820 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

and an equalist.

 

You meant this kind of Equalist, right? 

[Shechinah]

(to Hanako Ikezawa) Down with the bend- I mean mages!

[KainD]

You meant this kind of Equalist, right?

No I meant the gender equality, but hey, that concept work for mages as well.

[KainD]

(to Hanako Ikezawa) Down with the bend- I mean mages!

If you could bend one.. Damn, the struggle is real, but lets not go there. ^^

[wolfhowwl]

Yet their figures show very good sales so whats the issue. 

 

They aren't reliable. This is a problem when people start using their "data" to support their arguments in a debate.

[LPPrince]

Immensely. I think it's terrific.

 

Hah! Nice.

[phaonica]

This is a persistent problem in BioWare's games. In DA2 I couldn't even be civil when talking to slavers (even though they'd treated me fairly).

While we're playing in a setting with different physical rules, apparently we're not allowed to consider the possibility of different moral rules.

Yeah, I kind of like roleplaying characters that are "products of their environment", which means they might be cool with slavery, or they might have been raised thinking poorly of elves. They aren't necessarily evil, but they may not have what someone now might consider the highest of moral foundations.

Though I also like playing a character that thinks they have high moral foundations who suffers and struggles to hold them, sometimes succeeding, and sometimes failing.

Generally anything that challenges what they think gives them the opportunity to grow.

[In Exile]

That's a tragic conclusion to make. If the protagonist does not matter anymore, then what's the point? I may as well just watch a TV show or a movie if only the story matters and my character and his/her impact are meaningless. What makes video games different is the level of interactiveness in the experience. I want my protagonist to matter. Otherwise, everything else I'm doing in a video game has little meaning or value.

 

A protagonist changing between media is not the same as a protagonist not mattering. The fact that, say, MGS3 switched from Solid Snake to Naked Snake did not make Solid Snake an irrelevant character. 

[In Exile]

This is where political correctness ruins games.

Ideally anything should go around.

You should be able to role play a gay character and a homophobic one, a slaver and a freedom fighter, a religious zelot and an atheist, a racist, misogynist, feminazi and an equalist.

But hey, apparently games with a Mature rating still have to teach kids how to behave in real life.

 

Games are not platforms for people to engage in their racist homophobic fantasies. There's no reason why games shouldn't feature this content if it's done maturely. But being able to insult or demean people with absolutely no consequences or danger to you because you're the all-powerful invincible protagonist is not realistic or mature. 

 

RPGs are power fantasies, first and foremost. Creating a game that allows you to do this kind of stuff isn't treating the content maturely, it's just giving racists a game they can ****** over until their hands chafe. 

[In Exile]

This is a persistent problem in BioWare's games. In DA2 I couldn't even be civil when talking to slavers (even though they'd treated me fairly).

While we're playing in a setting with different physical rules, apparently we're not allowed to consider the possibility of different moral rules.

 

Bioware does not support unconventional protagonists without a lot of prodding. They were, for example, very much against the idea (or at least DG was) of properly including atheistic content because of how rare it would be in-setting, especially being a moral position that while conceivably possible to hold would be such an outlier that they wouldn't want to implement it. Notably when the question of "Do you believe in the Maker?" became the central theme in the game, Bioware supported the view. 

 

Hawke is Fereldan. Slavery is very much a moral wrong. The anti-slavery dialogue, effectively, is just a reflection of that part of the morality. 

[leaguer of one]

No I meant the gender equality, but hey, that concept work for mages as well.

1. This is not ME3 with it's romances.

2. BW is very gender equal. So much they take crap for people who are too "limited" to understand that concept.

[CronoDragoon]

Yeah, I kind of like roleplaying characters that are "products of their environment", which means they might be cool with slavery, or they might have been raised thinking poorly of elves. They aren't necessarily evil, but they may not have what someone now might consider the highest of moral foundations.

Though I also like playing a character that thinks they have high moral foundations who suffers and struggles to hold them, sometimes succeeding, and sometimes failing.

Generally anything that challenges what they think gives them the opportunity to grow.

 

This is part of why I like DA: I's handling of the Inquisitor so much. By zero-ing in on one very specific issue to role-play (the question of faith and organized religion) Inquisition allows plenty of opportunity for complicated belief and an evolution of belief. Playing a Dalish elf who starts the game a true believer in the Pantheon and ends the game a nihilist in bed with Sera is quite rewarding, from a role-playing perspective.

 

DA: I doesn't give you the opportunity to role-play outside of the standard hero archetype, it's true. But within that archetype it does a good job of allowing you to subvert characterization and assert nuanced beliefs.

 

This is, in my mind, the true purpose of Here Lies The Abyss, which allows one to role-play either a crisis of faith or an otherwise radical change of mind.

[leaguer of one]

This is a persistent problem in BioWare's games. In DA2 I couldn't even be civil when talking to slavers (even though they'd treated me fairly).

While we're playing in a setting with different physical rules, apparently we're not allowed to consider the possibility of different moral rules.

Is your family a horde of wolf spiders? They eat their own young. 

[leaguer of one]

This is part of why I like DA: I's handling of the Inquisitor so much. By zero-ing in on one very specific issue to role-play (the question of faith and organized religion) Inquisition allows plenty of opportunity for complicated belief and an evolution of belief. Playing a Dalish elf who starts the game a true believer in the Pantheon and ends the game a nihilist in bed with Sera is quite rewarding, from a role-playing perspective.

 

 

God...this game broke my fem-elfs heart in so many ways.

[Shechinah]

(to leaguer of one) Well, some humans do it as well out of a variety of reasons mostly pertaining to times of starvation or because the young in question has already died of nothing. 

 

One reason is that they believe ingesting the body will provide some benefit like potency so they cook it into meals like stew and such. Certain tribal cultures believe devouring the heart of a deceased opponent will grant them their strength if I remember correctly but non-tribal cultures indulge in cannibalism as well.

 

The aforementioned infant meals occur, if I remember correctly, in at least one developed country. 

 

Look, Google can and will take you willing or not to frightening corners of the internet... sometimes with even more frightening images. 

[KainD]

Games are not platforms for people to engage in their racist homophobic fantasies. There's no reason why games shouldn't feature this content if it's done maturely. But being able to insult or demean people with absolutely no consequences or danger to you because you're the all-powerful invincible protagonist is not realistic or mature.

RPGs are power fantasies, first and foremost. Creating a game that allows you to do this kind of stuff isn't treating the content maturely, it's just giving racists a game they can ****** over until their hands chafe.

So? Let racists have their fun, their money is as good as yours. Your stance is the same as saying "lets ban CS and COD cuz it promotes violence and killing. Mature people don't want to kill." Its just a game.

[CronoDragoon]

So? Let racists have their fun, their money is as good as yours.

 

It shouldn't be.

 

Your stance is the same as saying "lets ban CS and COD cuz it promotes violence and killing. Mature people don't want to kill." Its just a game.

 

Violence and killing are not morally repulsive actions depending on the context. Racism, on the other hand, is indefensible in any context.

[Heimdall]

Hah! Nice.

I really never though I'd see Sylvius say that about a Bioware game with a voiced protagonist.

[Toasted Llama]

Games are not platforms for people to engage in their racist homophobic fantasies. There's no reason why games shouldn't feature this content if it's done maturely. But being able to insult or demean people with absolutely no consequences or danger to you because you're the all-powerful invincible protagonist is not realistic or mature. 

 

RPGs are power fantasies, first and foremost. Creating a game that allows you to do this kind of stuff isn't treating the content maturely, it's just giving racists a game they can ****** over until their hands chafe. 

Sometimes it's not the matter of being able to choose that option...

Instead, sometimes it's more important to actively not choose that option.


Some things just need their opposite in order to shine. One of the things I liked about being a paragon in ME is because I could also be a total dick and just force people into obedience without much of a consequence, but instead I choose the longer, diplomatic route.

[KainD]

It shouldn't be.


Violence and killing are not morally repulsive actions depending on the context. Racism, on the other hand, is indefensible in any context.

Ok, one more time - in CS you can play a terrorist that wins by holding, hostages and blowing up bombs. That game is considered fine.

[phaonica]

I'd like to think that there can be a difference between being a racist person and wanting to play a flawed, racist character. Maybe such an option gives too much opening for abuse, though.

[CronoDragoon]

Ok, one more time - in CS you can play a terrorist that wins by holding, hostages and blowing up bombs. That game is considered fine.

 

Because you need two sides for the multiplayer. If it was a single-player game do you think you'd be able to do that?

[Shechinah]

(to phaonica) I think it is about balancing it and having it make sense within the established culture and setting of the country we're in. There should be consequences and reactions to what we say and do.

 

Expressing a dislike towards an elven or human person based on their race is one thing (think "I'm no friend of you, human lord" in Origins towards Cailan or being referred to as a "shemlen" or "knife-ear" by NPCs) but killing them and being able to explicitly say it was because of their race is another.

 

Being homophobic as an example would be incredible odd considering the lax view on homosexuality in almost all of Thedas and would be very odd for a character to be.

[CronoDragoon]

I'd like to think that there can be a difference between being a racist person and wanting to play a flawed, racist character. Maybe such an option gives too much opening for abuse, though.

 

You are right, but I can also think of other ways to role-play a flawed character that I'd like to see represented before we start delving into racism/homophobia/misogyny.

 

Back to the general discussion: As for views that people within the setting consider immoral, you can actually express support for blood magic in DA: I, which I like.

[Toasted Llama]

Because you need two sides for the multiplayer. If it was a single-player game do you think you'd be able to do that?

 

1 name:

GTA 5.