432 réponses à ce sujet

[daveliam]

...I think it's better for the debate to not even come up in the game.  Bioware's choices are either 1) let the player make a seriously unethical decision with scary real world implications or 2) dictate the "acceptable" response to a contentious modern political debate.  In this scenario, they must chose between being unethical or overtly political.

 

And ultimately, I disagree.  Shielding people from the 'debate' because they might find it distasteful doesn't seem like a beneficial solution at all.  There are stories that are specific to being gay.  Those stories deserve to be told, just like the other stories that are told in the games.  If someone finds it distasteful, don't do that optional content.  No one forces you to do that quest.  It's not mandatory.  They've already given you a buffer against it.

 

But removing this content for the people who want to see it dealt with in the context of the game setting because there are some who find it distasteful seems to go against what we normally ask for in video games.  I find religion distasteful.  Would it be reasonable for me to say that all religious themes should be removed from the game because I find real-world religion to be distasteful?

[Feranel]

This is purely incidental. The fact that she was black had nothing to do with it because nobody cares what color your skin is in DA.  I say this with some confidence because I seriously doubt that if Vivienne was being used as a stand-in for the actual police violence debate Bioware would have chosen a black women to make an argument that essentially boils down to "My people are inherently dangerous and should definitely be treated like bombs that might go off at any moment." 

 

Police Violence, racial profiling, and Counter-terrorism political debates are hardly a new thing, they certainly aren't limited to the events of the last 6 months, or the last year, or even the few last decades.  

 

Just like the charged political debate of a governmental entity not providing adequate resources for shell-shocked (PTSD) veterans leading to a group of disenfranchised veteran soldiers with severe emotional and mental turmoil (Chantry/Red Templars, Qun/Tal-Vashoth).

 

These are not new issues, and are all highly politically charged, and slathered liberally all over Dragon Age.

 

Would it be disingenuous of me to say, after reading all of the Samson Codex entries and every time Iron Bull, Tallis, or Fenris talk about Tal Vashoth to go "Enough agenda Bioware! I get it, you think we should take better care of our veterans!"

 

Everything in good sci-fi fantasy has a contemporary political allegory to real life, every broad concept in good sci-fi/fantasy is some kind of political statement or examination, large or small.  It's way more interesting, and topical, than simply "Slay the dragon and kill the God-Hand of Doom through the power of friendship."

[Hanako Ikezawa]

What's political about a person wanting to be identified by whatever they want to be identified?  They also do that with Cole, you are supposed to call him "him" not "it." And Iron Bull is "Iron Bull" and not "Hissrad." Even the murderous liar Thom Rainier wants to be called "Blackwall."

You should be able to not call Rainier Blackwall. He doesn't deserve any niceties.

[Feranel]

You should be able to not call Rainier Blackwall. He doesn't deserve any niceties. 

 

When you judge him property of the Inquisition you can have an answer of "Take your post Thom Rainier." But then later it's decided to call him Blackwall. 

 

Hardened' Iron Bull calls him Rainier though.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

When you judge him you can have a jerk answer of "Take your post Thom Rainier." But then later it's decided to call him Blackwall. 

 

Hardened' Iron Bull calls him Rainier though.

So we get to call him it one time then go back to using the identity he stole? 

I'm saying that we should have permantly had the option to not refer to Rainier as Blackwall anymore, since Rainier is not Blackwall. 

[Feranel]

So we get to call him it one time then go back to using the identity he stole? 

I'm saying that we should have permantly had the option to not refer to Rainier as Blackwall anymore, since Rainier is not Blackwall.

 

Oh I agree, at least/especially if you go the "The Inquisition owns you now."  But that's the theme they went with, you can be who you want to be, whether it's a real boy and not a spirit, or an Honorable Warden and not a Murderer.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Oh I agree, at least/especially if you go the "The Inquisition owns you now."  But that's the theme they went with, you can be who you want to be, whether it's a real boy and not a spirit, or an Honorable Warden and not a Murderer.

I think it was more that they have only so many lines of dialogue they can put in the game, so either it was sacrificed in the cutting room or they just decided to not do it. 

Rainier doesn't have any right to be referred to what he wants to be referred as, unlike characters like Cole or Krem. Titles and correct pronouns are not the same thing. You are one, the other you have to earn.

[KBomb]

No.  But it would be reasonable for you to request that religion wasn't presented as unambiguously correct with you having no option to dissent, especially in a roleplaying game.  

 

It's technically optional, yes, but I daresay that 95% of people on these forums don't feel like companion personal quests are optional.  I think most people feel they are essential to truly experiencing the game. 

Denouncing religion and denouncing someone's sexuality and orientation are two separate things. Even though the Andrastian faith has its basis from real religion, I doubt any player practices its religion. 

 

What exactly is it people want to object to? I saw someone state they would like to be able to force Dorian into the ritual and I have seen some state they wish to show disapproval with Krem. Personally, I would not want to see Bioware head down that road. I would hate for someone who was gay or transgender to be presented with that, optional to or not. 

 

You have the option to ask Krem some pretty rude questions and if I seem to recall, you have a chance to be rude about Dorian. I am not certain what it is people want to accomplish with the roleplaying here. 

 

This isn't necessarily directed toward you, personally. I guess I just don't understand what exactly people want to object to. 

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I do believe Iron Bull, and that's the problem. Revelation or retcon? People justify it as a revelation, but I'm pretty sure no ambiguity about the meaning of "man" or "woman" was intended when Sten was written for DAO. So it *is* a retcon. For those who were there when DAO came out, this is rather jarring. It goes along with the fact that almost everything that can't be made gender-neutral has been carefully excised from the world. The new status isn't a problem as such, but it makes it obvious that issues of real-world inclusiveness made the writers change the design of their pre-existing world. That hurts the setting's integrity.

 

Edit:

Of course it doesn't help that I detest the Qun and hate to see anything good added to it.

 

As well as this, IB mentions the different levels of government.

 

Sten says there is the Mind(?), Body(army?) and Soul(Priesthood) of the Ataam(?)

 

IB, I forget what he says, but its not as flowery. And the top of the 'food chain' is the Matriarchy. Huh?? That came out of nowhere.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

One thing that I didn't like about Khrem is that we couldn't ask about his/her gender. I honestly know next to nothing about trans people and I think it would have been a great opportunity to be able to learn something. Instead I ask a genuine question and everyone is acting like I just proposed bombing an orphanage or something.

 

This is the same feeling I got (although misplaced perhaps) on the conversation with Dorian and Giselle.

 

As a  male player she is very vague in what exactly these rumours are. I assume because you could be romancing him as well. For a female player she was more straightforward, and came out and said 'because he's from tevinter'/

 

Dorian asks you if you are bothered by the rumours. The first and last paraphrases are 'no it doesnt' and 'yes it does', for a male. For a female it's 'only if it bothers you' and 'yes it does'. As a male I chose the top choice, because I had the impression I was going to get a big ol' "Dorian greatly disapproves" just because of the tone of the scene. As  a female I did choose yes, and the result turns out that Dorian agrees with you.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

And ultimately, I disagree.  Shielding people from the 'debate' because they might find it distasteful doesn't seem like a beneficial solution at all.  There are stories that are specific to being gay.  Those stories deserve to be told, just like the other stories that are told in the games.  If someone finds it distasteful, don't do that optional content.  No one forces you to do that quest.  It's not mandatory.  They've already given you a buffer against it.

 

But removing this content for the people who want to see it dealt with in the context of the game setting because there are some who find it distasteful seems to go against what we normally ask for in video games.  I find religion distasteful.  Would it be reasonable for me to say that all religious themes should be removed from the game because I find real-world religion to be distasteful?

 

Just as a devils advocate, say you chose an option in dialog that said you don't believe in the maker, or that the Chantry was corrupt. Say, the response from the NPC was to tell you how wrong you are, with no ability to follow up on why you agree or disagree with them, or any further discussion. Would this be acceptable?

[Raiil]

I think it's less to do with his sexuality in general and more with a continuing theme of 'people getting screwed over by societal norms'.

Maric can't be Fiona, she's an orlesian elf Warden.

Loghain can't be with Rowan, she's getting married for political reasons.

Alistair gets thrown to the Chantry.

Alistair can't marry a non Cousland lady, but can marry her even if they're not into each other, because politics.

The city elf has an arranged marriage for cultural reasons.

Lady aeducan can't be with Gorim publicly.

Bianca and Varric. Makes and templar. Etc. The whole game has repeated stories of people getting screwed hard by societal and cultural norms. Dorian is just one story.

[sandalisthemaker]

This again?  Jeezus

 

Copy/paste time.

 

Why can't being gay be a part of a character's story? Dorian isn't a one-dimensional character by any means. Being gay isn't the entirety of what he is about, but neither did his writer want it to be something that people could just overlook or tune out.  I've seen in many threads, especially romance threads, where posters will say that they want BioWare to write the characters that they want to write, and here we have Dorian whom Gaider has been wanting to write for some time now. 

 

I'm positive that there were a lot of emotions that went into writing that scene, and a message was definitely there. That message may not resound with you (speaking in general) on a personal level, and/or you may not like what the message entailed, but there are people for whom that message is gladly received and welcomed. 

[Lebanese Dude]

 

Dorian to his father: You wanted the best for you... and your ****** legacy.

 

That's what the quest was about.  Refusing to play along with his father's expectations was the reason he left his father.

You people call this a liberal agenda when people in my part of the world and YOURS still get beaten and killed for being who they are because their parents are worried about their ****** legacy and reputation. It's not liberal to be disgusted by attempts at methodical mental conversion and even if it was an "agenda", it's not one you should groan about any more than you would groan about any consistent and persistent major human rights issue.

 

I'm glad BioWare went this route. Grow up and check your privilege.

[MACharlie1]

Throwing my two-cents since initially I felt the same way.

 

But then I thought about it and realized. Why the hell not? Bioware has skimped around the issue for years. All references to homosexuality have been handwaved away as "oh in this culture it's just a quirk". Mass Effect doesn't even touch upon it except the Asari (and I bet people will STILL say Liara is not a Lesbian romance - she is by the way). So color me impressed Bioware for having the balls to actually have it directly addressed. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Throwing my two-cents since initially I felt the same way.

 

But then I thought about it and realized. Why the hell not? Bioware has skimped around the issue for years. All references to homosexuality have been handwaved away as "oh in this culture it's just a quirk". Mass Effect doesn't even touch upon it except the Asari (and I bet people will STILL say Liara is not a Lesbian romance - she is by the way). So color me impressed Bioware for having the balls to actually have it directly addressed. 

Steve Cortez and Samantha Traynor say hello. 

[MrSnoozer]

As ive stated before Dorian quest/character etc is fine.Its a 'I have Daddy issues'

 

The Krem revelation dialogue i felt was not , you were not given any choice but to get scolded at , i felt forced into a position where i felt belittled when i brought it up , because you know it was/could have been a shock discovery , i bet some people didn't know or at least had slight suspicions, but the option was only 'Your a woman?' proceed to be made to feel guilty (need to do a replay , last few times i havn't bothered talking to krem much because of mentioned reason)