479 réponses à ce sujet

[TheOgre]

Personal preference, which is ok. If you prefer male warriors then that is your personal opinion which you are allowed to have for aesthetic, romantic, traditional or any other personal reasons. But if you try to bring up that you do so because of objective reasons such as historical consistence or realism, then your argument is bs because you accept and roll with a lot more inconsistency and unrealism as it is presented in the setting without ever thinking twice.

 

...and you know calling out bs in arguments is sort of my shtick here....

 

Breasts are dark and stuff!

 

Ohhhh desire demons thread.. hah...!

[Ieldra]

hmmmnnmmm I agree but, what does it make me when I find female protagonists more amazing than male protagonists? Not that I'd ever play one because I like to be a narcissist with my game plays.

 

I enjoy stories in movies or novels, like the fifth element, and Lucy, more than say Star Trek's male leads... Am I the reverse of that? Is that something wrong?

Same here, only that I do play female protagonists - as a personal preference - in spite of being a man in RL. I haven't asked a psychologist about the reason but I suspect being allergic against male hero stereotypes may have something to do with it. A female character is freed from many gender stereotypes simply by being  badass, and you are that by definition in Bioware's games, so I feel less restricted in my roleplaying. Unfortunately, in DAI some male hero stereotypes follow me through the gender barrier - see the Inquisitor's walk. I find that extremely annoying.

 

Uh...how did we get here from the qunari? 

[Saphiron123]

Same here, only that I do play female protagonists - as a personal preference - in spite of being a man in RL. I haven't asked a psychologist about the reason but I suspect being allergic against male hero stereotypes may have something to do with it. A female character is freed from many gender stereotypes simply by being  badass, and you are that by definition in Bioware's games, so I feel less restricted in my roleplaying. Unfortunately, in DAI some male hero stereotypes follow me through the gender barrier - see the Inquisitor's walk. I find that extremely annoying.

 

Uh...how did we get here from the qunari? 

I think i created a monster with this thread, but I play female characters too. Dragon age is a game that demands replayability and (at in the case of earlier titles) you could never actually see and hear it all, honestly having a different look and voice and character just makes the experience that much more varied.

I have like 8 wardens, every one has a different look, style, skillset, you name it. Female hawke made an excellent break from male hawke (and though female hawke doesn't deliver humor as well, godo female hawke is way better done then good male hawke).

It's just variation for me, really. Same as I have a game where alistair is king and another alistair is a warden (affecting da2 and dai), and another where loghain is a warden and alistair is a drunk.

The fact loghain can appear in inquisition is amazing to me.

Just a pity about all those damned fetch quests...

[Paragonslustre]

I agree with the original post.  I want differences, I pray for differences.   I don't want a watering down of the dragon age cultures to the point where I'm going to feel comfortable hanging out in Tevinter or being part of the Qun.  I have to believe that living under the Qun, for example, is wrong for my character otherwise I'm going to feel that my decisions in the game mean squat.  I get that Tevinter isn't going to be populated by a bunch of Dick Darstardlies but I need Tevinter to be a cultural anathema for me otherwise I might as well up sticks and move there being a mage.  I'd rather controversy than apathy any day, makes for a much more rewarding gaming experience.

[tmp7704]

I'm saying it makes little sense for the armies of Thedas to be open to men and women in the rank and file due to sexual dimorphism in terms of strength

The catch here is, you are presuming there is such dimorphism in Thedas when all evidence we have is actually to the contrary (both in-world with the armies employing women equally with men when it wouldn't make sense for them if that was actually the case, and on mechanical level with equal stats etc) You are presuming this because such difference exists in our world, but Thedas isn't direct copy of our world. As such they're free to have women who are just as strong as men as part of their setting, and that's the simplest explanation for the things you see in game.

If it breaks your immersion while people flinging fireballs from their fingertips and flying dragons don't, that's too bad but it's on you.

[Shelled]

The new Disney, oh excuse me Bioware just wants to play it safe to rake in the dollar's from the too easily offended casual fanbase they seem to cherish so dearly. I just finished Saints Row 4 and I must say its refreshing to play a game where the devs have the balls to do whatever the f..k they want...critics be damned.

saints row... not a good example lol.

The main reason inquisition has major problems is because the dragon age origins director left after that project. Dragon age 2 was terrible and those people should have been laid off but they weren't and they are the same people that made this pile of crap.

I mean everything is mediocre. The actual gameplay design regarding the tac mode and abilities, the story, characters, everything is subpar. The only thing definitely nice about the game are the visuals and the level/map designs and the voice acting is actually top notch as well, but its a shame the story is so bad. The actual big maps couldn't avoid being tainted by bad design either though because they are full of grindy bullcrap shards and fetch quests. There isn't one damn interesting side-quest in this game.

[Steelcan]

The catch here is, you are presuming there is such dimorphism in Thedas when all evidence we have is actually to the contrary (both in-world with the armies employing women equally with men when it wouldn't make sense for them if that was actually the case, and on mechanical level with equal stats etc) You are presuming this because such difference exists in our world, but Thedas isn't direct copy of our world. As such they're free to have women who are just as strong as men as part of their setting, and that's the simplest explanation for the things you see in game.

If it breaks your immersion while people flinging fireballs from their fingertips and flying dragons don't, that's too bad but it's on you.

*sigh*

 

I've already proven that sexual dimo0rphism exists in Thedas as it does in our world since men are taller than women, so don't try and feed me this bull.

 

And I've already explained why dragons and magic are not something I have an issue with

[tmp7704]

I've already proven that sexual dimo0rphism exists in Thedas as it does in our world since men are taller than women, so don't try and feed me this bull.

Yes, women and men in Thedas look different. But that in itself does not prove in any manner there's differences in physical performance. After all, humans, dwarves, elves and qunari all look different too, and yet it doesn't lead to any species being better than the others at physical tasks. (not just mechanically; I don't remember anything in the game lore that'd talk of such difference, either)

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yes, women and men in Thedas look different. But that in itself does not prove in any manner there's differences in physical performance. After all, humans, dwarves, elves and qunari all look different too, but it also doesn't lead to any species being better than the others at physical tasks.

Um, yes it does. There are examples of a certain race being better at certain things throughout the series. We even get racial bonuses because of it.

[tmp7704]

Um, yes it does. There are examples of a certain race being better at certain things throughout the series. We even get racial bonuses because of it.

Can you refresh my memory and cite some of these things? I only remember mention of elves being generally pleasing to human eyes and dwarves not dreaming/entering the Fade, neither having anything to do with physical prowess. Similarly, the racial bonuses you get don't make any race hit things better/harder than the others can.

[AlanC9]

*sigh*

I've already proven that sexual dimo0rphism exists in Thedas as it does in our world since men are taller than women, so don't try and feed me this bull.

You have proven that height is different in Thedas. You haven't proven that combat ability is different. You can't prove that because it isn't true, which is why your Cassandra example blew up in your face a couple of pages back.

[In Exile]

Um, yes it does. There are examples of a certain race being better at certain things throughout the series. We even get racial bonuses because of it.

Well one racial bonus now is that elves are more durable when shot with arrows, so I'm not quite sure what we can conclude from that one seeing how spindly elves are compared to humans.

In fact elves are more durable on this front than either dwarves or Qunari, so...

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Can you refresh my memory and cite some of these things? I only remember mention of elves being generally pleasing to human eyes and dwarves not dreaming/entering the Fade, neither having anything to do with physical prowess. Similarly, the racial bonuses you get don't make any race hit things better/harder than the others can.

Well, Elves are mentioned to be better runners do to their lithe frames thus serve better as messengers than humans. Dwarves are able to mine Lyrium because their physiology makes them resistant to it. And the Qunari being the only race in Dragon Age lore shown to be physically strong enough to dual wield two-handed weapons. 

[Aimi]

And the Qunari being the only race in Dragon Age lore shown to be physically strong enough to dual wield two-handed weapons.

what

[Hanako Ikezawa]

what

The Arishok is shown wielding two weapons that any other race is shown to need both hands to wield only one of them. This is shown in cutscenes so isn't an example of gameplay-story segregation. Granted he is an exceptionally strong Qunari but the fact remains we have yet to see a Dwarf, Elf, or Human do the same. 

[luism]

Since origins when we all could

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Since origins when we all could

We were never able to dual wield two-handed weapons. At least not without the use of mods.

[Iakus]

We were never able to dual wield two-handed weapons. At least not without the use of mods.

Not two handed weapons, no.  But with the proper skill option, a warrior could dual wield full-sized one handed swords and axes, rather than just daggers.

[Aimi]

The Arishok is shown wielding two weapons that any other race is shown to need both hands to wield only one of them. This is shown in cutscenes so isn't an example of gameplay-story segregation. Granted he is an exceptionally strong Qunari but the fact remains we have yet to see a Dwarf, Elf, or Human do the same.

Okay, so.

First and most important: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is compounded by the second thing: historical greatswords and similar two-handed weapons were not too heavy for the average person to, like, pick up and use. There are basically no examples of any such weapon heavier than 6 or 7 kilos. That's not a weight issue.

Historically, dual-wielding occurred but was very uncommon for the excellent reason that using two weapons at the same time is very hard to coordinate. It requires an entirely different form of fighting, like the Filipino purpose-developed martial art eskrima. And even given that, using two weapons at the same time is still quite difficult from an awareness perspective, which is why virtually all examples of dual-wielding focus on shorter weapons that are easier to control. It doesn't really matter how strong you are: fighting with a massive axe in each hand would mostly be quite useless.

That the arishok dual-wields his Arishok Axes, and that those axes are classified as two-handed weapons in Inquisition, is effectively meaningless from a lore perspective. Like most gameplay, it is out of sync with plausible lore. If it were lore, it would be out of sync with reality. And even if the arishok's axes were meant to be super heavy in the lore, it wouldn't mean anything for the qunari as a whole, because as you say the arishok is depicted as a fairly exceptional being, independent of race.

It doesn't require much effort to believe that the average qunari is taller and stronger than the average human, elf, or dwarf. Qunari men, for instance, are basically always depicted as Anthony Davis with horns instead of a unibrow. One doesn't need to make bizarre inferences about qunari lore, based on a conjunction of gameplay conventions and historical misunderstanding, in order to say that.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Not two handed weapons, no.  But with the proper skill option, a warrior could dual wield full-sized one handed swords and axes, rather than just daggers.

I know. So could Rogues in DAO. But I am referring to the ability to dual wield two-handed weapons, not big one-handed weapons. 

 

Okay, so.

First and most important: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is compounded by the second thing: historical greatswords and similar two-handed weapons were not too heavy for the average person to, like, pick up and use. There are basically no examples of any such weapon heavier than 6 or 7 kilos. That's not a weight issue.

Historically, dual-wielding occurred but was very uncommon for the excellent reason that using two weapons at the same time is very hard to coordinate. It requires an entirely different form of fighting, like the Filipino purpose-developed martial art eskrima. And even given that, using two weapons at the same time is still quite difficult from an awareness perspective, which is why virtually all examples of dual-wielding focus on shorter weapons that are easier to control. It doesn't really matter how strong you are: fighting with a massive axe in each hand would mostly be quite useless.

That the arishok dual-wields his Arishok Axes, and that those axes are classified as two-handed weapons in Inquisition, is effectively meaningless from a lore perspective. Like most gameplay, it is out of sync with plausible lore. If it were lore, it would be out of sync with reality. And even if the arishok's axes were meant to be super heavy in the lore, it wouldn't mean anything for the qunari as a whole, because as you say the arishok is depicted as a fairly exceptional being, independent of race.

It doesn't require much effort to believe that the average qunari is taller and stronger than the average human, elf, or dwarf. Qunari men, for instance, are basically always depicted as Anthony Davis with horns instead of a unibrow. One doesn't need to make bizarre inferences about qunari lore, based on a conjunction of gameplay conventions and historical misunderstanding, in order to say that.

Well, real world weapons weren't nearly as bulky as the ones in Dragon Age either, but that is a result of artistic license.

 

But fair enough. In truth I hesitated to use him as an example because of him being an exceptional individual but it was the first thing that came to mind when thinking "Qunari are stronger" and since I used an example for Dwarf and Elf figured I needed one for Qunari as well. At least you agree that the Qunari race is logically more physically strong than the other races due to the dimorphism of the races of Thedas which was my point.  

[LarryDavid]

Oh, I can answer this. There was a mockumentary about dragons where they explained how they could theoretically exist as real creatures. 

 

Them flying despite their huge size is because their bone structure is more like a bird's than a reptile's, as in the bones are hollow and thus lightweight. So that with efficient muscular and cardiovascular systems could generate lift. 

 

I'm pretty sure that it would be impossible for a dragon to fly. When you double the size of an object, as a general rule, you have to multiply the surface area with a factor 4 and the volume with a factor 8. The ability to lift or fly depends on the size of the wings and hence the surface area. The weight you have to lift depends on the volume. So if you double the size of a bird, in order for the bird to be able to fly, his wings should be able to carry double the weight.

 

If you look at birds you will see that the larger the bird, the larger the width of the wings become as compared to the body. Besides, if you consider the largest birds on earth, none of them can fly.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I'm pretty sure that it would be impossible for a dragon to fly. When you double the size of an object, as a general rule, you have to multiply the surface area with a factor 4 and the volume with a factor 8. The ability to lift or fly depends on the size of the wings and hence the surface area. The weight you have to lift depends on the volume. So if you double the size of a bird, in order for the bird to be able to fly, his wings should be able to carry double the weight.

 

If you look at birds you will see that the larger the bird, the larger the width of the wings become as compared to the body. Besides, if you consider the largest birds on earth, none of them can fly.

Oh, I know the dragons in Dragon Age are too bulky to fly. The docufiction used the Wyvern type of dragon(the ones whose arms are akin to a bat's) in mythology as the example for how it would be possible since they have much larger wings than other kinds of dragons as well as less mass due to being very lithe. A good example is the dragons from the film Reign of Fire. I was just pointing out there was an explanation for a dragon to be capable of flight in reality to answer the poster's question.

[LarryDavid]

Oh, I know the dragons in Dragon Age are too bulky to fly. The mockumentary used the Wyvern type of dragon(the ones whose arms are akin to a bat's) in mythology as the example for how it would be possible since they have much larger wings than other kinds of dragons as well as less mass due to being very lithe. A good example is the dragons from the film Reign of Fire. I was just pointing out there was an explanation for a dragon to be capable of flight in reality to answer the poster's question.

 

But it still wouldn't work. I don't know how much larger a dragon is than a bat, but let us take a factor 50. I just looked it up and the dragon of reign of fire looks like a scaled bat. So in order for that dragon to be able to fly, his wings have to be about 50 times larger.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

But it still wouldn't work. I don't know how much larger a dragon is than a bat, but let us take a factor 50. I just looked it up and the dragon of reign of fire looks like a scaled bat. So in order for that dragon to be able to fly, his wings have to be about 50 times larger.

A better comparison would probably be a pterosaur, since they too are reptiles who operated on the same principle. Those creatures weighed more than a quarter ton yet were easily capable of taking flight. 

 

We should probably take this to PM though. 

[LarryDavid]

A better comparison would probably be a pterosaur, since they too are reptiles who operated on the same principle. Those creatures weighed more than a quarter ton yet were easily capable of taking flight. 

 

We should probably take this to PM though. 

 

Coincidentally I have a few dinosaur books on my desk and they claim that 250kg is an upper limit and that it is not understood how they took off . It's from 2005 and they also hypothesize that their wings were populated with blood sucking parasites, so I don't know how accurate this all is .

 

Either way they were rather short (max 1.5m) and the animals weighting 250kg were the ones with a wingspan of 11m. If you scale the body of the pterosaur to the size of a dragon, the wings will already be much larger. And in order for the animal to be able to fly you have to scale the wings once again with the same factor.