1306 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

MissOuJ wrote...

[trigger warning: discussion about sexual assault (although mild)]

I mean, Bann Vaughan even says something similar outright: "Sometimes elves get the idea they're people and they have to be put to their place". That's like outright saying "I kill kittens because I'm evil". True racist often preface their racism with the infamous "I'm not racist, but..." or "I don't really hate X people, but...". People try to rationalise their actions, good or bad.  If DA:O had actual commentary on either racism or violence against women (like in Vaughan's case) if you asked him why he raped an elven girl he's try to convince you "It was just a misunderstanding" and "in truth, she was really into it" and "later changed her mind" because "you know how those elven girls are, right?". Or if you asked about what's happening in the Alienage he'd reply something along the lines of "They're complaining about not getting for free what the rest of us work to get", "Try to get some sympathy although their problems are their own fault" and so forth.

I completely disagree.  Yes, that's how racism works today, because racists are aware that their opinion is the minority.

Bann Vaughn thinks elves are a lesser beings than humans, and he thinks the world agrees with him.  So why would he hide that?  His words closely mirror the sorts of things written in the real world, but written 400 years ago.

And frankly, some people do complain about not getting for free the things the rest of us work to get.  That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say.  That's not indicative of racism at all.

[robertthebard]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MissOuJ wrote...

[trigger warning: discussion about sexual assault (although mild)]

I mean, Bann Vaughan even says something similar outright: "Sometimes elves get the idea they're people and they have to be put to their place". That's like outright saying "I kill kittens because I'm evil". True racist often preface their racism with the infamous "I'm not racist, but..." or "I don't really hate X people, but...". People try to rationalise their actions, good or bad.  If DA:O had actual commentary on either racism or violence against women (like in Vaughan's case) if you asked him why he raped an elven girl he's try to convince you "It was just a misunderstanding" and "in truth, she was really into it" and "later changed her mind" because "you know how those elven girls are, right?". Or if you asked about what's happening in the Alienage he'd reply something along the lines of "They're complaining about not getting for free what the rest of us work to get", "Try to get some sympathy although their problems are their own fault" and so forth.

I completely disagree.  Yes, that's how racism works today, because racists are aware that their opinion is the minority.

Bann Vaughn thinks elves are a lesser beings than humans, and he thinks the world agrees with him.  So why would he hide that?  His words closely mirror the sorts of things written in the real world, but written 400 years ago.

And frankly, some people do complain about not getting for free the things the rest of us work to get.  That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say.  That's not indicative of racism at all.

There is a point here that you are missing, however.  The "get sympathy even though the problems are their own fault" thing.  It was not my City Elf's fault that his parents lived in an alienage.  It is not his fault that humans feel like they can come in and rape the women any time they want, with no legal ramifications.  That last little bit is the key.  Petrice abused her power over and over, and it wasn't until she killed the viscount's son that the Grand Cleric decided it was enough.  I wonder, however, if the boy had been a mage if it would have played out any differently?

[MissOuJ]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MissOuJ wrote...

[trigger warning: discussion about sexual assault (although mild)]

I mean, Bann Vaughan even says something similar outright: "Sometimes elves get the idea they're people and they have to be put to their place". That's like outright saying "I kill kittens because I'm evil". True racist often preface their racism with the infamous "I'm not racist, but..." or "I don't really hate X people, but...". People try to rationalise their actions, good or bad.  If DA:O had actual commentary on either racism or violence against women (like in Vaughan's case) if you asked him why he raped an elven girl he's try to convince you "It was just a misunderstanding" and "in truth, she was really into it" and "later changed her mind" because "you know how those elven girls are, right?". Or if you asked about what's happening in the Alienage he'd reply something along the lines of "They're complaining about not getting for free what the rest of us work to get", "Try to get some sympathy although their problems are their own fault" and so forth.

I completely disagree.  Yes, that's how racism works today, because racists are aware that their opinion is the minority.

Bann Vaughn thinks elves are a lesser beings than humans, and he thinks the world agrees with him.  So why would he hide that?  His words closely mirror the sorts of things written in the real world, but written 400 years ago.

Historically , that's how racism (and classism, and sexism, and any other form of oppression) has always worked. It has been in Plato's apetite/spirit/reason hierarchy in The Republic,  in the altogether dubious "social darwinistic" evolution theories which claimed that people of colour had less evolved brains because they were in evolutionary terms (?!) closer to "less intelligent" primates, in the ridiculous claims of the Catholic church that since "the barbarians" couldn't properly care for their land (as was God's will) it was perfectly okay - even preferable - to "release" them of their claim to he land so it could be "properly tended to". People have always - always - tried to justify their racism and xenophobia, the more popular justifications being religion and sloppy science.

That isn't hiding it - it's rationalising it: "Elves are lesser being because..." Either we should get enough clues from the lore/conversations to fill that sentence ourselves ("...because they're all lazy, lying freeloaders", "...because they're all dirty criminals", "...because they're dangerous freaks who'd steal our children in a heartbeat if they just had the chance") or someone should outright say it. It is done in DA2 , in DA:O we're left guessing as to the reasons and rationalisations, which in turn leaves out an important part of the whole conversation, because attacking the latter two is the only way the oppressive institution can be torn down.

Also, if racist people really were in the minority in the real world we wouldn't have the MET using racial slurs against people they're stop-and-searching, there'd be no income inequalities between different ethnic groups, nor would there be institutionalised discrimination of POC's in education, media, justice system etc. That's what institutional racism means: KKK isn't the only form of racism there is.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And frankly, some people do complain about not getting for free the things the rest of us work to get.  That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say.  That's not indicative of racism at all.

Like how white, heterosexual, cis-gendered, ablebodied and typically masculine men "work hard to get" what women, sexual and gender minorities, people with disabilities and POC "get for free" through to social security programmes (if they exist), equal opportunity programmes (if they exist), gender quotas (if they exist), hate speech and antidiscrimination laws (if, again, they even exist in the first place)?

And seriously, if someone in the position of priviledge (for example, a heterosexual white man) thinks that, say, a POC being recruited through a minority outreach programme is them "getting something for free which I have worked hard to get" then yes, that person would not only be racist but extremely ignorant about several hundred years of history and systematic oppression of POC by the white people.

But anyway, back to the main topic. Just look at all the conversations on these boards alone about Templars and Mages, the morality of the Circle and the Chantry, the discussion on whether or not Mages actually deserve their freedoms - those discussions alone tell me DA2 has made people think about these questions in depth. I have yet to see such passion - or such scale of different opinnions - in a discussion about Elven oppression. There was probably more discussion about the visual overhaul of the elves in DA2. That alone tells me DA2 handled these issues better: if you portray unjust treatment of a race/other minority in your game and people barely talk about it other than in passing, you did something wrong. And in DA2, they did it right.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 04 juin 2012 - 12:40 .

[vallore]

MissOuJ wrote...

First of all, you get conned if you're an elf of Mage or Dalish origin. Second, showing how horrible the elves have it isn't really "good" portrayal of oppression. I could link a couple pages of historical discussion on the Inquisition: all of it pretty gory and disgusting on modern standards. That we can all agree on (hopefully).

Good portrayal of oppression has actual discussion on the existing power imbalance, its roots, and the so-called "reasons" of the oppressors/priviledged class. For example: in DA2 there are both Fenris and Sebastian in your party, both pretty vocally defending the existence of the Circle. If it were any other people, we'd be horrified by the oppression, loss of freedom and agency mages suffer. But, because of religious influences, old prejudices and superstitions, the system of power (Chantry & Templars - which get most of their funding from Circle of Magi shops which sell enchanted equipment made by the Tranquil) has all but convinced everyone all mages are abominations waiting to happen and that is reason enough to lock them all up and either kill or lobotomize those mages who refuse to agree to their rules.

There's nothing similar about the Casteless or the Elves in DA:O - even when DA:O actually has a good premise for explaining the elven oppression: the Cantry thinks they need to be saved, so naturally they are lesser beings until they convent to the Chant. But the city elves are shown to be Andrastians - the wedding ceremony at least is. What about old superstitions that reinforce the status quo - none are shown to exist. Elves are oppressed "just because". That's not how it works in real life and that's why DA:O never gets past the all-too-common "fantastic racism" trope. I wish it did, because it has all the ingredients of good social commentary, but it never quite comes together.

In DA2, on the other hand, the oppressors actually defend themselves and frame their questions in such a way that you're almost forced to agree with them - like Meredith asking you pretty much "Wasn't your own mother killed by a blood mage? So how well did the freedom of mages work out for you?". Or Fenris, who actually (kinda) has point, but since he comes from a situation where the power dynamics are different, he brings a completely different set of questions into the conversation. There's actual depth - not just "We oppress mages because"..

A few points:
I believe you can get conned regardless o f origin, actually. However, being kidnapped is a city elf female only occurrence. (you can still have your bride kidnapped, if you play as a male city elf).

Inquisition: The interesting thing about the inquisition was why it came to be, and most of all, how so many believed it was a good thing, (at the time). It is interesting exercise in the nature of evil, imo, and how so many people can fall for it, even when from our modern perspective it looks so plainly obvious.

Regarding the elves: I disagree. Showing how bad the elves got is a good portrayal of oppression. What DAO gives us is not a scholarly approach of a particular form of oppression. It doesn’t tries to tell us how and why. What it does is it gives us a portrait from within; from the actors themselves, victims and perpetrators alike, (but specially the victims, if you play as an elf). It doesn’t happen “just because,” nor does it need to be explicitly explained; it was meant to be felt:

Oppression generates resentment, hatred or simply anger and that in turn generates retaliation, which can be seen in a multitude of actions, both small, like mugging, and big, like the later uprising in the aleanage. (Or even just personal and self-destructive, like the defeated attitude of some elves had). More importantly, the various elven reaction in turn creates resentment and distrust in Humans, and those react by reinforcing oppression. It becomes a vicious cycle, which oppressor and oppressed are locked in.

This cycle becomes the real reason for the perpetuity of oppression. The original cause may not even be remembered by the participants, it may even become a myth, a distortion of the original reason. It doesn’t need facts or a logical reason to be perpetuated, quite the contrary: it needs resentment, fear, and contempt. It is perpetuated at an emotional level.

That is actually seen in the relations between elves and humans in DAO. What actually happened is known only generically by many; the details of the fall of the Dales, and their causes is coloured by resentment, distrust and ignorance. (and in turn, the fall of the Dales is in itself a reenactment of an earlier cycle even more unknown). For city-elves and humans, what matters is the now.

As for DA2, unfortunately, it choose a ham-fisted approach: Fenris was abused and his now victim of a pathological hatred he can barely control. A obsessively exaggerated character, with his mirror image in Anders. Sebastian, I can’t speak about as I don’t buy DLCs. The knight –commander didn’t play with the full deck, etc. Do these actually try to justify their actions? Sure. But so what? I see two problems:

First. Unlike being an elf, being a mage is not an unavoidable hereditary condition. You can be born a mage while your parents and siblings may not be so. It is also not limited to a social class. It can happen to anyone. What does this matter? It forces a constant need for rationalization of the reasons for oppression as the mage is not simply one of “them,” but also one of “us.” Oppressing the elves, on the other hand does not require such exercise it just “always was so,” they are “them” and we are “us.”

Second. Even the exposition of those characters of DA2 is obviously flawed, and severely distorted by personal prejudice. Your example is a good one. It wasn’t blood magic that caused Hawkes mother’s death, it was human nature. Blood magic was simply the tool, not the cause.

I mean, Bann Vaughan even says something similar outright: "Sometimes elves get the idea they're people and they have to be put to their place". That's like outright saying "I kill kittens because I'm evil". True racist often preface their racism with the infamous "I'm not racist, but..." or "I don't really hate X people, but...". People try to rationalise their actions, good or bad.

Nope, sorry. Modern racism often acts as if ashamed of the connotation, and feels the need for heavy rationalization, but older forms of racism was far more unabashed on how they portrayed the “other.”

Vaughan’s attitude should be seen more in that line; originally he just speaks his mind, as he fears no consequence. Elves are animals to be used as it pleases him; only later, when confronted with unpleasant consequences does he tries a different tune, more in line with what he believes his opponents would accept. It is subterfuge out of need, as we see in what you posted here:

If DA:O had actual commentary on either racism or violence against women (like in Vaughan's case) if you asked him why he raped an elven girl he's try to convince you "It was just a misunderstanding" and "in truth, she was really into it" and "later changed her mind" because "you know how those elven girls are, right?". Or if you asked about what's happening in the Alienage he'd reply something along the lines of "They're complaining about not getting for free what the rest of us work to get", "Try to get some sympathy although their problems are their own fault" and so forth.

Same with the Casteless: just commenting on how the Casteless are "cursed by the Ancestors" or "cursed by the Stone" would give a reason for the oppression: religion. In stead, none is given, and everybody seems to accept a situation which is problematic just because. There's some individual comments about "honour" (with the beggar girl with a child who wants to go back home but her parents won't take her in before she gets rid of the child) but again it's not really explained why. Look at the old Caste system in India: it had strong religious roots (people who were born in lower castes obviously did something bad in their previous life so this was their punishment - people who were born into the higher castes were rewarded for piousness in their previous life etc.) - there's no similar justification with the Casteless. .

Actually, there is given. “Casteless are being punished for their shame and that of their ancestors,” or something around those lines. Religion, (what passes for it among dwarves), and tradition is used to justify their situation. The real cause o course is more complex; I suspect they are a mechanism of control of the powerful over the rest of society; even the poorer dwarf with a caste can feel superior over a casteless and has something to lose. (And I remember one such incident with a servant girl lording over my casteless dwarf), she had something to lose by rebelling and so becomes an accomplice vested in maintaining the status quo.

Furthermore, oppression does not need the level of reasoning necessary to be justifiable to someone from the exterior when you lived with it all your life and is an hereditary process that separates forevermore “them” from “us,” it simply “is.” That is one of the scariest things about it; how it can be so easily accepted by generation after generation, simply because it has "always" been so.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Faerunner wrote...

DAO and DA2 may have both done some railroading, but DAO railroads you from an external source whereas DA2 railroads you from an internal source. The world outside the DAO protagonist pushes them into problems and situations that only they can solve, but gives them the internal freedom to think, feel, react and solve it however works for them. The world outside the DA2 proganist is surprisingly open, but internally constricts them to think and feel a certain way to get certain things done.

In DAO, the Blight isn't going to stop itself, thosecharged with stopping it are either dead or too far out of reach, and no one nearby is rising to the challenge, so your character has to solve it a certain way in order not to die/lose their loved ones. How they feel about the development and how they choose to complete the task is completely up to them.

In DA2 your character may have been forced out of Lothering thanks to the Blight, but everything after arriving in Kirkwall is completely open and free. You don't have to flee into Kirkwall or stay in Kirkwall once the Blight is over, but the game makes your character decide they want to go and stay, so that's what you do. You don't have to fortune-hunt, find the will or move into the mansion, but the game makes your character decide they want these things, so get them you do. For the final battle, nothing is stopping you from saying, "screw you, I'm outta here" (its not like the city's under quarentine) but the game decides your character wants to get involved, so involved you get.

All of DA2's events hinge on your character wanting to do something, so the game decides what your character wants to do in just about every situation, which gives you next to no control in your character or situation.

DAO tells you "This is what your character has to do, but how they feel about it, how they react to it and how they decide to solve it is up to you." DA2 tells you, "this is what your character thinks, how they feel, how they react to every situation and 'solve' every problem. We've got it all worked out, so all you have to do is press the buttons to let the events play out by themselves."

Thank you,  Faerunner. You sum it very well. In those regards, I had issue with DA 2's "internal railroading" because internal decision is what I would do on my own iniative within the external railroading. Once those internal decision was taken away from me, I loose the ability to play normally.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MissOuJ wrote...

Historically , that's how racism (and classism, and sexism, and any other form of oppression) has always worked. It has been in Plato's apetite/spirit/reason hierarchy in The Republic,  in the altogether dubious "social darwinistic" evolution theories which claimed that people of colour had less evolved brains because they were in evolutionary terms (?!) closer to "less intelligent" primates, in the ridiculous claims of the Catholic church that since "the barbarians" couldn't properly care for their land (as was God's will) it was perfectly okay - even preferable - to "release" them of their claim to he land so it could be "properly tended to". People have always - always - tried to justify their racism and xenophobia, the more popular justifications being religion and sloppy science.

That isn't hiding it - it's rationalising it: "Elves are lesser being because..." Either we should get enough clues from the lore/conversations to fill that sentence ourselves ("...because they're all lazy, lying freeloaders", "...because they're all dirty criminals", "...because they're dangerous freaks who'd steal our children in a heartbeat if they just had the chance") or someone should outright say it. It is done in DA2 , in DA:O we're left guessing as to the reasons and rationalisations, which in turn leaves out an important part of the whole conversation, because attacking the latter two is the only way the oppressive institution can be torn down.

If the inferiority of elves is widely held to be true, no one would bother rationalising it.  They'd simply say "Elves are lesser beings," and leave it at that.  Why explain something that everyone already knows?

Also, if racist people really were in the minority in the real world we wouldn't have the MET using racial slurs against people they're stop-and-searching, there'd be no income inequalities between different ethnic groups, nor would there be institutionalised discrimination of POC's in education, media, justice system etc. That's what institutional racism means:

And seriously, if someone in the position of priviledge (for example, a
heterosexual white man) thinks that, say, a POC being recruited through
a minority outreach programme is them "getting something for free which
I have worked hard to get" then yes, that person would not only be
racist but extremely ignorant about several hundred years of history
and systematic oppression of POC by the white people.

Holding all of those things to be true requires at least two unjustified assumptions.  They're common assumptions, but there's no basis for them.

But this is not an appropriate venue to discuss real-world racism.  Let me say, though, that I feel no guilt related to this issue.

But anyway, back to the main topic. Just look at all the conversations on these boards alone about Templars and Mages, the morality of the Circle and the Chantry, the discussion on whether or not Mages actually deserve their freedoms - those discussions alone tell me DA2 has made people think about these questions in depth. I have yet to see such passion - or such scale of different opinnions - in a discussion about Elven oppression. There was probably more discussion about the visual overhaul of the elves in DA2. That alone tells me DA2 handled these issues better: if you portray unjust treatment of a race/other minority in your game and people barely talk about it other than in passing, you did something wrong. And in DA2, they did it right.

Wait, so you're saying that DA2 did it well because no one discusses the mistreatment of elves?

The DAO boards were rife with discussions about the mistreatment of mages, just as the DA2 boards are.  Neither game created much discussion of elven opression, and both games created much discussion of mage oppression.

What conclusion do you think that supports?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 juin 2012 - 05:51 .

[batlin]

[quote]MissOuJ wrote...

Umm... DA2 has multiple antagonists over a period of 3 acts.[/quote]

No it didn't. There was no antagonist in act 1 and the antagonist in act 2 was not known until halfway through it. The antagonist of act 3, the REASON Varric was brought in to the Seeker in the first place, was not known until the last few hours of a 40-hour game. That's just horribly-paced writing.

[quote]It's a different narrative from DA2's, and I think DA2's narative is just as good, if not better, but in a different way. Also the standard fantasy tropes in DA:O are a bit predictable, which I personally find to be a waste of good IP. Awakenings actually improved upon this (at least as far as I can tell - I'm only ~6h in): I actually can't tll with 100% certainty what's going to happen in the end.[/quote]

Uh, very early on into Awakenings you learn about the source of the new Darkspawn and the means by which you have to find and kill her. If you're 6 hours in it means you're well over halfway through it, so you should know this.

[quote]...And you're given an out as soon as you exit that room.[/quote]

Yes, the demonic ritual that involves birthing an old god is totally an out with no repercussions whatsoever. And you're going to take the witch's word that it's all 100% safe. It's one of those long-term effects that we don't see but very well could have negative repercussions.

[quote]Just like you're given an out in almost all other morally difficult choises in the game: Kill Connor or sacrifice his mother in a ritual to save him? Or you can pop over to the Tower and ask the mages to help. Kill the Dalish clan or the werewolves? Or you can just convince Zathrian not to be a complete a**hole and convince him to end the curse. The only question where there's no out is the Bhalen/Harrowmont question in Ozammar, and even then it's only a morally grey question if you know what happends in the Epiloque. DA2 actually forces you to choose between bad and worse, which is much better story-wise in my opinnion.[/quote]

DA2 makes you choose between bad and worse because it never gives you an option to take the most obvious courses of action to prevent said bad things from happening. For example, Anders, a vexed mage who is posessed by a fanatically murderous demon, asks you to help him get into the Chantry for some reason that he refuses to tell you why. Do you:

A) Make him tell you what he's planning
Warn the chantry about it
C) Be convinced that he won't do anything wrong and help him out, or just say no and pretend like the conversation never happened and trust he won't go through with it

Hawke is CONSTANTLY forced into choosing between bad and worse, not because the situation realistically mandates it but because there's rarely an option to choose the course of action that is best for all involved, even though it's a really obvious course of action that anyone with two synapses to rub together can figure out.

[quote]Except for "All That Remains" - that's actually one of the most important quests regarding the Mage-Templar issue from Hawke's point of view. There are also Fenris' and Ander's companion quests, which I'd say are pretty important, but you're right, they aren't required to finish the game - even if Fenris leaves you for good if you don't do his.[/quote]

How was All That Remains important to the templar/mage conflict? Just because the guy happened to be a mage doesn't mean mages are the only psychopaths out there.

[quote]I do wish there was more build-up to the end game, but it doesn't change the fact that it is there.[/quote]

Yes, this is my point, the fact that there's so little build-up hurts act 3.

[quote]Where on earth would you get that from? No, it means Hawke is a different kind of character. Heroes aren't allowed to fail; Hawke is. It's actually nice to see a narrative where no matter how hard you try you can't save them all.[/quote]

Even though the means to save them all is really really obvious, only Hawke is just too dense to figure out that maybe he should have looked for the guy who tried to bury him and all his friends alive after stealing the idol before waiting three years.

[quote]To say that linear plot = passive character is bull.[/quote]

Uh, no, I said that characters that aren't proactive are passive. That's what the word "passive" means.

[quote]Seriously. If anything, the Warden is a passive character; hardly reacting to anything with more than a shrug.[/quote]

And with those words that s/he says. But I guess to you the fact that we don't hear them means they don't count.

[quote]And really, we all know almost all of the Warden's desicions have one - and only one - motivation: the Blight. So, believe it or not, I actually find Hawke to be the more interesting character: s/he has more motivations, more personality, and more reasons to do what s/he does.[/quote]

If you'd care to notice there are a crap-load of subplots within the DA:O metaplot that individually have nothing to do with the Blight, same as neither of acts 1 or 2 in DA2 have anything to do with the reason Varric is talking to Cassandra. You're imagining qualities that Hawke does not actually posess.

[quote]Less plot control doesn't mean more passive character. True, Hawke's motivations are to some extent up to the player to decide, and if you really don't care for Leandra/Bethany/Carver/any of the companions/Kirkwall in general/any mage rights at all, then I can see how you'd consider Hawke a bland/passive character. But I think the writers and the plot gave me plenty of reasons to care, and if you personally donät agree, there's probably nothing I can do to change your mind, so the discussion is probably for nothing.[/quote]

Less plot control is fine if realistically there's nothing you can do to affect the plot as a proactive character. For example, there's no way to win at Ostagar. Period. Why is this ok but Hawke sitting in his/her house for 3 years while the Qunari relations crumble isn't? Because there's no realistic way the Warden could have won after Loghain's forces retreated. Hawke meanwhile makes no attempt at finding out what the Qunari are there for to see if maybe the occupation could be ended without issue. If Hawke were the main character in Awakenings, s/he'd be sitting in his lounge chair wearing a smoking jacket while the darkspawn were amassing their forces and wouldn't lift a finger to do anything about it until they were at the gates with siege weapons.

[quote]And on the issue of the Templar/Mage conflict... Again, I think Act 3 is way too short and most of the background information for it comes in the form of Varric's exposition to Cassandra, which isn't really the way to do it in interactive medium, but to say Hawke just sat on his/her arse and ate bonbons all day when Kirkwall was going to hell isn't really accurate either. The thing the writers are trying to get accross is that the power imbalance has become so enourmous noone could've done anything to resolve the situation peacefully, and Anders took the matter to his own hands to force everyone to act. Meredith would've Annuled the Circle sooner or later - if you talk to the Templars in the Gallows in Act 3 you can hear she's already sent Val Royeaux for the Right. Anders actually gave her an out: he's to blame for the explosion (he makes it very clear) and the Circle had nothing to do with it.

If Meredith wants justice, she'd only have to kill him. Instead, she
goes for the Annulment. This, again, highlights the existing power
imbalance which makes the peaceful resolution of the situation
impossible - and I personally think this came accross marvelously. And I
say it again, this is one of the reasons I love DA2 so much: the
commentary on social issues. These kind of power imbalances exist in the
real world as well, and it rases a question who are we supposed to
blame when they finally boil over.
[/quote]

Given a choice between politicking against Meredeth and getting her out of power (the kind of thing the Champion of a city should be able to do) and waiting for a terrorist attack in order to end a conflict, I will choose the one with less bloodshed thanks. There was even one part of the game where you can rouse a crowd in favor of Meredeth or Orisno, so it's obvious that yes, Hawke does have the clout to turn the tide of the people's opinion yet for some reason never tries to go about this route to ease the tension. Why?

Oh, right, because the writerscouldn't think of how to reach the goal of a templar/mage war otherwise.

[quote]I did read the codex and tried to find dialogue options - I still wasn't given a good reason to actually believe it when people said the equivalent of "lol elves thing they're people, how dumb". The only (half-arsed) explanation that we get to the elven oppression is that Tevinters were a**holes and wanted slaves, and then later the Chantry decided to do some proselytising which didn't end up so well for the elves.

This is like a discussion on the Inquisition - pretty much everyone is
in agreement that it was wrong and bad and something that shouldn't have
happened at all. Real racism, prejudice and institutional oppression
don't work that way and that's a very, very simplified and shallow way
to frame the question of racial/social equality. DA2 did loads and loads
better with this: you spend the game fighting both powertripping
Templars and pretty damn dangerous mages - Hawke's mother is also killed
by a powerful bloodmage, s/he can be a mage him/herself or his/her
sister is one, his/her lover might be a mage... You're given a very,
very personal reasons to agree/disagree with both sides of the issue.[/quote]

I suggest you play DA:O again. Humans looked down on elves as second-class citizens because they believe it was the elves that waged war on the humans, just as the elves believe it was the humans who first waged war on them. There are certainly sillier reasons for why some groups of people are looked down on in societies in real life, right?

[quote]So yes, I think DA2 has better dialogue on the issue of institutional oppression than DA:O, which never really gets pass the regular "fantastic racism" trope, which is sad because it still got pretty close.[/quote]

Give me examples from DA2 that shows how evlen oppression explored in any greater detail than in DA:O. All you gave was a reason for why Hawke could have personal biases about the mage's plight, even though in DA:O you too could be a mage and/or date a mage.

[quote]
I enjoyed the story more. I enjoyed the gameplay more. I enjoyed the playable character more. Wouldn't call those BS excuses.[/quote]

No, but I gotta say the reasons you've presented DA2 as being a superior story and having a better protagonist are generally BS. You constantly show double-standards between the games by praising some element's existence in DA2 and then ignoring how it is also an element in DA:O.

Modifié par batlin, 04 juin 2012 - 08:47 .

[batlin]

sickpixie wrote...
PCs
in any given level take up memory, to get an acceptable framerate/avoid
crashes they had to cut corners on the ambient people you're not
supposed to pay much attention to. Origins solved this problem by making
everything look bad. It's not a particularly efficient engine suited
for console hardware.

Hurlocks in DA:O:



Hurlocks in DA2



lol yeah, WAAAAY better colors and lighting....

[batlin]

robertthebard wrote...

I don't think you get it at all.  I don't care if someone likes the game or not, it's not an MMO, and I don't have to read them in global chat going on and on about it while I am trying to play.  Some people liked the new direction, some didn't, and maybe it was more that didn't.  The point to my initial response, asstated again in this quoted response, was that I based my buy or not to buy decision on the forums, and am unhappy that I did, because I enjoy the game, and appreciate the new direction.  There is noting circular about that logic, it is as straight forward as it can get.  My reaction is based on being told in no uncertain terms that my reason, or the logic behind it was BS.

Are you really saying that all 700k people that bought it hated it?  Did you do a poll?  Do you have a link to it?

No, but clearly enough hated it to the point where the bad press was so high that the sales plummeted.

You like the new direction? Maybe you should have given the game a rent. If you liked it, you should have bought it.

jbrand2002uk wrote...
Batlin the circular logic argument oh jeez how desperate the DAO camp has got to rag DA2 for a railroaded story while praising DAO for an even more railroaded story and as for BS your constant claim that more sales=better quality is the biggest load of BS in the history of the universe Skyrim sold alot of copies and yes I enjoy it.......when it works because its a bug ridden crash happy game much like DAO

You're right. Sales are not an accurate indicator of quality between two separate products....when the products do not have the same exact target audience.

Yeah, you can say that Twilight selling more tickets than The Eagle doesn't mean Twilight is a better movie, but the people who like The Eagle probably aren't the same people who like Twilight. With DA:O and DA2? It's a damn good bet that the same people who bought DA:O are mostly the same ones who bought DA2. Even though DA2 was the second in a hit new franchise and had 100x the marketing behind it that DA:O had and had a die-hard fanbase to support it, the sales were half of what DA:O's were and a quarter of what Bioware expected. This is not just a matter of personal opinion; most of the people who liked DA:O did not like DA2.

jbrand2002uk wrote...

most of the anti DA2 sentiment can be summed up as: DAO fanboys going wah wah stomp stomp i cant play as my Warden this game sucks derp derp, evidenced by those same self people criticising DA2 for the faults that they praise in DAO when this happens no logical person takes them seriously

^ Here is an example of a person who probably hasn't bothered to read more than a paragraph of any argument against DA2.

Modifié par batlin, 04 juin 2012 - 07:58 .

[eroeru]

batlin wrote...

*snip for pics*
lol yeah, WAAAAY better colors and lighting....

You think the thing wrong with the second pic is the colors and lighting?
If only that were the case, it wouldn't be half as bad as it is. Or even a fraction of it.

[batlin]

robertthebard wrote...

Can I argue the BS reasons people say DA:O was better?  Let's start with your predictions, shall we?  Hawke does not have to lose all their family members.  It is possible, even likely that one of them will end up either a templar, in the Circle, or the Wardens, depending on how it's played out, and who goes where.  Self fulfilling prophecies are not a good definition of answered predictions.  So, in the spirit of the thread title, we'll just call this BS.

Isabela will indeed betray you, but it's not hard to get her to come back, not hard at all.  If Zevran betrays you, you did something wrong.  I will point out that betrayal is betrayal, and saying that DA:O is better, while comparing betrayals is the definition of BS.

I never claimed the betrayal of Isabela was worse than Zevran's. I really didn't see anything wrong with either, only that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense why Isabela, a treacherous pirate queen, would show up to save the day even if you had treated her like crap the whole game.

How does DA:O address the mages any better?  A blurb in a cutscene?

How about the entirety of the Circle Tower level, the business with Connor, the tranquil, Morrigan vs. Alistair's take on the Templars.....

In Origins, you are tasked to end the Blight.  This is the goal, and no matter how you play it out, you're going to do it.

Just as in DA2 you WILL sucessfully get through the Deeproads, you WILL fight mano-a-mano/chica with the Arishok, and you WILL have a showdown with Meredeth no matter how you play it out.

Of course, there's also hot discussion now on trivializing the ways in which that could be done, and all the
options on the table do that, btw, not just one of them.  In DA2, you're not going to be able to stop anything.

Yes, but too often this is a result of being forced into inaction despite thee being an obvious course of action to take to resolve a problem because the writers need something to happen but can't figure out how to make it work unless the protagonist is incredibly passive.

I mentioned that you don't get in depth looks at the Mage/Chantry tension, but you do, as I pointed out, get enough to know that it exists.  Why didn't your Warden have the option, after saving the circle, to stop it then? Assuming they saved the Circle in the first place, and if not, why not go on an Exalted March to end the "mage threat" then?

Because the Blight was a far more pressing issue and if that were allowed to happen without a united front everyone would die and the mage oppression would be moot? The Blight was rapidly approaching and the Warden didn't exactly have three whole years to deal with it unlike some other protagonist I could mention...Besides the mage oppression in Ferelden was not quite as overbearing as it was in Kirkwall with Meredeth in charge. Like you said, mages weren't exactly under lock and key. So long as they went to school they weren't bothered by Templars.

This is the problem people seem to be having the most with DA2.  A realization that just dawned on me as well.  Hawke isn't a hero.  Hawke is one person caught in the middle of a bad situation, 2 actually, considering Act II and Act III.

If you're trying to create a divide between Hawke and the Warden, you're wrong. Hawke is no less a "hero" than the Warden is. The Warden was specially qualified to take down the Archdemon yes, but only because he was in the right place at the right time. In all the origin stories Duncan just happened to be making that stop in your starting area and you happened to do something that piqued his interest. Yes, the Warden too is Johnny on the spot. He's not special because his fighting skills are better than everyone else's, not because he's better at killing darkspawn than anyone else, no, he's special because he was lucky to be in the right place at the right time and to survive the joining.

The Warden was thrust into a Hero's role at the end of Ostagar, no matter what.  There was no escaping destiny, and yet, this railroad to plot is applauded, while the railroad to plot in DA2, even though it's not based on a "the protaganist is a hero" is boo'd as the worst game design ever.

Both plots are railroaded, the Warden's is just structured better. Like I said before, the Warden is railroaded into action while Hawke is railroaded into inaction. Just because Hawke is railroaded into NOT doing something doesn't make him any less railroaded.

Go ahead though, side with the Archdemon as a City Elf.  Yes, Hawke went about the day to day business of trying to improve his/her lot in life, much as we all do, and wound up in some extraordinary circumstances.  Hawke responds to the poster about the Viscount's son not because he/she is concerned about the boy, but because it comes with a reward for success.  Hawke wants to be paid.  Hawke deals with the quest that leads up to All That Remains for the same reason, a poster that says "I'll pay you to figure this out".  All That Remains plays out to attempt to save family.  None of this is done to make Kirkwall a better place, it's all done for selfish motivations.  For shame, BioWare, for portraying an everyday Joe as somebody that could be an interesting protaganist.

This is true.....for Act 1. After that Hawke pretty much has all the money he'll ever need. You can say the exact same thing for City Elf Warden after he gets recruited.

[batlin]

eroeru wrote...

You think the thing wrong with the second pic is the colors and lighting?
If only that were the case, it wouldn't be half as bad as it is. Or even a fraction of it.

No, in another post he said the colors and lighting in DA2 were better. Yes, obviously the graphics are worse all-around in DA2.

[MissOuJ]

Wall-of-text incoming, brace yourselves.

vallore wrote...
Inquisition: The interesting thing about the inquisition was why it came to be, and most of all, how so many believed it was a good thing, (at the time). It is interesting exercise in the nature of evil, imo, and how so many people can fall for it, even when from our modern perspective it looks so plainly obvious.

Yes, people actually thought the Inquisition was a good thing because they thought heretics were a public menace and that killing them and/or scaring other heretics into converting to Christianity was a public good that was going to protect their empire from witchcraft, God's wrath and bad crops and whatever. They had reasons to believe it was a good thing, because the authorities (Catholic church & clergy) told this to them. If you go back 300+ years and find slavers who think there's absolutely no problem in slavery, nor are they ashamed of it, nor did they think POC's were any better than property - they still had "reasons". "We're helping them out, really: taking them away from their primitive continent, primitive religion and primitive life, showing them Jesus and giving them something useful to do with their lives" was pretty much standard rethoric at the time. Slavery was still the norm and widely excepted in polite society, and opposing it the equal of "bleeing-heart liberalism", but people still felt the need to justify it.

Anyway, there was rationalisation - there's no such rationalisation regarding the Elves in DA:O. Vaughan is actually a good example, because he says exactly the same about elves in DA:O as Cullen says about Mages (Act I at the end of Enemies Among Us). Cullen can actually back his opinnion up and tell about his reasonings if you confront him. If you (general you) confront a racist person they generally either make up reasons right where they stand or refer to the existing prejudices. Cullen does exactly this, Vaughan doesn't.

vallore wrote...

Regarding the elves: I disagree. Showing how bad the elves got is a good portrayal of oppression. What DAO gives us is not a scholarly approach of a particular form of oppression. It doesn’t tries to tell us how and why. What it does is it gives us a portrait from within; from the actors themselves, victims and perpetrators alike, (but specially the victims, if you play as an elf). It doesn’t happen “just because,” nor does it need to be explicitly explained; it was meant to be felt:

Oppression generates resentment, hatred or simply anger and that in turn generates retaliation, which can be seen in a multitude of actions, both small, like mugging, and big, like the later uprising in the aleanage. (Or even just personal and self-destructive, like the defeated attitude of some elves had). More importantly, the various elven reaction in turn creates resentment and distrust in Humans, and those react by reinforcing oppression. It becomes a vicious cycle, which oppressor and oppressed are locked in.

This cycle becomes the real reason for the perpetuity of oppression. The original cause may not even be remembered by the participants, it may even become a myth, a distortion of the original reason. It doesn’t need facts or a logical reason to be perpetuated, quite the contrary: it needs resentment, fear, and contempt. It is perpetuated at an emotional level.

You are both right and wrong. Yes, oppression generates those feelings, but the point of oppression isn't the cycle itself, but the reinforcement of the status quo by the people with the power - whether because the status quo is financially beneficient to them, or because they're hooked up on power, or because they actually believe in some twisted logic they're actually helping. Rationalisation of oppression is always part of oppression: otherwise the institution would have no leg to stand on, and what the Elves go through in DA:O really is institutional oppression - it's just portrayed insufficiently.

Also, why wouldn't it give us a "scolarly approach of a particular form of oppression"? Why shouldn't it? Why a video game couldn't do it? DA:O makes several references to real life political situations, history, and religious practises - why not oppression? DA:O approach to oppresion is pretty much "It happends and there's very little you can do about it. Sorry!" DA2 approach to oppression is "This is how it happends, these are the main players, these are their reasons. You're deciding on the freedom of sentinent beigns. Which side do you pick?" Don't you really see how one hits way more closer than another?

vallore wrote...
As for DA2, unfortunately, it choose a ham-fisted approach: Fenris was abused and his now victim of a pathological hatred he can barely control. A obsessively exaggerated character, with his mirror image in Anders. Sebastian, I can’t speak about as I don’t buy DLCs. The knight –commander didn’t play with the full deck, etc. Do these actually try to justify their actions? Sure. But so what?

Umm... what? Fenris comes from a system where the roles are reversed, and applies the same logic on a completely different situation - something that happends constantly in the real world when discussing oppression. He has been oppressed (an still is/should be oppressed because he's an elf in Hightown, but we hardly see this, which is a shame). Anders, on the other hand, has been a victim or oppression since he was, what, twelve? Anders, who has spent a year in solitary confinement because he did the horrible crime of escaping his oppressors and wanting to be free, who has seen Mages in the Tempars' "care" get abused and beaten, who has seen mages in the tower commit suicide because they can't stand it anymore. They both have really good reasons to feel the way they feel: there's nothing "ham-fisted" about it.

Sebastian though... Let's just say there's a reason this meme got around in Tumblr. (And I have to mention here that I hate Sebastian so, so much but I love the fact that he's a character in the game. He's the exact epitome of priviledged white dude who injects his irrelevant and badly informed opinnions where none are needed, and I love to hate him.)

Also, Meredith might have an excuse, but how about Elthina? Ser Alrik? Ser Karras?

vallore wrote...
I see two problems:

First. Unlike being an elf, being a mage is not an unavoidable hereditary condition. You can be born a mage while your parents and siblings may not be so. It is also not limited to a social class. It can happen to anyone. What does this matter? It forces a constant need for rationalization of the reasons for oppression as the mage is not simply one of “them,” but also one of “us.” Oppressing the elves, on the other hand does not require such exercise it just “always was so,” they are “them” and we are “us.”

Being female, LGBT, trans* or disabled aren't "unavoidable hereditary conditions" either, and they're still categorized as "them", because as soon as their "shortcomings" are made visible for the general public, they lose their priviledges. Same with mages: Connor was a very priviledged boy, until it became clear that he was a mage and had to be taken to the Circle. The moment it was discovered who he "truly" was (ie. a mage, thus "not one of us") he was locked up - if he wasn't killed first, that is. "Us" and "them" are shifting concepts and are by no means only rooted in genes.

vallore wrote...
Second. Even the exposition of those characters of DA2 is obviously flawed, and severely distorted by personal prejudice. Your example is a good one. It wasn’t blood magic that caused Hawkes mother’s death, it was human nature. Blood magic was simply the tool, not the cause.

All perceptions are flawed. That's the point. If all people that ever have existed had perfect reasoning, completely objective opinnions and no personal feelings getting away of their judgement, there wouldn't be any oppression of any kind because everyone would just see it has a flawed premise and only works to reinforce the power of the ruling class.

vallore wrote...
Vaughan’s attitude should be seen more in that line; originally he just speaks his mind, as he fears no consequence. Elves are animals to be used as it pleases him; only later, when confronted with unpleasant consequences does he tries a different tune, more in line with what he believes his opponents would accept.

You're right in that racist people often portray their racist opinnions unapologetically when they are in company whethey feel safe to voice those opinnions - ie in the company of other racists. When confronted, they always have "reasons". Nobody likes to be told s/he's wrong/a bad person, so whenever that scenario arises, they have an excuse ready. Rarely do you enter a conversation about race which ends up with the racist party saying "You know, I never actually thought them as people, which has been my problem all along. I will immediatedly endeavour to change this by actively seeking out these minorities". Dehumanisation is an instrument of oppression, not its cause.

It could be said DA:O actually forces you to be racist if you play any other origin than elf, which is an interesting premise, because the racism of the world is actually imbedded in the world so throughoutly you(r PC) internalise(s) it while you're playing, but even then DA:O missed an opportunity for meaningful discussion with not including enough information on this oppression. They did pretty much the same with mages as well in DA:O - there's some discussion on the Chantry politics regarding mages, but nobody actually raises up to speak for either side in depth. If you're a mage yourself you can have a discussion concerning the different Fraternities of the Circle and say you want to be liberated from the Chantry, which is met with mild distaste by pretty much everyone (Wynne, the Enchanter you talk to in the tower...) except for Morrigan, whose opinnion comes pretty much from hating everyone who "aren't strong enough" to liberate themselves from their oppressors, which in turn is really problematic opinnion. Again, it was there, but the discussion never took off like it did with DA2 - even though you can Annul the Circle in both games.

Didn't know that about the Dwarves, thanks for pointing that out. Still, it isn't pronounced enough - although the Dwarven Commoner origin does really great job in showing the link between organised crime and culture of powerty.

vallore wrote...
Furthermore, oppression does not need the level of reasoning necessary to be justifiable to someone from the exterior when you lived with it all your life and is an hereditary process that separates forevermore “them” from “us,” it simply “is.” That is one of the scariest things about it; how it can be so easily accepted by generation after generation, simply because it has "always" been so.

True, but it still doesn't change the fact that if you push, you always get a reason, however convoluted, twisted and nonsensical. That's what it means to study oppression in depth - to go to the core of it, to the reasons behind it and to the twisted logic those with power employ to keep the status quo. That's what I missed in Origins, that's what I got from DA2, and that's why I consider DA2 did better in this regard.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Wait, so you're saying that DA2 did it well because no one discusses the mistreatment of elves?

The
DAO boards were rife with discussions about the mistreatment of mages,
just as the DA2 boards are.  Neither game created much discussion of
elven opression, and both games created much discussion of mage
oppression.

The DA:O boards don't have anywhere near the same amount of discussion on the Mage-Templar issue. Sure, there was some discussion on Keili (who prays the maker to "lift this curse from her" in the Tower chappel in the Mage origin) and Jowain, but I haven't seen anyone write hundreds of pages of comments on how Jowain's treatment is indicative of the oppression of the Chantry and this is why he was justified in his use of blood magic/working with Loghain to poison Arl Eamon. Elven oppression and mage oppression get roughly the same amount of screen time (for a lack of better term) in DA:O, and neither is really handled properly to spark the sort of discussion DA2 did - and yes, I consider that indicative of how well the subject was addressed.

In addition, the discussion is very different. In DA2 boards there are still people who believe Anders is a terrorist or a magister in the making (as one blogger in Tumblr put it) and that siding with the Templars and killing a bunch of innocent mages who had nothing to do with Anders' plan and everything to do with Meredith's (and Cullen's) internalised conceptions of mages as dangerous abominations is the right thing to do. Noone, absolutely noone is saying anything remotely resembling this regarding to the elves, even though similar notions about elves exist in Thedas. DA2 is actually able to incept the player with the idea that the oppressed deserve their oppression and are ready to defend said oppressors even though were it any other class of people, they'd (most likely) feel completely different about it. This is how oppression acts in the real world, and to successfully incorporate that into video game (or any media, in fact) is really awesome use of interactive medium.

Again, that's what DA2 did, that's what DA:O lacks, and this is why I consider DA2 to be the better game in this aspect.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 04 juin 2012 - 08:58 .

[sickpixie]

batlin wrote...

Hurlocks in DA:O:



Hurlocks in DA2



lol yeah, WAAAAY better colors and lighting....

Yes? The first picture is a blurry, brown mess. The second picture gives Hurlocks two colors (as opposed to just one that also happens to be brown) and has better lightmaps. Neither picture is particularly good for a comparison.

[eroeru]

^^ So you're saying the more you can differentiate colors, the better?? And how is the first picture blurry exactly? It's quite sharp actually, it just doesn't have that plain "white canvas" thing DA2 has going on. It's not origami, but much rather realistic.

Anyway, I see it rather obvious that the Origins' hurlock is richer in detail, also pertaining to the color and lighting.

[robertthebard]

batlin wrote...

If you're trying to create a divide between Hawke and the Warden, you're wrong. Hawke is no less a "hero" than the Warden is. The Warden was specially qualified to take down the Archdemon yes, but only because he was in the right place at the right time. In all the origin stories Duncan just happened to be making that stop in your starting area and you happened to do something that piqued his interest. Yes, the Warden too is Johnny on the spot. He's not special because his fighting skills are better than everyone else's, not because he's better at killing darkspawn than anyone else, no, he's special because he was lucky to be in the right place at the right time and to survive the joining.

Actually, Duncan doesn't take just anyone to be a Warden.  Why does the Dwarf Commoner get into the Wardens?  Just because Duncan is in Orzammar?  Then why doesn't the Noble origin play out anyway, since that's why you say you're chosen.  The commoner wins that duel, that I can't remember the name of now, geez I hate being old.  Duncan is looking for exceptional people, not every day Joes.  You are chosen exactly because you were a better fighter than others, or, had other talents, such as Daveth.  But let's quote Wynne:  "You should be proud, Duncan is not a man that is easily impressed".  The Warden impresses Duncan, which is how they get recruited.  Recruitment doesn't guarantee you'll survive the Joining, and our own Joining shows us that.  So those that survive are indeed exceptional, except maybe Anders, and I think that was a pity survive...

Both plots are railroaded, the Warden's is just structured better. Like I said before, the Warden is railroaded into action while Hawke is railroaded into inaction. Just because Hawke is railroaded into NOT doing something doesn't make him any less railroaded.

You have 5 scenarios to play out, excluding DLC's that don't much affect the main plot.  You can do these in any order, but you must do them all.  You don't have to save Redcliffe, but you do have to save Eamon, which means you do have to do the Ashes.  In Hawke's case, there is no Archdemon to kill, and the problem will be solved.  Killing Meredith in Act 1 will not alleviate the tension between the mages/Chantry.  It would, in fact, escalate it, especially if you're playing a mage.  However, of note here is that in Act III, as someone else has pointed out, and that Sebastian will point out, if you have the DLC; "Why are we argueing annulment when the culprit is right here?", which is, of course, completely ignored.  This isn't Hawke forced into inaction as much as forcing Hawke to pick sides, in a situation where, as with the Warden killing the Archdemon, there can be no walking away.  There are no good choices there, and walking away might have been one, depending on whether you're a mage or not, and whether or not you like your sibling at all.  This is what gets some people, I'd imagine, because they can't "save the day", and they aren't intended to.

This is true.....for Act 1. After that Hawke pretty much has all the money he'll ever need. You can say the exact same thing for City Elf Warden after he gets recruited.

How much money is enough?  Should Bill Gates have stopped after the first million?  Does anyone ever say:  "I have enough money, I'm not going to make any more", or do they keep their investments going?  Now, if there was a stock market, I'd imagine Hawke could play that, and just sit in the mansion all day every day getting fat and lazy, and, it's possible that that's what he/she might have done, had Act II not started with you being summoned to the viscount's office.  You are in the unique position of the Arishok knowing your name, even though, as the arishok will tell you, he had no interest in knowing it initially.  While he does question the motivation, he does note that you have improved your lot, while the Qunari have not, and he respects that.  This is why he pays you the courtesy of explaining what happened, and why.

At this point in the story, everything you have done previously was selfishly motivated.  Actually meeting the Arishok in the first place was done to make money, and that's not lost on the Arishok in Act I.  "you may leave as well human, there's no more coin for you here".  Unlike the Warden, who is uniquely qualified to deal with their unique Protaganist, Hawke was just in the right place at the right time.  There was no ritual to make sure Hawke could beat the Arishok, or even get to where he/she has the chance, it's just luck.  Hawke can be chosen to lead the assault not because he/she is uniquely qualified, but because he/she is doing it to protect Kirkwall, which makes sense at this point, since if he had any investments, they would be tied there.  Hawke now has something to lose if the Qunari win, unlike the mage/templars, who would willingly throw the other into the fray, which they both do with you anyway.  Isn't it convenient that no matter how it plays out, they don't show up until the Arishok is dead, and they had far less to contend with, that we see, than you did.  Both are probably secretly hoping you get killed, and they can come in and mop up, giving their faction the "popular vote" in their ongoing conflict.

Which brings us to that conflict.  I asked earlier, probably in this very quoted post, which I removed to prevent megawall of text, how one person was going to stop something that's been brewing for centuries.  The conflict, while more exaggerated in Kirkwall, isn't limited to Kirkwall.  Anders was from Ferelden, but he was so moved by the situation that he willingly became what amounts to an abomination to deal with it.  In fact, he manipulates Justice, just as he manipulates Hawke, into doing exactly what he sees as needed to deal with the problem in the way he thinks is best.  He dies every time for me, because while the Grand Cleric is indeed ineffectual, she's a nice lady, and doesn't deserve to be martyred for Anders' recognition.  Something he doesn't seem to get anyway, which is, I suppose, Poetic Justice.

TL;DR:  Hawke is the hometown boy that made good.  The Warden is the hometown boy that got chosen for a purpose, and has to fulfill it on his/her own, despite that not being the original intent when recruited.  In other words, Hawke wasn't chosen to save Kirkwall, and can't prevent what's coming, while the Warden has a set Protaganonist, and can stop the spread of the Blight.  These two scenarios are different, and can't play out the same way, compared to eachother.  Neither is bad based on that, different directions, with different archetypes of hero.  That some don't find one or the other appealing is fine.  This does not, however, mean that one is inherently worse than the other, and people that were vocal, in one medium or another about disliking it did indeed affect sales.  This last was my initial point, and the only reason I have kept coming back.  People didn't not like it w/out knowing anything about it, therefore they couldn't just not buy it because they didn't like it, there was a reason, which you allude to:  bad press.  For myself, I have already listed my regret for buying into the bad press to not even try the game, for while I didn't find it to be any where near perfect, I did find it fun.

Edit for quote tags.

Modifié par robertthebard, 04 juin 2012 - 12:21 .

[robertthebard]

batlin wrote...

sickpixie wrote...
PCs
in any given level take up memory, to get an acceptable framerate/avoid
crashes they had to cut corners on the ambient people you're not
supposed to pay much attention to. Origins solved this problem by making
everything look bad. It's not a particularly efficient engine suited
for console hardware.

Hurlocks in DA:O:



Hurlocks in DA2



lol yeah, WAAAAY better colors and lighting....

So it was intended that Hurlocks would suck up ambient light?  Because quite frankly, other than chimpish features in the second screen, that's what I see going on.  Of course, one shot is taken in the deeproads, apparently, while the other is taken outdoors in daylight.  So again, we're left with "I prefer the old ones, so the new ones are inherently bad".  If I'm going to base my opinion squarely on the provided screens, the new Hurlocks do have better color and lighting, since the in the first screen, they're brown, with overcoatings of brown, with some unexplained shadows, since ambient light seems to be almost non-existant.

Also, there is another figure in the background of that first pic, but it's so blurry I can't make out what it is.  I also can't judge the distance.  However, again, just based on these screenshots, or maybe they aren't actual screenshots, but promotional photos, the lighting/colors do seem better in the second.  Again, this is likely an environment issue

[eroeru]

robertthebard wrote...
Again, this is likely an environment issue

Yes, if it feels at all as an issue.

[Lee80]

Lots of arguments about opinions. You can't win an opinion argument. I love both games, but I see and agree with both sides of this issue. Personally I liked DAO better, and would have been thrilled had they released another game almost exactly like it with slightly better graphics and new powers/mechanics. DA2 looks better over all, but it doesn't really look like the same game series even.

Also, there are just a lot of little things that were left out that bothered me: you can't kiss your love interest whenever you want anymore, choices are almost completely irrelevant as the game plays out the same regardless, the plot in general just isn't as epic as the other, and there's less then half the replay value.

I won't even add in the fact that there's just more DLC and a full expansion, as those things could have been in part 2 had the game been more popular. Though, it certainly is hard to not notice how little extra content there was for DA2.

[jbrand2002uk]

the 2 screenshots in question are from FMV Sequences the 1st pic is from the battle at Ostagar the second is from DA2's intro clearly the 1st is taken at night the 2nd during daytime so a direct comparison isnt really relevant as the lighting requirements are totally different the difference in colour etc could easily be put down to racial differences just as with have afican, caucasian, asian hispanic etc this could be down to 2 broodmother's whose original human forms were say fereldan and rivani for example or it could simply be the designers revising the design to fit their vision of the 2nd game

[hussey 92]

The DA2 Hurlocks look like henchmen you'd see in an anime series

[vallore]

MissOuJ wrote...

Yes, people actually thought the Inquisition was a good thing because they thought heretics were a public menace and that killing them and/or scaring other heretics into converting to Christianity was a public good that was going to protect their empire from witchcraft, God's wrath and bad crops and whatever. They had reasons to believe it was a good thing, because the authorities (Catholic church & clergy) told this to them. If you go back 300+ years and find slavers who think there's absolutely no problem in slavery, nor are they ashamed of it, nor did they think POC's were any better than property - they still had "reasons". "We're helping them out, really: taking them away from their primitive continent, primitive religion and primitive life, showing them Jesus and giving them something useful to do with their lives" was pretty much standard rethoric at the time. Slavery was still the norm and widely excepted in polite society, and opposing it the equal of "bleeing-heart liberalism", but people still felt the need to justify it.

Inquisition: Up to a point, I agree. But I believe it was more the other way around. The Church success with the inquisition was because it validated preexisting fears, making them feel legitimate; but such would not have hold among the population, certainly not to the degree it did, ( and in some cases, it didn’t), if this population weren’t already inclined to demonize the other,(due to historical reasons and other specific reasons of the time). What matter is that, were the Inquisition was successful, these “Others” were perceived as being a threat to the community prior to the presence of the Inquisition. I would say it was a final chapter in a road to intolerance that started earlier, (and was by no means restricted to Christians, by the way).

Slavery: If you go back even further, before Christianity introduced a more humanist approach, (and a need for justification about such matters), roman slavery didn’t even need such excuse. Slaves were property, period. As I recall, there was no need to justify it, it simply were the way of things. Sure some “liberals” of the time may have censured it, but I suspect they were seen as “paleo-hippies” by the rest…

Anyway, there was rationalisation - there's no such rationalisation regarding the Elves in DA:O. Vaughan is actually a good example, because he says exactly the same about elves in DA:O as Cullen says about Mages (Act I at the end of Enemies Among Us). Cullen can actually back his opinnion up and tell about his reasonings if you confront him. If you (general you) confront a racist person they generally either make up reasons right where they stand or refer to the existing prejudices. Cullen does exactly this, Vaughan doesn't.

But actually Vaughain does. He thinks elves are little better than animals, fit to be used as he pleases and he say so as much. That’s his reason. He isn’t trying to be evil, it’s worse: he is a psychopath.

He is clearly the unfortunate result of a cross between the endemic prejudice rife in Ferelden , excessive power and an absolute lack of empathy. He allows his contempt for his “lessers “ to go unbridle because he didn’t see the need to refrain himself. He is a caricature; a distorted lens of how others see the elves, taken to an extreme.

Clarifying myself: what you see lacking in DAO is not complete lack of rationalization, is just lack of a need for justification. But that is because; there is no need for it when prejudice is accepted as natural.

You are both right and wrong. Yes, oppression generates those feelings, but the point of oppression isn't the cycle itself, but the reinforcement of the status quo by the people with the power - whether because the status quo is financially beneficient to them, or because they're hooked up on power, or because they actually believe in some twisted logic they're actually helping. Rationalisation of oppression is always part of oppression: otherwise the institution would have no leg to stand on, and what the Elves go through in DA:O really is institutional oppression - it's just portrayed insufficiently.

Well, there is a reason why I used the status quo argument in relation to the dwarves and not to the elves: it is because in one case it felt far more obvious and important than in the other, imo.

Personally, I don’t think benefit is the main reason. I find it secondary at best. The elven situation is rather a relic kept by inertia and reinforced constantly by the vicious cycle I’ve referred.

Also, why wouldn't it give us a "scolarly approach of a particular form of oppression"? Why shouldn't it? Why a video game couldn't do it? DA:O makes several references to real life political situations, history, and religious practises - why not oppression? DA:O approach to oppresion is pretty much "It happends and there's very little you can do about it. Sorry!" DA2 approach to oppression is "This is how it happends, these are the main players, these are their reasons. You're deciding on the freedom of sentinent beigns. Which side do you pick?" Don't you really see how one hits way more closer than another?

But why should they?

The city-elven oppression was never meant to be the drive force of the main plot. It was, as I said, something to be felt, (as a background). How the player feels about it is actually secondary. There was no need to go there.

However, DA2 strives to make the issue of mage oppression vs security a central theme, and such requires a different treatment. They couldn’t afford to not have the characters explain their position.

Interestingly enough, Dalish elves are given a completely different approach to the problem: there the main character is invited to explain to the clan’s children the “party line,” and the motives for distrust and resentment is a recurring feature. And human characters are lately confronted with this same resentment and it’s causes. Why is that? Why the difference?

Because of the different situation both groups live. One experiences, (feels), new oppression on a daily bases, another needs to keep it alive, by remembering their causes.

Being female, LGBT, trans* or disabled aren't "unavoidable hereditary conditions" either, and they're still categorized as "them", because as soon as their "shortcomings" are made visible for the general public, they lose their priviledges. Same with mages: Connor was a very priviledged boy, until it became clear that he was a mage and had to be taken to the Circle. The moment it was discovered who he "truly" was (ie. a mage, thus "not one of us") he was locked up - if he wasn't killed first, that is. "Us" and "them" are shifting concepts and are by no means only rooted in genes.

Precisely. BUT, because of their origin, the need for justification increases, (I think it fits better here than rationalization).

“Why is society punishing their own? Surely there must be a reason?”

Connor could be anyone’s son, hence it is much more easy to empathize with his plight, (for a human born and raised in Thedas perspective) than to empathize with the plight of a group “you” grew knowing it “could not be trusted” and that is seen simply as “different” from the start. One, the mage, becomes the “other,” but the elf was always the “other.”

It could be said DA:O actually forces you to be racist if you play any other origin than elf, which is an interesting premise, because the racism of the world is actually imbedded in the world so throughoutly you(r PC) internalise(s) it while you're playing, but even then DA:O missed an opportunity for meaningful discussion with not including enough information on this oppression. They did pretty much the same with mages as well in DA:O - there's some discussion on the Chantry politics regarding mages, but nobody actually raises up to speak for either side in depth. If you're a mage

It doesn’t forces, (you can play a character without prejudices, imo), but makes the player think why her character would not have them ,when those are so prevalent around. Interestingly I find the elves are not exempt of prejudice, either. Not even the city-elves.

True, but it still doesn't change the fact that if you push, you always get a reason, however convoluted, twisted and nonsensical. That's what it means to study oppression in depth - to go to the core of it, to the reasons behind it and to the twisted logic those with power employ to keep the status quo. That's what I missed in Origins, that's what I got from DA2, and that's why I consider DA2 did better in this regard.

A reason yes, but not necessarily a justification, and not necessarily something that is actually said.

A mental experiment: if we could just teleport to thedas and ask the locals humans why are elves treated so, what would they say?

I believe they would probably just give a blank look at us for a second, like if the question never occurred to them, or as if it was self-evident. Then they could come up with something like:

“why, they are elves, aren’t they?” (As if that explained everything). At best, we would get a: “don’t know… t’was always so.” At worse a, “those lazy knife ears are good for nothin’, they are treated far better than they deserve, I say!”
…Unless we came across some scholar, then we would likely receive a lesson in Chantry history.

The DAO boards were rife with discussions about the mistreatment of mages,
just as the DA2 boards are. Neither game created much discussion of
elven opression, and both games created much discussion of mage
oppression.

Just to point that elven oppression is not an issue in both games because, in both games, it is just a background issue, and a consensual one. City-elves are oppressed, and they are mostly powerless. Unlike mages.

Those later, while oppressed, are certainly not powerless and can cause terrible suffering if they so choose, (and are so "allowed"). Imo, that is why it was used as one of the main themes of DA2, and why the city-elves predicament was not: one offers an evident dilemma, the other does not.


Note. edited for clarity

Modifié par vallore, 04 juin 2012 - 03:46 .

[robertthebard]

Faerunner wrote...

@vallore : The mage oppression is just a background event in the first game too. If you don't play a mage, it's easy to overlook it as an unfortunate but isolated problem. You encounter mages in Flemeth's Hut, the Circle and Redcliffe Castle but are otherwise unbothered by ther plight if you aren't a mage, the same way you encounter elves in many places but aren't bothered with the plight of elves unless you are an elf.

The second game chose to make the mage conflict personally significant to the main character and a huge deal to the grand scheme of things but chose to make the elves' plight a background event that had no bearing on the main plot.

It could have easily been otherwise since elves consist of mages too, and they have been systematically opressed, discriminated against and empoverished their whole lives too. They should finally reach a point where they say, "We've finally had enough!" Just like mages. City elves are not powerless either, as the City Elf Origin shows. They're very able to fight back when they set their minds to it, they've just been conditioned to think they can't.

Granted, city elves' rebellions end up biting them in the backside when they try, but it was the same thing with mages. City elves rebelled? Purge the alienage. Mages rebelled? Anull the Tower. An elf killed someone important? Imprisonment, torture and execution. A mage tried to escape or kill someone? Tranquility, imprisonment and/or execution. Uldred's followers' attempts to free mages were treated as a petty attempt that just made things worse for mages everywhere the same way the elves' rebellion just made things worse for the Denerim Alienage.

In DAO, both mages AND city elves were treated as unfortunate events that had no end in sight. Anyone who tried to make things better just made things worse (for themselves and their kind) and it was treated like both mage towers and alienages were here to stay for centuries to come, with change coming slowly and messily, if at all. Then DA2 comes out and suddenly the Circle is a travesty that can be overthrown within a few years but alienage opression is just a petty, unimportant background event that's still here to stay? I call bs!

That's just because the elves are smart, they're going to wait until both sides are in open war, pulling reserves from city militias, and then strike when everyone's vulnerable.  At least, if it were my initiative, that's what I'd do.