Ce sujet est fermé
Dragons are magical creatures. Not every human has magic. I mean, what's the mage population in Ferelden? A tower? Give or take a few dozen apostates?
Why are you assuming a dragon's ability to fly is fueled by magic? And what about giant spiders, then?
Naturally. Which is why I said EXCEPTIONAL women would have place in the army.
But why would you spend enchantments on an average woman, which is, by laws of biology, weaker than the average male? It would just be a waste of resources and a bad tactical decision.
So you're not against there being female generic enemies?
And dude, if we assume that raw physical strength is not the prime requirement for being an effective soldier and it's stuff more along the lines of being able to follow orders, reasoning ability under pressure, being cool with stabbing things and etc it kinda makes sense for there to be a close to [or equal] amount of female soldiers. Unless you think women are less inclined to think this way. And in a setting where they [generally] aren't treated like delicate flowers there's very little reason for them not to think in such a way. And if a woman places as much emphasis on being physically equal to her male counterparts I imagine she can get her own gear enchanted. Depending on how much it costs ofc. And a soldier's salary, But minutiae.
Dragons ARE magical creatures, though. He is right about that bit.
Agility/Flexibility.
Women's gymnastics has always been more popular than men's.
I personally think women would make much better scouts since smaller frames = better at not being seen and flexibility means they can reach better vantage points.
So, in game, women would have better stats as rogues/archers and mages (i think?) than warriors?
Edit: what's your opinion on women wielding smaller swords, like those ancient greek ones and still being warriors without wielding two handed swords?
Opinion.
When I see a dwarf dual wielding massive greataxes, I'll treat it as fact.
Not even qunari do that.
I would like there to be a reasonable balance between genders of npc's and enemies.
To respond to the 18/19 ratio comment above me quite a ways: no one is seriously saying that. It's not about carefully measuring out numbers; it's about not forgetting diversity exists (given context). If there's some reason the enemies should be mostly (or all) male or female (like the Silent Sisters or those assassins in Hightown in Act 2), that's fine.
That's just it. Nobody said it in this thread, and nobody EVER says it anywhere else...except for, you know, the guys who have an ulterior motive in ridiculing the very idea. THAT is the ONLY time, and I do mean the ONLY time, that the notion of 50/50 exactitude EVER comes up. You'd think that they might have a problem with the reality that people actually *ARE* asking for, the way they have this compulsive need to mock it and screech about political correctness. Funny how the sentiment tends to usually come from the very people who have never had to worry about inclusion a day in their lives.
Dragons ARE magical creatures, though. He is right about that bit.
That doesn't mean they use magic to fly. What's the point of them having wings otherwise?
I'm saying it is natural to see more NPC MALE WARRIORS than FEMALES due to the MALE gender having BIOLOGICAL advantages that make them better WARRIORS.[/font][/color][/background]
Not even qunari do that.
I assume he means
Even if it's sword + axe
That doesn't mean they use magic to fly. What's the point of them having wings otherwise?
The wings\magic makes it easier? Dunno. They are described as being magical creatures, though.
Even Tolkien described dwarves as having very powerful bodies and thicker bones. They were also described as being very strong. I am guessing this is the case in dragon age too.
Their shorter limbs give them far less leverage though, which means comparatively they're probably not much stronger than humans, and pale in comparison to Qunari.
The flip side is that less leverage output means less leverage put in by by the weight of a weapon (Try holding a weight at arm's length, then half length and feel the difference), so if any race could theoretically dual wield ridiculous heavy weapons, it would be the Dwarves.
I assume he means
Even if it's sword + axe
1. That a HAND sword and HAND axe.
2.That's no different then this.
What the aroshok has are not 2 handed weapons.
Having random generic lackys who you kill to be women is actually very important.
It shows that people, even thoose you don't talk with(in fact, sometimes people you fight), are both men and women.
While I am sure that Bioware will make a completely fair representation since they are awesome I am astonished that some people on this thread can be so...close mined(eh, for lack of a better word).
I am baffled by the fact that some men(and even some women) say that it is wrong to kill women in video games since it is not morally right to kill/fight women as males.The claim is completely sexist, even if on a subconcious level.
In a completely non-sexist world where both genders were equal men would have no problem fighting and killing female enemies just as they would have no problem fighting and killing male enemies.It is practically the same thing besides minor differences in body type
Their shorter limbs give them far less leverage though, which means comparatively they're probably not much stronger than humans, and pale in comparison to Qunari.
The flip side is that less leverage output means less leverage put in by by the weight of a weapon (Try holding a weight at arm's length, then half length and feel the difference), so if any race could theoretically dual wield ridiculous heavy weapons, it would be the Dwarves.
Probably right. But I suspect the Qunari will get a higher STR bonus than the other races in DA:I. We haven't seen their stats in the earlier games. Starting stats, anyway.
Not even qunari do that.
http://37.media.tumb...1hjuro1_500.jpg
So, in game, women would have better stats as rogues/archers and mages (i think?) than warriors?
As in Oblivion, yes.
Strength defficiency, Agility boost.
what's your opinion on women wielding smaller swords, like those ancient greek ones and still being warriors without wielding two handed swords?
The same as before.
They -CAN- do it. In times of war, you may conscript women out of necessity. But my point was that taking a woman footman over a male ( assuming they are equally skilled ) makes little sense, because the male has better qualities to be a footman.
A scout? I'd go with the woman.
Mages are the same.
Personally I'm okay with a smaller amount of generic female enemies because at that time there were much fewer female fighters than there were male. However, this is coming from a white, male, heterosexual who comes from an English speaking, first world country so I might not be the best person to ask if representation is fair.
"That time"? What time?
1) the DA world does not correlate to any real world time, so charges of "it makes sense because this is how things were like at that time," is a nonsensical claim to begin with.
2) The DA world is already shown to be radically different than any real world period anyway. Even if you could argue (from a technological standpoint, say) that there is a correlation to a real world era, that would remain irrelevant because the canonical lore of DA already establishes that it lacks the same real-world ideas about gender roles.
3) Women have ALWAYS fought in greater numbers than people nowadays want to admit. Many of our ideas of "women didn't DO that back then, and any who did were purely exceptions to the rule," are based on misconceptions. This is not to claim that women have always fought in every way, shape, and form, in equal numbers and on equal terms as men, but it is TOTALLY false to claim that women fighting has only ever been a noteworthy exception. There have been plenty of cultures throughout the world, and throughout various ages in history, where women fought in numbers far too large for any modern twit to dismiss as just exceptions to the rule.
These looks like regular one hand weapons to me, though. Regular by DA ridiculously oversized standards, ofc, but just the same. If they were two handed weapons, each would be at least as long as Arishok is tall.I assume he means
(arishok)
Even if it's sword + axe
You think that, since based on averages women are weaker than men, then if there is a woman who is stronger than a man then she is EXCEPTIONAL.No. It means she's unusual
ex·cep·tion·al (
k-s
p
sh
-nl)
This thread needs to die.
Again. No different then this.
Try again.
And those are not massive axes.
This is.
The dexterity stat is abit off, though. Since it means more physical agility equals better aim with ranged weapons. Being flexible doesn't mean you can shoot better than someone who is not flexible. Simple as that.
because the canonical lore of DA already establishes that it lacks the same real-world ideas about gender roles.
No, it doesn't. Leliana even tells you a story of how Aveline was Joan of Arc'd for competing in a tournament.
3) Women have ALWAYS fought in greater numbers than people nowadays want to admit.
That's a vague statement and means next to nothing.
You're saying 'exceptional' isn't a much stronger version of 'uncommon'?ex·cep·tion·al(
adj.1. Being an exception; uncommon.
Retour en haut
