709 réponses à ce sujet

[Aimi]

Oh dear, Guy Halsall...

As far as classical and medieval history go, I'm really just an 'interested layperson' myself. But even in terms of what little I know, it's hilarious how often those four words come up. Nobody ever seems to say, "oh dear, Patrick Geary" or "oh dear, Michael Kulikowski"! I suppose that's what you get when you cite Chappelle's Show in your magnum opus history monograph and spend half your blog talking about politics.

But yeah, nothing really to argue with here: people find what they're looking for, the issue is pretty complex, good research is good research regardless of the technical support for it (and the same with bad research), and you almost certainly know way more about it than I do. Thanks for the book rec, btw, I hadn't seen that one before.
 

The 'confusion' of race, genetics and identity is actually pretty irrelevant among the people (scholars / researchers but also interested laymen) that participate in these debates; these people bloody well know that DNA isn't culture isn't language. That's more of a political / popular media issue, as well as a failure by academics to clearly communicate with the wider public.
 
Anyway, this is rather OT and I'll end here.

I agree about the "scholars/researchers" bit for the most part (although I suppose there are some snide and uncharitable jokes to be made at the expense of a lot of people in the endless Pohl/Goffart debates, not to mention a certain community of British historians), but I strongly disagree with respect to "interested laymen". There are plenty of people who understand what's what, but the internet is also full of people who will amass intimidating amounts of data and walls of text drawing all sorts of dubious connections between fragmented data on haplogroups, etymology, ancient art, and whatnot to "prove" things like "the ancient Egyptians were [or weren't] black!" Admittedly, y'know, internet, but still.

But yes: definitely OT. Sorry. :S

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Imurshun. If there's one random person who looks oriental it doesn't make sense, you'll start to wonder they're from. I proposed a solution in a previous post, if you have them EVERYWHERE and perhaps randomise and share phenotypes with various ethnicities, it's easier to accept the humans in dao can just happen to look any which way. After all, there are gods and no mention of evolution.

If you just put in a few token minorities all it screams is "hello from hollywood!"

[AkiKishi]

I'd still want to know where they came from. To me, there are only two reasons characters exist in a fantasy world. 

 

1. Combat Support. 

2. To tell a story. Whether actively or passively. 

 

Just throwing in a few asian looking NPCs is missing an opportunity to expand the knowledge of the game world.Just like I wanted a Female Qunari to see the culture from the other side from Sten. 

 

Ok I wanted her to have a gun too, but that was all me

[tmp7704]

Things that change the game for everyone need an in game explanation.For example when the Qunari grew horns. Things that don't , don't.

Not necessarily -- e.g. DA2 never bothers to even notice sudden change in appearance of elves and darkspawn, let alone explain it. For that matter it doesn't explain qunari showing up with the horns either, iirc. The codex entry treats it as if it's always been the case and doesn't make any Big Deal out of it.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

No in my scenario, they came from nowhere. Humans can just have epicanthal folds and flat brows in addition to other phenotypes like ginger hair.

[AkiKishi]

Not necessarily -- e.g. DA2 never bothers to even notice sudden change in appearance of elves and darkspawn, let alone explain it. For that matter it doesn't explain qunari showing up with the horns either, iirc. The codex entry treats it as if it's always been the case and doesn't make any Big Deal out of it.

 

I really wish I could dig up all the "putty patrol" threads from back then. 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

By the way i don't feel strongly about this I'm just bored and like arguing.

[AkiKishi]

By the way i don't feel strongly about this I'm just bored and like arguing.

 

You should make a controversial thread like how there are more male party members or something, those usually move along at a fair clip. But E3 probably has people distracted.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Nah I've got 6 warning points.

[tmp7704]

I really wish I could dig up all the "putty patrol" threads from back then.

I'm not saying it was a popular change, although I'd say it's largely due to new designs being perceived as way worse. In contrast there was hardly any outrage over the new look of the qunari, since people seemed to like their revised appearances much better.

Point being, all the rabble-rabble-rabble happened on the forums, not in the game world. There was no in-game explanation of these things and people got over it.

[AkiKishi]

I'm not saying it was a popular change, although I'd say it's largely due to new designs being perceived as way worse. In contrast there was hardly any outrage over the new look of the qunari, since people seemed to like their revised appearances much better.

Point being, all the rabble-rabble-rabble happened on the forums, not in the game world. There was no in-game explanation of these things and people got over it.

 

In the case of the Qunari it led to an expansion of the Lore. 

[drome34]

Why are the jews so good to white folks

 

Also jewishness is a highly ambiguous categorization of people, and most of the ones in popular media do in fact look white.

 

Yeah , I know right? Turning a mexican who killed a black man, into a white guy killing a black "child" is so kind!  Besides:  I just love the irony of multiculture. You let people let ONE SINGLE PERSON polaraize MILLIONS by committing a single act of voilence.Dieversity is our strenght right. KInd of like how this thread polarizes the BSN community because you differ , basically, in how Asians should be included in the game; with lore or without. And lets not forget everything about all "education" they provide. I recently read a bloombergreport (jewish owned company kind to white people) and it celebrated rising inflation and prices of necceceties, as a sign of recovery. Great, we get to spend more money on food rather then ipods and cars and other luxuries... But you know what? Thats EXACTLY my point! The public WANT to read this, or they wouldn't pay for it! It may reinforce their world view, it might make them feel good, it might confirm their bias. There are a thousand reasons. And people are just fine with jews owning media, because jewish bosses (or if they had been black of whatever) PROBABLY simply look for profit. 

 

A serious question though. How do You determine who "looks white" or not? Few american jews would pass as white in the nordic countries. I feel pretty sure about this. Heck, few americans we see on TV at all would pass as a "full white" in nordic countries, what with your black hair and dark eyes. Superman would look out of place here.

 

 

Speaking of massive failures, what makes you equate catering to more social groups with "discriminating against one's own"?

 

 

 

I didnt, I was under the impression I said exactly the opposite. I meant discriminating against ones own potential customers. In this case "coulored" people.

[In Exile]

In the case of the Qunari it led to an expansion of the Lore. 

 

Not really, since the devs always wanted the qunari to have horns (and originally a tail, but that one didn't make a comeback). 

[AkiKishi]

Not really, since the devs always wanted the qunari to have horns (and originally a tail, but that one didn't make a comeback). 

 

They explained it though even if it was supposed to be the original design. We have whole castes of Qunari because Sten never had horns. 

[In Exile]

They explained it though even if it was supposed to be the original design. We have whole castes of Qunari because Sten never had horns. 

 

They made up the thing about Sten, yeah, but they didn't explain the horns. They explained the lack of horns. 

 

But I don't consider these types of post hoc explanations as expanding lore - they generally make a mess of it because they're just stapled on to justify a design decision that's lore independent. 

[tmp7704]

In the case of the Qunari it led to an expansion of the Lore.

I can't remember now, but did that lore expansion ever actually make it to the game? What I mean is, we had Mr.Gaider do the whole "destined for great stuff" thing on the forums for Sten, but if someone only plays DA:O and DA2 and doesn't read the forums, is the difference in looks ever explained to them in any way?

I'm checking codex entries in DA2, but can't really find anything about it there.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

tmp fixed the retcon for us god bless.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

In the case of the Qunari it led to an expansion of the Lore. 

and qunari clones

[AkiKishi]

and qunari clones

 

In DA2 everything was a clone.

 

I can't seem to find my favourite meme.

 

@tmp It should be in the DA:I lore. I'm dubious about the Qunari as PC thing , but who knows.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

ba dum tsh

[tmp7704]

I didnt, I was under the impression I said exactly the opposite. I meant discriminating against ones own potential customers. In this case "coulored" people.

I considered that interpretation of your words but it seemed less plausible -- since it'd mean you're saying that not including non-white people in the productions isn't actually discriminating against these people. Which would be pretty obtuse when the whole thing stems from people saying that not being included feels exactly like being discriminated against, to them.

[LinksOcarina]

They made up the thing about Sten, yeah, but they didn't explain the horns. They explained the lack of horns. 

 

But I don't consider these types of post hoc explanations as expanding lore - they generally make a mess of it because they're just stapled on to justify a design decision that's lore independent. 

welcome to game conceits, where the whims of the designers is more important than the stories behind them.

 

Always has been, always will be. 

[Darth Krytie]

I don't know why I'm constantly surprised whenever I see people flock to any thread asking for more representation in order to decry it or veto it or whatnot. The arguments against representation are usually one of the following:

 

1. It's not important./It's not a big deal. (Ergo, it shouldn't happen at all.)

2. It's tokenism. (To prevent tokenism, you shouldn't bother including others at all)

3. It's pandering. (It's not pandering to only focus on the people currently focused on. That's just good business.)

4. Realism. (Because the only unrealistic things that should exist in a game are the unrealistic things I don't mind existing in a game)

5. Slippery Slope. (If you include one minority group, you'll be asked to include more. The horrors.)

 

And 'money making' is tied in with all of them as the backup reason.

 

I think that sums up the majority of the dissenting arguments, don't you?

 

The questions that come to mind whenever I see these arguments are as follows:

 

1. If it doesn't matter, then surely it won't matter if you ARE more inclusive. (The fact that 'it doesn't matter' is used more as an argument AGAINST inclusion than for it, is truly baffling.)

 

2. If tokenism is bad, and you use that argument to say don't bother at all...I'd think the issue is you don't want it at all considering you could just as easily say, include more to avoid tokenism.

 

3. It's basically just like someone eating a garbage bag full  of M&Ms calling a person wanting just one M&M greedy, isn't it? A completely disingenuous argument.

 

4. This argument always comes off as a little false. People make exceptions for realism all the time until it comes down to content they don't want. Then realism gets dragged out. Someone can make fire fall from the sky and survive being sliced and diced six ways to Sunday, but having other sexualities or ethnicity is beyond the pale. Funny how it mostly comes down to that.

 

5. I tend to see this: well, if you have one gay person, next thing you know someone's going to start asking for Latvian pansexual agender trolls. And to that I say, so what? If the story's good? And it doesn't matter? And it's not a big deal? And no one should care whether their ethnicity or sexuality or gender is represented, then why does it matter if yours isn't?

 

 

It all boils down to the same thing, in the end. People don't want to share. They don't want to let other people in on the fun. They can trot out a thousand and one 'reasons' why it shouldn't happen, but the arguments against inclusion all suck. The fact that people feel the need to come into these threads asking for inclusion to make sure they speak up for the horribly oppressed, completely represented majority sucks. The fact that we can't go ten posts without people telling the underrepresented that 'it's just a game and it doesn't really matter' sucks because it it REALLY didn't matter, then no one would bother opposing the request in the first place.

 

Bah. all these anti-representation people make me grumpy.

[Das Tentakel]

They made up the thing about Sten, yeah, but they didn't explain the horns. They explained the lack of horns. 
 
But I don't consider these types of post hoc explanations as expanding lore - they generally make a mess of it because they're just stapled on to justify a design decision that's lore independent.

I agree. They are more like post-facto justifications - basically a form of 'damage control'.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

You people should be ashamed of yourselves. smh