23 réponses à ce sujet

[IntoTheDarkness]

I do not know a terminology to call what the title implies, but I know I grow weary of this with each BIoware game. This must be a trend towards making games that appeal to broader audience, but I should note that these set of accomodations drop the quality and depth of the igame world.



In
DA:O, Ferelden's army is composed of 50% of women and 50% of men.
However, gender rolls depicted in the game are exactly the same as the modern world, all the while in-game description insisting that men and women are equally capable in battles. This is a clear
example of Bioware's demonstration that they respect gender equality. It's what I call an external factor as to company propaganda interfering the game world.

In DA2, some of companions *change* their sexual orientation to accomodate that of Hawk's. This is totally, freaking, and undoubtly contrived and if you refelct that to the real world you will see how rediculous that sounds like.

In ME3,. Shepard has yet again become dumber so the majority of players which fall to the age group of mid to late teens can sympathize with Shepard. Shepard, who is supposed to be a veteran solider and an special agent who served in the army for over a decade, acts and comhrehends surroundings as if a teenage gamer would. (In Leviathan DLC, it takes Shepard *minutes* to understand something is going wrong in the mining facility.) And the game's dipiction of war is pityful(DA:O was better with this respect) and unrealistic to say at least. Even a quareel between two villages as to where a garbage furnace should be built will have more conspiracies and cunning moves than this cartoonic dipiction of so called a cosmos war.

The witcher 2 is the counterexample and it shows how wars and chracters should be depicted in games. They should be created without regards to what gamers want("you shouldn't kill my love interest. he/she should be invincible throughout the story cuz it's too hearbreaking to see them die in battles.") and cry for.



Despite all the shortcomings in DA2, one thing it did right was showing that an individual cannot swim against the
stream of times, as Hawk is dragged into a struggle between the
mage/templar against his/her will. As a result, you might have felt Hawk is helpless
and weak. But Hawk was never stupid; if you expected Hawk to conquer
everyone and become the conquerer of Thedas or something, let's just say
you should watch super hero animations instead.

No novels or literature intentionally dumb down characters and plots so
readers can easiliy understand. If they are targeting younger audience,
they don't even pretend to be serious but rather go for lighter topics
and settings. On the other hand, Bioware games claim that they are
targeting 'mature' audience and they usually produce something childish
and unrealistic, as it has been the trend from Dragon Age Origins to
Mass Effect 3.

I hope Bioware stops making games to fit players' intelligence and understanding. The movie Inception was finantially successful despite 90% of audience not understanding what's going on with plots. I don't expect the depth of Planescape:Torment or alike, but at least show us you try to make the game world as realistic as possible. Despite the awesome gameplay of ME3, the game did not produce any memorable antagonists because they were too stupid be be even remembered. I don't know about you, but I hate when game developers assume we are stupid thus they dumb down characters instelligence so that we can understand.

On top of that, I wish I could see more discussions on political situations of Ferelden and the game lore instead of the plentiful romance interest discussions on the forum at the moment. In a
comic war of ME or a continental struggle of
DA, your *romance interest* should matter little in grand scale of
things. If that's what most people only care about, Bioware will 'accomodate' players' needs and the developers' focus will be drifted away from creating a mature, realistic game world.

[Emzamination]

*Scratches head* Why would you want bioware to weave a game story that the players can't relate to?

[Dio Demon]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying that BioWare are now creating a feel good, crossing the rainbow story? If so then I would have to disagree on you, in terms of the Dragon Age series.

Mage\\Templar conflict is a reflection of our history where there are groups that brutally subjugate other groups out of fear. In DAII it was implied that Mage's were raped, they were made tranquil (which has parallels to being broken mentally). This is what I derived from the Mage's point of view anyway. So I doubt what I stated above would be a great story to tell a child.

Your romance interest DOES matter little the grander scheme of things, it's only an extra lure to draw players into the game.

And I also commend your great powers to discern what the developers secret opinions on us are.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

You make an excellent point OP. I honestly diddnt know what to expect when I read the title but I really think you have hit the nail on the head here.

[Battlebloodmage]

Definitely, Bioware should do it and make the game with straight male gamers in mind.

[Kitty Fae]

Emzamination wrote...

*Scratches head* Why would you want bioware to weave a game story that the players can't relate to?

I think he's just trying to say that instead of improving the quality of the game story, bioware is dumbing it down, so that it can market the game to a wider audience.

[Dhiro]

I see. But what are your thoughts on yaoi, OP?

[ShadowLordXII]

I think what the OP is saying is that Bioware is shifting focus away from in-depth, mature, and unashamed development to a focus that tries to market to as many people as possible.

In doing so, dumbing down their strong points so that the masses will still enjoy their product.

I wouldn't say that it's all that bad, but it has shown lately in a few trends: (ME3 having multiplayer, a random twist ending for the sake of being a twist ending, and people wearing underwear while they shower and make love; more overtly sexual females, "cooler" animations and less required strategy in DA2; and so on)

In short, it is something to consider at least. Is it better to craft your product with a particular crowd in mind or to ensure that your produce appeals to as many groups as possible? There's pluses and minuses to both cases.

[deuce985]

Basically, what I gather from the OP, Bioware is writing their games similar to Hunger Games or Twilight books as opposed to A Song of Ice and Fire. George R. R. Martin's book is not easy to read for many people, while a book like Hunger Games is better written for mass appeal of all ages. This is a fair basic analogy to use, yes?

Modifié par deuce985, 28 novembre 2012 - 05:12 .

[deuce985]

edit

Modifié par deuce985, 28 novembre 2012 - 04:48 .

[Massakkolia]

deuce985 wrote...

Basically, what I gather from the OP, Bioware is writing their games similar to Hunger Games or Twilight books as opposed to A Song of Ice and Fire. George R. R. Martin's book is not easy to read for many people, while a book like Hunger Games is written better for mass appeal of all ages. This is a fair basic analogy to use, yes?

Yes, I believe that's the argument he's trying to make. Unfortunately, he's making that argument by claiming that having gender equality in military is propaganda (instead of a believable element of a fantasy world created by Bioware) and suggesting that Witcher 2 and Inception represent the culmination of profound storytelling. For some inexplicable reason, I don't buy it. 

Modifié par Ria, 28 novembre 2012 - 04:59 .

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...
*snip*
In
DA:O, Ferelden's army is composed of 50% of women and 50% of men.
However, gender rolls depicted in the game are exactly the same as the modern world, all the while in-game description insisting that men and women are equally capable in battles. This is a clear
example of Bioware's demonstration that they respect gender equality. It's what I call an external factor as to company propaganda interfering the game world.

*more snip*

This issue of yours with gender equality is disturbing if I infer from it what I think you're trying to say. If your issue is with the idea that this is innaccurate portrayal of life in a medieval society then might I remind you that Dragon Age is set in the world of Thedas, a fictional place which reflects cultural, aesthetic, and technological aspects of Europe in the middle ages and early Renaissance and is not in any way, nor does BioWare claim that it is an accurate depiction of historical medieval Europe or planet Earth.

Please tell me you're not one of those "female gamers aren't real gamers" types, or worse still one of those "anyone who plays a character who is not of their own gender is a [insert your favourite pejorative here]". I apologize if I'm WAAAY missing the point here and feel free to correct me if you feel I'm misinterpreting your opinions, but misogyny bothers me.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Kitty Fae wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

*Scratches head* Why would you want bioware to weave a game story that the players can't relate to?

I think he's just trying to say that instead of improving the quality of the game story, bioware is dumbing it down, so that it can market the game to a wider audience.

Well OP could just come right out and say it rather than writing a novel about it...

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Ria wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

Basically, what I gather from the OP, Bioware is writing their games similar to Hunger Games or Twilight books as opposed to A Song of Ice and Fire. George R. R. Martin's book is not easy to read for many people, while a book like Hunger Games is written better for mass appeal of all ages. This is a fair basic analogy to use, yes?

Yes, I believe that's the argument he's trying to make. Unfortunately, he's making that argument by claiming that having gender equality in military is propaganda (instead of a believable element of a fantasy world created by Bioware) and suggesting that Witcher 2 and Inception represent the culmination of profound storytelling. For some inexplicable reason, I don't buy it. 

Like any good heroic fantasy series, Dragon Age's world has been stuck in its equivalent of the Middle Ages for far, far longer than the actual Middle Ages on Earth lasted. There has been time for things like gender equality to take root. BioWare never implies that gender equality has always been a thing either. Remember the tragic tale of Aveline (the human girl raised by the Dalish, not the no-nonsense, lantern-jawed Captain of the Guard companion from DA II)? Before she was slain for daring to participate in a tourney, women in Orlais were not allowed to Chevaliers. Events such as this brought about the change we see in DA.

This brings me to another point: Dragon Age is high fantasy with dark fantasy elements and a willingness to explore certain mature subject matter. The Witcher games are based on a series of books which take place in a dark fantasy setting with high fantasy elements (dragons, monsters, elves, dwarves, magic); the Witcher is set in a crapsack world where the sexes are not equal, but that's the point. Dark fantasy often revels in cynicism, ugliness, and stark brutality; also often contains misogyny, which may or may not reflect the author's own POV. A Song of Ice and Fire is a great example of this sort of fantasy, but set in a post-high fantasy world where magic has diminished significantly and mythical creatures and races are all but extinct.

[Celene II]

A complex story with complicated twists and turns is fine with me. A complex story in which everyone dies, just so they can make people feel something about war, or their game isnt fine. I dont mind a complex storyline, i can follow those just fine. But i would not accept a DA series game with the so called complex and mature storyline of say The walking dead game.

[Realmzmaster]

I play games to have fun. I have asked this question before and will continue to ask it. How much realism do you want in your fantasy? The answer to that question differs depending on which poster you talk to. What does crafting a mature , realistic world mean?

I think a love interest figures into a mature world on a personal level which is how some gamers play their games. I think people of color and sexual orientation exist in a realistic world. I also believe that all games do not have to have earth shattering consequences.

The word mature is once again mentioned. Who gets to define what is mature? Bioware knows that changing the orientation is contrived because they did it on purpose. That way everyone gets the same number of potential sexual partners.

How is Bioware games childish? I did not know that games aimed at the younger set covered the issues of rape, slavery, sexuality, oppression, poverty, revenge etc need I go on.

As I see it the fanbase is divided on how much realism they want to see in their fantasy.

If I want realism I will pull out The Battle of the Bulge by Talonsoft and see how fast I can wipe out the 101st Airborne in Bastogne with the 2nd Panzer Division or how long I could hold out as the 101st Airborne. Or grab my other wargames and decide whether to carpet bomb Tokyo or drop the A-Bomb on Japan. Now that is realism in a very real world based on history.

Dragon Age is not that world. Dragon Age may be based on medieval times but it is not that world. In a realistic world one arrow in the chest would put most warriors out of commission. In a realistic world Hawke or the Warden would be crippled by the hits received.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 28 novembre 2012 - 05:30 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Dragon Age is not that world. Dragon Age may be based on medieval times but it is not that world. In a realistic world one arrow in the chest would put most warriors out of commission. In a realistic world Hawke or the Warden would be crippled by the hits received.

And while the arrow in the chest being instantly healed is obviously a gameplay mechanic, when you start comparing the game world to the medieval/middle ages, you have to take into account the incredible difference the availability of healing magic would make. Decrease the infant mortality rates, cut down death in childbirth, introduce the ability to cure infections and suddenly the middle ages looks a whole lot different.

[In Exile]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

I think what the OP is saying is that Bioware is shifting focus away from in-depth, mature, and unashamed development to a focus that tries to market to as many people as possible.

Except that they aren't. At most, you can accuse Bioware of sanitizing their plots (i.e., the Circle is all about rape, beatings abuse and horrible oppression, but at most we hear and read about it instead of see it). But the content is there, and it's mature. Hell, we have a quest about a serial killer pursuing elf women! That's really mature.

As is reaper slupree, and the attempted genocide, in a parallel to the concentration camps, of entire worlds by the reapers (in ME3).

This point is absurd, and is really more about the kind of power dynamics (including gender dynamics) some gamers seem to want in their games.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Kitty Fae wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

*Scratches head* Why would you want bioware to weave a game story that the players can't relate to?

I think he's just trying to say that instead of improving the quality of the game story, bioware is dumbing it down, so that it can market the game to a wider audience.

Its not just that but also sacrificing a sense of believability to the story and characters to appeal to player preferences. Take the Assassin's Creed series for example, it is clear that the developer's want the player to root for the Assassins and despise the Templars and in pursuing this design goal they paint a clear good vs evil scenario that depicts the Assassins as these ultra cool hipsters that fight for peace and freedom while depicting the Templars as weak, power hunger cowards with weird sexual tendancies and a bad case of hemorrhoids, and for some reason the player is supposed to believe that these weak uncharismatic fools are the ones in power.

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

IntoTheDarkness wrote...
*snip*
In
DA:O, Ferelden's army is composed of 50% of women and 50% of men.
However, gender rolls depicted in the game are exactly the same as the modern world, all the while in-game description insisting that men and women are equally capable in battles. This is a clear
example of Bioware's demonstration that they respect gender equality. It's what I call an external factor as to company propaganda interfering the game world.

*more snip*

This issue of yours with gender equality is disturbing if I infer from it what I think you're trying to say. If your issue is with the idea that this is innaccurate portrayal of life in a medieval society then might I remind you that Dragon Age is set in the world of Thedas, a fictional place which reflects cultural, aesthetic, and technological aspects of Europe in the middle ages and early Renaissance and is not in any way, nor does BioWare claim that it is an accurate depiction of historical medieval Europe or planet Earth.

Please tell me you're not one of those "female gamers aren't real gamers" types, or worse still one of those "anyone who plays a character who is not of their own gender is a [insert your favourite pejorative here]". I apologize if I'm WAAAY missing the point here and feel free to correct me if you feel I'm misinterpreting your opinions, but misogyny bothers me.

Regardless of what role women play in society whether it be a fictional medieval universe or our own modern world there is a reason that there are fewer women fighting on the front lines (if at all, I believe that it has only just been introduced in the Australian military that women can apply for front line combat roles) than men and it has nothing to do with misogyny. I have nothing against women fighting on the front lines and if they are capable of doing so then I say "go for it girl" but the simple truth of it is that most women simply dont meet the physical requirements to fight on the front lines, has nothing to do with the Brannigan policy that "harmless pinching and swaying hips sink ships". Even in the police force requirements had to be lowered for more women to serve in it. It is just a fact of life that men are more suited to front line combat than women, nothing sexist about it.

Ria wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

Basically, what I gather from the OP, Bioware is writing their games similar to Hunger Games or Twilight books as opposed to A Song of Ice and Fire. George R. R. Martin's book is not easy to read for many people, while a book like Hunger Games is written better for mass appeal of all ages. This is a fair basic analogy to use, yes?

Yes, I believe that's the argument he's trying to make. Unfortunately, he's making that argument by claiming that having gender equality in military is propaganda (instead of a believable element of a fantasy world created by Bioware) and suggesting that Witcher 2 and Inception represent the culmination of profound storytelling. For some inexplicable reason, I don't buy it.

Even if you cant appreciate it the Witcher 2 was well writen and a lot of it has to do with what the OP was saying. And before somebody throws out the "lulz sex scenes dont make mature" argument it was never the sex scenes that made the game mature, it was the believability of the characters and the story. One of my favorite characters in the story would have to be King Henselt, sure the man was an absolute pig but he was also a strong character that commanded authority and respect, just as I imagined a true King in medieval times would. He wasnt painted as the virtuous idealistic notion of what a king should be, nor was he painted as a despicable coward who exists for the sole reason to give the player someone to hate, he was simply King Henselt of Ard Carraigh, and he will not beg for mercy.

[In Exile]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Regardless of what role women play in society whether it be a fictional medieval universe or our own modern world there is a reason that there are fewer women fighting on the front lines (if at all, I believe that it has only just been introduced in the Australian military that women can apply for front line combat roles) than men and it has nothing to do with misogyny. I have nothing against women fighting on the front lines and if they are capable of doing so then I say "go for it girl" but the simple truth of it is that most women simply dont meet the physical requirements to fight on the front lines, has nothing to do with the Brannigan policy that "harmless pinching and swaying hips sink ships". Even in the police force requirements had to be lowered for more women to serve in it. It is just a fact of life that men are more suited to front line combat than women, nothing sexist about it.

There are strength differences between men and women in certain types of muscle (see the links at the bottom of this post). This is not universally true. There are muscles where there is no gender difference.

More importantly, even if this is absolutely true this point is meaningless. Physical strength is not the be-all, end-all of combat. Even if it so happens that it is true that some women, on average, are weaker than some men, there will always be women are stronger than some (if not most) men who could be soldiers in the same way, and moreover women who could fight through some other means that does not involve raw physical strength (and there are lots of fighting techniques/styles that are based entirely on this idea).

So the poin that somehow women would not be in the military because of a difference in strength is absurd, and it's all about enforcing a pre-existing gender/power dynamic.

despicable coward who exists for the sole reason to give the player someone to hate, he was simply King Henselt of Ard Carraigh, and he will not beg for mercy.

He was absolutely painted as a character for people to hate, unless you happen to think rape and pillage is even remotely tolerable.

Research on Gender Differences, Muscle Strength[/b][b]

http://www.pitt.edu/...ir Assault).pdf

Modifié par In Exile, 28 novembre 2012 - 06:19 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

In Exile wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Regardless of what role women play in society whether it be a fictional medieval universe or our own modern world there is a reason that there are fewer women fighting on the front lines (if at all, I believe that it has only just been introduced in the Australian military that women can apply for front line combat roles) than men and it has nothing to do with misogyny. I have nothing against women fighting on the front lines and if they are capable of doing so then I say "go for it girl" but the simple truth of it is that most women simply dont meet the physical requirements to fight on the front lines, has nothing to do with the Brannigan policy that "harmless pinching and swaying hips sink ships". Even in the police force requirements had to be lowered for more women to serve in it. It is just a fact of life that men are more suited to front line combat than women, nothing sexist about it.

There are strength differences between men and women in certain types of muscle (see the links at the bottom of this post). This is not universally true. There are muscles where there is no gender difference.

More importantly, even if this is absolutely true this point is meaningless. Physical strength is not the be-all, end-all of combat. Even if it so happens that it is true that some women, on average, are weaker than some men, there will always be women are stronger than some (if not most) men who could be soldiers in the same way, and moreover women who could fight through some other means that does not involve raw physical strength (and there are lots of fighting techniques/styles that are based entirely on this idea).

Look pal, if you want to cling to your idealistic and unrealistic view on the world then go ahead, it is clear that no matter what the truth may be you simply dont want to hear it and it would be a waste of my time to enlighten you. I am not denying that there are strong women out there and if there are any who are up to the challenges front line combat presents then who am I to stop them? The truth however is that most women dont meet the requirements for front line combat and thus the percentage of men fighting on the front lines is far greater than the number of women, you may not want to believe this (you may not want to believe Santa and the Tooth Fairy arent real either) but this does not make it any less true.

In Exile wrote...

despicable coward who exists for the sole reason to give the player someone to hate, he was simply King Henselt of Ard Carraigh, and he will not beg for mercy.

He was absolutely painted as a character for people to hate, unless you happen to think rape and pillage is even remotely tolerable.

That is not the point, yes we all know Henselt was a pig but the point was that he was also a believable character. Are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing?

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 28 novembre 2012 - 07:07 .

[Yuqi]

inb4lockdown

[Fredward]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Regardless of what role women play in society whether it be a fictional medieval universe or our own modern world there is a reason that there are fewer women fighting on the front lines (if at all, I believe that it has only just been introduced in the Australian military that women can apply for front line combat roles) than men and it has nothing to do with misogyny. I have nothing against women fighting on the front lines and if they are capable of doing so then I say "go for it girl" but the simple truth of it is that most women simply dont meet the physical requirements to fight on the front lines, has nothing to do with the Brannigan policy that "harmless pinching and swaying hips sink ships". Even in the police force requirements had to be lowered for more women to serve in it. It is just a fact of life that men are more suited to front line combat than women, nothing sexist about it.

There are strength differences between men and women in certain types of muscle (see the links at the bottom of this post). This is not universally true. There are muscles where there is no gender difference.

More importantly, even if this is absolutely true this point is meaningless. Physical strength is not the be-all, end-all of combat. Even if it so happens that it is true that some women, on average, are weaker than some men, there will always be women are stronger than some (if not most) men who could be soldiers in the same way, and moreover women who could fight through some other means that does not involve raw physical strength (and there are lots of fighting techniques/styles that are based entirely on this idea).

Look pal, if you want to cling to your idealistic and unrealistic view on the world then go ahead, it is clear that no matter what the truth may be you simply dont want to hear it and it would be a waste of my time to enlighten you. I am not denying that there are strong women out there and if there are any who are up to the challenges front line combat presents then who am I to stop them? The truth however is that most women dont meet the requirements for front line combat and thus the percentage of men fighting on the front lines is far greater than the number of women, you may not want to believe this (you may not want to believe Santa and the Tooth Fairy arent real either) but this does not make it any less true.

Did you know that at one point Russia had just about only female snipers? They did this because they believed women were more flexible or had better eyesight or something. Whether this was true or not was utterly irrelevant, at that time it was BELIEVED and Russia had mostly female snipers, who performed admirably btw, as good as any man. Now what am I getting at? Belief plays an important part in just about everything. If the belief (like yours) is that men are better at killing things (enter manly growl and/or chest scratching here) and this is the DOMINANT belief (which it is) reality will reflect this.


Anywhoozle back on topic. I've always preferred games where the story soldiers on whether I'm following or not. The OP mentions the mining situation in Leviathan and this is SO TRUE. I mean I knew exactly that something was up THE SECOND I walked into that place. And it wasn't because of any frackin meta-knowledge it was basically shrieking in my face "HEY THIS SITUATION IS ABNORMAL!!!!!!" so yeah, don't dumb things down. People like playing games that make them think. Watching movies that make them think too. Sadly this is not true for books for some reason. xp

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 28 novembre 2012 - 07:20 .

[Ninja Stan]

And this thread has gotten political and off-topic. If you want to talk about game realism vs. verisimilitude, please use the Off-Topic forum. If you just want a soapbox from which to spout political ideologies, please take it elsewhere. Thank you.

End of line.