Trebonius wrote...

Again, I'm not asking for historical accuracy, but in the real world women are smaller than men and by the looks of it, the same physical conditions applies in Thedas as well. And bear in mind that "established as equals" doesn't necessarily mean physically equal, but if there is lore stating otherwise I stand corrected. Having said that, I'm not so deluded that I think that BioWare is suddenly going to come around and see things my way (but one can always dream). In my initial post I just brought up a game that I think handles it better. I'm not trying to impose my will on others and I'm sorry if it came out that way but to sum it up, the DA franchise is just turning into to much "Xena" for my taste.

As for Joan D'Arc, I am not disputing women's capabilities as leaders, military or otherwise, but I just find women serving as frontline soldiers in medieval style warfare stretching it too far, or absurd if you will.

The problem you are going to run into is that people are going to want to make female PCs and Bioware gives them that option. Making female characters always physically weaker than males is going to ****** people off and more than likely result in people accusing Bioware of being sexist and raging on the forums.

Very true.

So too, if by physical equality you mean strength, I would argue that there are many women who may be stronger than men. There is no single mold that all people of one gender fit into. Men and women come in different shapes, sizes, and degrees of physical ability.

[Gnaeus Trebonius]

Zanallen wrote...

Gnaeus Trebonius wrote...

Again, I'm not asking for historical accuracy, but in the real world women are smaller than men and by the looks of it, the same physical conditions applies in Thedas as well. And bear in mind that "established as equals" doesn't necessarily mean physically equal, but if there is lore stating otherwise I stand corrected. Having said that, I'm not so deluded that I think that BioWare is suddenly going to come around and see things my way (but one can always dream). In my initial post I just brought up a game that I think handles it better. I'm not trying to impose my will on others and I'm sorry if it came out that way but to sum it up, the DA franchise is just turning into to much "Xena" for my taste.

As for Joan D'Arc, I am not disputing women's capabilities as leaders, military or otherwise, but I just find women serving as frontline soldiers in medieval style warfare stretching it too far, or absurd if you will.

The problem you are going to run into is that people are going to want to make female PCs and Bioware gives them that option. Making female characters always physically weaker than males is going to ****** people off and more than likely result in people accusing Bioware of being sexist and raging on the forums.

That goes without saying, but still, gender inequality has been done before. If I'm not too old and demented I think it was Arcanum that had a system where female character suffered a strength penalty but got more favorable reactions from NPCs as compensation.

[Stanley Woo]

There's nothing saying you can't make a game that has stat differences for male and female characters. There are pros and cons for including such stat differences, and for not including them. We have chosen to make male and female characters equal and not have stat differences between the two, and this is unlikely to change. Whether you agree or disagree, and for whatever reason, is your prerogative.

[Xilizhra]

The protagonist is the protagonist. A female's strength will be more atypical than a male's, maybe unique if you prefer. This doesn't matter.

[Mike_Neel]

As far as equality goes I like how New Vegas handled it. Sure you could still be a drug addict fem loving girly girl and make passes on Veronica or bring your alcoholic BFF Cass while still working for Kai-zar. But the wondering NPC's would comment on it negatively, some would go so far as to insult you, and they wouldn't let you fight in the arena, but it didn't detract from gameplay or story. It was just simply acknowledged and moved on.

And I also agree the game isn't "mid evil" enough. Not once did Anders suggest a healthy leeching. But maybe leeching is illegal in Thedas. They probably think the leeches are blood mages.

[Androme]

Go EA!

[Uccio]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Very true.

So too, if by physical equality you mean strength, I would argue that there are many women who may be stronger than men. There is no single mold that all people of one gender fit into. Men and women come in different shapes, sizes, and degrees of physical ability.

There sure are such women but on the whole women are weaker and there is no way around that fact. I´m pretty sure there are only few women who could actually guard against my swing with battlexe (I do powerlifting), but I am Also pretty sure there are a lot of men who can do it. 

As for the games, I do not have problem making warrior women but when doing so they should (in my mind) physically look like one. Not like in some of the movies where 50kg girl punches 120kg man and he literally back-flips because of it.
Unless these women are using frost giant belt with +20 stregth. 

[whykikyouwhy]

Ukki wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Very true.

So too, if by physical equality you mean strength, I would argue that there are many women who may be stronger than men. There is no single mold that all people of one gender fit into. Men and women come in different shapes, sizes, and degrees of physical ability.

There sure are such women but on the whole women are weaker and there is no way around that fact. I´m pretty sure there are only few women who could actually guard against my swing with battlexe (I do powerlifting), but I am Also pretty sure there are a lot of men who can do it. 

As for the games, I do not have problem making warrior women but when doing so they should (in my mind) physically look like one. Not like in some of the movies where 50kg girl punches 120kg man and he literally back-flips because of it.
Unless these women are using frost giant belt with +20 stregth. 

Again, it depends on how we are defining physical abilities here, including weakness. I could argue that women have a higher threshold for pain, for example. And depending on the work any person does day after day, there may be some influence on strength. Growing up, I knew some women who were petite in stature yet could probably punch someone once and knock them out flat.

I don't know that we want to go into ratios and statistics though.

Aveline is described (by Isabela) as a "woman-shaped battering ram." In the prologue, she appears fairly muscular, and she looks formidable when in armor. To me, she fits the bill of a female warrior.

As for needing a frost giant belt...well, perhaps people have simply mastered Bruce Lee's one-inch punch.

[Masako52]

Holy crap, this topic. Here's your explanation for this "postmodern" phenomenon - it's FANTASY. Bioware created Thedas, even if they drew inspiration from existing medieval societies. The Bioware team are the gods of Thedas - they decide how history played out. If women are recognized as equals - boom, it's done, that's it. If Thedas doesn't want to burn gay people at the stake and fling religious verses in their faces, boom, it's done. Neither of these things are implausible. Women recognized warriors and leaders have existed in history, so have societies that don't flip out at the prospect of same gendered people being together. Even if they didn't, it doesn't matter, this is a completely different world.

And honestly - I'm a woman and I'm gay. Straight men might not realize how liberating it is to play a game where I'd be treated as normal. If I wanted sexism and homophobia, I have real life for that. It's fun to play a game where those things are minimal or non-issues, and political and social disagreement are about something else, for once.

[WarBaby2]

Yea, only that they Thedas they actually created 4 - 5 years never realy showed in the game... other then the odd rasist towards elves. Dark fantasy... yea, right.^^

[Miashi]

Why are people getting all their panties in a bunch over the place of women in Dragon Age?

It's not like they were being treated any differently in Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights.

Modifié par Miashi, 26 septembre 2011 - 02:43 .

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No it isn't.  LotR is a tragic and ultimately futile struggle against progress.  The hobbits strike out from the shire in order to preserve their pastoral world as it is, and they fail.

The fight between good and evil is tangential at best.

Well, you're right: in his letters Tolkien admitted that the ring symbolizes technology and materialism. But the point is that in Tolkien's works progress is allways bad and the people who fights against it are inherently good. The people who changes side are not people anymore: they get corrupted. There is very little to none ambiguity or compromise. Tolkien word is way darker than many people think on a very superficial reading. Maybe is the darkest fantasy setting ever. And the final of LotR is really sad and tragic. But its whole myth is based on a cultural and cosmical form of dualism between good and bad with no middle ground and there's no way to negate that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

And the final of LotR is really sad and tragic.

It is, and people don't seem to get that.  Even authors don't seem to get that.  The ending of LotR has been copied by so many others, and they frame it as some sort of triumphant moment of historical transition.

But the death of wonder isn't triumphant.  It's depressing.

I hate the end of LotR.

[Addai]

Darkly Tranquil wrote...
George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire on the other hand, is simply a battle between competing factions vying for power. While the story is told from the perspective of certain players and we are supposed to empathise with the position with those protagonists, it cannnot be defined is simple terms of good guys and bad guys; there are only "our guys" and "their guys" not an existential struggle (unless you count the White Walkers, who are against everyone else).

And I'm a big fan, but even ASoIaF has good and bad guys. Really, it does.  I won't go off topic, but if you've read the new one, this should be obvious.  We don't know yet if good vs. bad extends to his cosmology.

To take the "War on Terror" example (hopefully without getting mired in politics); what is the War on Terror but a struggle between ideologies for control of territory and resources? While the form of the struggle has changed, its fundamental nature has not.

The question is, are you pulling for an obvious parallel?  If it's too obvious, then it is even more difficult to get to the underlying themes.  People stick with their surface associations.  A lot of people, anyway.  It's just not the most effective storytelling, IMO.

Quite apart from this, I suspect that Bioware went with the whole bisexuality thing on the basis of game design descisions over ideology. Allowing players to romance companions irrespective of the gender of their character allows the player more freedom in the design of their character.

I think you misunderstood me.  I wasn't objecting to the LIs all being bisexual, but to Anders' little speech about it.  If it truly is subsumed in the world and natural, then why does he need to make a defense for it?  It felt a bit forced, and given what they're trying to do with the LIs, schizophrenic.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 septembre 2011 - 05:39 .

[WarBaby2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

And the final of LotR is really sad and tragic.

It is, and people don't seem to get that.  Even authors don't seem to get that.  The ending of LotR has been copied by so many others, and they frame it as some sort of triumphant moment of historical transition.

But the death of wonder isn't triumphant.  It's depressing.

I hate the end of LotR.

It ends as it has to end, like all fantasy ends... innocence and magic die.

reality is depressing... ;-)

[AudioEpics]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

And the final of LotR is really sad and tragic.

It is, and people don't seem to get that.  Even authors don't seem to get that.  The ending of LotR has been copied by so many others, and they frame it as some sort of triumphant moment of historical transition.

But the death of wonder isn't triumphant.  It's depressing.

I hate the end of LotR.

I'd hate it too if it was about the death of wonder but it really isn't about that at all to me. 
Bittersweet is what I'd call the finale... Not utterly sad and tragic. Tolkien, in my opinion, found a golden balance between what's naive and what's depressing. 
What I love so much about Tolkien and about LotR is that it is in no way just "one thing"...
Is it about good vs. evil? Yes, I believe it is. Is it about a struggle against "progress" (if increasing dependence on technology can be called such. Personally, I believe it to be both a blessing and a curse)? Yes...
Is it about more spiritual themes such as death and afterlife, corruption vs. grace, finding meaning in suffering, the extent of mortal's moral authority, etc.? Yes, I think it explores these themes deeply.
Is it simply about the age-old, universal themes of friendship and hope? Absolutely.
I guess it is whatever it means to you, the reader... And there is both tragedy and hope to be found there.

@DarklyTranquil: I understand your desire to see fantasy grow and move beyond its traditions. Personally, though, I always saw fantasy as the last refuge for old-fashioned romantics such as myself and it feels uncomfortable to see the cynical world of today invading into it. Then again, let there be George R.R. Martins, because as you say, the genre needs to bloom and grow and this is probably the only way for it to do so. I just hope that fantasy can still be romantic and "beautiful" (for lack of a better word) throughout the 21st century... And for that it doesn't even need to be about good vs. evil per se. In fact, I'd love for it to move into more introspective territory... Imagine a Terrence Malick-like approach to fantasy. I'd be hugely interested in that, personally.