64 réponses à ce sujet

[SofaJockey]

... But of course this post is 100% useless. .. 

 

You're not going to get any argument from me  .

 

I believe one of the big reasons Bioware content has become so incredibly stale is because they are afraid of controversy.

 

I don't think DAI is stale at all, but I do think the avoidance of controversy in DAI is a fair point.

 

Following on from DA2 and ME3 (which until very recently in the case of DA2, were largely criticised for their controversial story structure and ending respectively), I think that BioWare would have been taking a financially unwarranted risk going for a further controversial story line.

 

With success comes confidence, so I trust that given DAI's success, DA4 will have the capacity to be a little less 'safe'.

With Patrick Weekes now leading the writing team, I have not seen him to be afraid of writing difficult moments.

[Baalthazar]

Following on from DA2 and ME3 (which until very recently in the case of DA2, were largely criticised for their controversial story structure and ending respectively), I think that BioWare would have been taking a financially unwarranted risk going for a further controversial story line.

 

I seem to remember that DA2's story was criticized because it didn't matter who you chose to support, the ending sequence was the same, not that there was anything otherwise controversial about it.  

[SofaJockey]

I seem to remember that DA2's story was criticized because it didn't matter who you chose to support, the ending sequence was the same, not that there was anything otherwise controversial about it.  

 

Sure, the 'single track' ending was criticised, though I recall the three acts over time structure, which for BioWare was a way of shaking up story-telling, did not get a great reception either and was seen as 'not-DAO'. My recollection may be faulty.

[wolfhowwl]

I seem to remember that DA2's story was criticized because it didn't matter who you chose to support, the ending sequence was the same, not that there was anything otherwise controversial about it.  

 

Yeah, the third act of DA2 may as well have had a post-it note stuck on it that said "Remember to finish game -BioWare."

 

Also on the general subject of DA2 I think there is a difference between criticism of execution and criticism of the concepts themselves which gets muddled in the discussion of the game. For example I think there would have been less complaints about having a game set in a single city if Kirkwall hadn't been terribly executed (tiny, repeated areas everywhere, lifeless, and ugly).

[Junebug]

So you want the same old archetypes that fit boring old power fantasies. Got it.

 

I don't think ableism insults are going to win you any favors from them. Which I would be glad for 'cause if you think the diverse cast of characters in DA:I is boring, you were never invested enough in the characters to begin with. Sera is the first neurodivergent character I've seen in this series, Cassandra and Cullen have every right to be shaken—there's demons falling from the sky and the equivalent of their Pope was brutally murdered (not to mention the big theme of drug addiction and betrayal/corruption from the Seekers + Chantry's loss of control over their own), Iron Bull is a pansexual guy who shows people what a real healthy BDSM/dom-sub relationship is (compared to that 50 Shades garbage) and calls people out on transphobic comments about his second in command. Those are things you almost never see in gaming.

 

Whenever someone suggests representation of these groups needs to stop or be less than they are, that's really upsetting 'cause you allow little to no room for gaming to grow as an art, as a story, as a respected medium on par with film, television, and books. To suggest these things makes you a part of the problem.

[Massakkolia]

If OP thinks that Bioware had already run out of creativity in DAO (when they wrote Zevran), then when exactly was their peak in character writing? 

 

While it could be fairly argued that Bioware has been rather uneven in recent years when it comes to game design, I completely disagree with OP's complaints about boring and stereotypical characters. In my opinion, Bioware has constantly improved in character writing (except when it comes to villain writing, which has regressed after marvelous Loghain). 

 

Sera, for example, is well-written regardless of how annoying she can be. I thought her writer captured perfectly her youth, passion and poor education, an explosive combination, which can often cause confusion in complicated situations and lead to blind anger. I thought she was believable in her sometimes racist or classist outbursts. She was very much a product of  her upbringing, first in an alienage, then with her human foster mother and then back in the streets again. Also, her genuine simple-minded and insecure yearning for religious enlightenment (while at the same time being incapable of quite committing to it) was written in a raw, believable manner. If you only see a "joker rogue", maybe it's because you're expecting a stereotype and refusing to see otherwise. 

 

Sure Bioware may use a stereotype as a basis (nothing wrong with that), but they usually add layers to their characters that elevate them above that simple frame. I just can't see nuanced characters like Sera, Cassandra or Cole as dull been-there-done-that caricatures. Even Cullen and Varric, both of whom I didn't find particularly interesting in DA2, ended up well-rounded and complicated characters in DAI.

[Winged Silver]

While it could be fairly argued that Bioware has been rather uneven in recent years when it comes to game design, I completely disagree with OP's complaints about boring and stereotypical characters. In my opinion, Bioware has constantly improved in character writing (except when it comes to villain writing, which has regressed after marvelous Loghain). 

 

I agree with everything you said, but I just wanted to really agree with the Loghain comment. After I read The Stolen Throne I couldn't bear to have him executed 

[Massakkolia]

I agree with everything you said, but I just wanted to really agree with the Loghain comment. After I read The Stolen Throne I couldn't bear to have him executed 

I've steeled myself sometimes and executed the poor bastard, but now that he can delight us in DAI as well, I always keep him alive. No Stroud or Alistair for me. 

[Terodil]

Whenever someone suggests representation of these groups needs to stop or be less than they are, that's really upsetting 'cause you allow little to no room for gaming to grow as an art, as a story, as a respected medium on par with film, television, and books. To suggest these things makes you a part of the problem.

Indeed! Inclusion and representation are but in their infancy currently, and I'm still shocked and deeply offended that so little progress has been made. Some quick brainstorming showed that the following characters are not represented. I demand that Bioware include them in their games post haste:

- a strongly pacifist person with Down syndrome
- an entertainer suffering from depression
- a polygamous deafblind artisan
- ... and many more that have suffered from zero representation up to now.

Care should be taken that every one of them be presented in a positive light. Every character needs to be perfectly representative of their respective groups; therefore each of them should be

- attractive
- but not too attractive! (wrong ideals and all that)
- intelligent / erudite
- but not too book-wormy!
- empathic
- but not too empathic! (door mat etc)
- sporty
- but no overdoing it! needs to send a healthy image
- fun
- but not ridiculous!
- thorough
- but not perfectionist!
- reliable
- but also risk-accepting!
- ... and some more that I forget.

Since people of one ethnicity could not reasonably feel represented by members of another ethnicity, we would obviously have to multiply every character concept into multiple instances, each belonging to a different ethnic group.

Bioware really needs to understand that they are shaping the world of tomorrow through their games. Their work needs to educate the populace about these groups and about how great every one of them is.

Via DLC please, or at least in DA4. Thanks Bioware.

[Fireheart]

Lol this post was so funny. Well, all I have to say is that, well, most game companies copy off of their old games. They just... "adjust", make slight changes so it seems like a brand new game, just with a different perspective. Bioware certainly isn't the first perpetrator, and definitely won't be the last.

(Looking at you Square Enix and Bandai Namco)

[Octarin]

Aaaaaaaand that's why the Witcher remains, well, one and the same. LOL. Sorry, couldn't help myself. There's no pleasing some people it seems... personally I would have wanted a Qunari a little more like Sten. Everything else I'm good with. 

[Kantr]

You're not going to get any argument from me  .

 

 

I don't think DAI is stale at all, but I do think the avoidance of controversy in DAI is a fair point.

 

Following on from DA2 and ME3 (which until very recently in the case of DA2, were largely criticised for their controversial story structure and ending respectively), I think that BioWare would have been taking a financially unwarranted risk going for a further controversial story line.

 

With success comes confidence, so I trust that given DAI's success, DA4 will have the capacity to be a little less 'safe'.

With Patrick Weekes now leading the writing team, I have not seen him to be afraid of writing difficult moments.

What about the controversy that the game has a transgender character and gay, bisexual and lesbian relationships?

 

Hawke howling at the moon is hardly something controversial. Having the inqusitior be able to execute and murder children and other nasty things would be, but would degrade the game

[Dreamer]

Yeah, the third act of DA2 may as well have had a post-it note stuck on it that said "Remember to finish game -BioWare."

 

Also on the general subject of DA2 I think there is a difference between criticism of execution and criticism of the concepts themselves which gets muddled in the discussion of the game. For example I think there would have been less complaints about having a game set in a single city if Kirkwall hadn't been terribly executed (tiny, repeated areas everywhere, lifeless, and ugly).

 

This is why BioWare frustrates so many of us. They're a swinging pendulum that can't seem to find the middle; they take negative feedback and run as fast as they can in the other direction.

[Dreamer]

Whenever someone suggests representation of these groups needs to stop or be less than they are, that's really upsetting 'cause you allow little to no room for gaming to grow as an art, as a story, as a respected medium on par with film, television, and books. To suggest these things makes you a part of the problem.

 

Not all of us want gaming to be a culturally significant medium with all the various responsibilities associated therein. Some of us--a good many of us--are quite content for gaming to remain a hobby and entertaining pastime which allows us to explore worlds, themes, and concepts we can't find in real life.

 

Suggesting that advocating for games to not be elevated to some kind of grandiose cultural monolith is "part of the problem" is absurd. It's also incendiary identity politics malarkey that divides and destroys the culture gaming already represents. But I suppose that is exactly the aim of some...

[In Exile]

Not all of us want gaming to be a culturally significant medium with all the various responsibilities associated therein. Some of us--a good many of us--are quite content for gaming to remain a hobby and entertaining pastime which allows us to explore worlds, themes, and concepts we can't find in real life.

Suggesting that advocating for games to not be elevated to some kind of grandiose cultural monolith is "part of the problem" is absurd. It's also incendiary identity politics malarkey that divides and destroys the culture gaming already represents. But I suppose that is exactly the aim of some...

A medium can't avoid being culturally significant when it's consumed en masse. Insisting that games should avoid identity politics isn't really an answer because that doesn't mean the game will actually avoid it. TW being the premiere example here, where identity politics are central to the plot.

[Junebug]

Suggesting that advocating for games to not be elevated to some kind of grandiose cultural monolith is "part of the problem" is absurd. It's also incendiary identity politics malarkey that divides and destroys the culture gaming already represents. But I suppose that is exactly the aim of some...

The f*ck you talking about. It's already divided! Gaming culture mainly represents: white, heterosexual, men. Crying "you're destroying my gaemz with your identity politics!!!" to keep your ridiculously narrow-minded view of what gaming should be is what's absurd. You are a part of the problem because you're actively working to exclude proper representation of entire demographics that could allow more creativity. More imagination. Make the medium grow instead of being the same stagnant male power fantasy it always is.

 

I agree with In Exile. You can't avoid being culturally significant when you're in the public eye for its consumption. On that note, great job Bioware. Keep it up!

[AlanC9]

Remember, the biases of straight white males are a neutral standard. Anything else is divisive.

[Terodil]

The f*ck you talking about. It's already divided! Gaming culture mainly represents: white, heterosexual, men. Crying "you're destroying my gaemz with your identity politics!!!" to keep your ridiculously narrow-minded view of what gaming should be is what's absurd. You are a part of the problem because you're actively working to exclude proper representation of entire demographics that could allow more creativity. More imagination. Make the medium grow instead of being the same stagnant male power fantasy it always is.

Heh. This was kinda amusing to read, though also a bit sad.

More creativity and more imagination, more choices, are good, agreed! But it gets ridiculous when groups start clamoring for 'representation' with very clear ideas about how 'their' characters should be presented.

Case in point: Dorian. I love Dorian, make no mistake. But on this board I've repeatedly seen people complain that BW did a crappy job at representing gay men because, amongst others, this first explicitly gay male NPC was too straightforward and too flippant. Apparently Dorian is not just a character, but he is actually required to incorporate everything that's considered positive about all gay men everywhere on the world. How is that supposed to work? "Straighforward and flippant" certainly describes a subset of gay men, as does "shy and serious". You can't have both in a single person unless you want to head into schizophrenia territory, which would also incite people.

I really don't envy BW here, they simply can't win. Somebody is always going to cry that one particular characteristic does not represent them and that BW fails at inclusion/representation. And my god, the checklists that have been floating around this board have been giving me serious headaches. Male / female / M->F / F->M, white / black / hispanic / asian / ..., straight/gay/lesbian/bi/a, good-aligned/evil-aligned, forward/shy, funny/serious, attractive/average/ugly, ... it makes one's head spin because people cannot see NPCs as individualistic characters (works of art), but as representative figureheads of entire demographics. That's dooming any kind of creative activity to failure.

[Junebug]

Heh. This was kinda amusing to read, though also a bit sad.

 

<snip>

I really don't envy BW here, they simply can't win. Somebody is always going to cry that one particular characteristic does not represent them and that BW fails at inclusion/representation. And my god, the checklists that have been floating around this board have been giving me serious headaches. Male / female / M->F / F->M, white / black / hispanic / asian / ..., straight/gay/lesbian/bi/a, good-aligned/evil-aligned, forward/shy, funny/serious, attractive/average/ugly, ... it makes one's head spin because people cannot see NPCs as individualistic characters (works of art), but as representative figureheads of entire demographics. That's dooming any kind of creative activity to failure.

I can't tell if that's supposed to be a compliment or a condescending comment @_@

 

I don't really understand what your stance on this is. Exclude or include. I (and many others) feel like this is a win. Sometimes flawed in writing but a win nonetheless because they don't go out of their way to make characters like Dorian a stereotype and they gave him a lot of depth under all that awesome sarcasm. I like that a company like BW is handling this. Seeing their success gives a lot of people hope for others to follow suit. You gotta start somewhere. It wasn't perfect when movies started representing diverse groups—and it still isn't—but it's how the medium allows room for growth. Also hire more diverse people to help run the industry. Look what Shonda Rhimes is doing with television—she's a freakin' powerhouse who brought stuff we've never seen before. I can only have the same hope for gaming.

[Terodil]

Quite a few forumites did accuse BW of turning Dorian into a stereotype.

'Inclusion' is not a yes or no, for me it's an 'it depends on how'. The problem is that it goes hand-in-hand with 'representation'. A lot of people (and I may read you wrong, but I think you belong to these as well) seem to be in favour of forcing inclusion for the sake of representation (away from what you describe as 'white, heterosexual, men'), which leads to these ridiculous checklists and the death of creativity because authors simply don't have any room to write characters made from flesh and blood for fear of missing the odd checkmark.

I'm all for including people of all skin colours, of all sexual orientations, etc -- but allow them to breathe. If anything, they need to feel like the result of a random character generator, not like a cookie made from a pre-defined mold.

It reminds be a bit of the discussion we're having in the 'boob armor' thread atm; does a female pirate have to fight honourably in order to send a positive picture of capable female fighters? Ofc not, she's a pirate. She's morally ambiguous at best, considering that she has no qualms about doing piraty stuff (= robbing, killing, pillaging). Is it a bad thing? no, IMO. But it does seem to be a bad thing in the eyes of the 'inclusion = representation' folk, because -- oh god! -- we suddenly have a female pirate (= representative of all women) that sends the message that she cannot win in a fair fight, and therefore has to resort to unfair methods.

We are all humans, and as such trying to nail down one -- albeit artistically created -- human as inclusive = representative of an entire group invariably leads to failure. Including a wide range of humans, without specific expectations re their ability to represent has a lot more potential to be successful.

Edit: TL;DR: Inclusion yes -- representation no, I guess.

[Kantr]

Quite a few forumites did accuse BW of turning Dorian into a stereotype.

'Inclusion' is not a yes or no, for me it's an 'it depends on how'. The problem is that it goes hand-in-hand with 'representation'. A lot of people (and I may read you wrong, but I think you belong to these as well) seem to be in favour of forcing inclusion for the sake of representation (away from what you describe as 'white, heterosexual, men'), which leads to these ridiculous checklists and the death of creativity because authors simply don't have any room to write characters made from flesh and blood for fear of missing the odd checkmark.

I'm all for including people of all skin colours, of all sexual orientations, etc -- but allow them to breathe. If anything, they need to feel like the result of a random character generator, not like a cookie made from a pre-defined mold.

It reminds be a bit of the discussion we're having in the 'boob armor' thread atm; does a female pirate have to fight honourably in order to send a positive picture of capable female fighters? Ofc not, she's a pirate. She's morally ambiguous at best, considering that she has no qualms about doing piraty stuff (= robbing, killing, pillaging). Is it a bad thing? no, IMO. But it does seem to be a bad thing in the eyes of the 'inclusion = representation' folk, because -- oh god! -- we suddenly have a female pirate (= representative of all women) that sends the message that she cannot win in a fair fight, and therefore has to resort to unfair methods.

We are all humans, and as such trying to nail down one -- albeit artistically created -- human as inclusive = representative of an entire group invariably leads to failure. Including a wide range of humans, without specific expectations re their ability to represent has a lot more potential to be successful.

Edit: TL;DR: Inclusion yes -- representation no, I guess.

Isn't inclusion representation?

[Terodil]

Isn't inclusion representation?

No, it isn't. I explained the difference in the post you quoted.

[Kantr]

oh right.

[SofaJockey]

I'm all for including people of all skin colours, of all sexual orientations, etc -- but allow them to breathe. If anything, they need to feel like the result of a random character generator, not like a cookie made from a pre-defined mold.

 

The sentiment makes sense, but is only practical when you have many cookies.

BioWare is bringing cookies from the kitchen that the diners are not used to seeing and good for them, 

though that does layer considerable additional scrutiny and expectation of those individual cookies.

 

(ok enough of the cookies)

 

When characters of a wide range of genders, skin colours, and sexual orientations are common place in games

so that it no longer triggers feverish articles in the gaming press, then, those characters can have room to breathe more widely than they can now.

[DirkJake]

I believe representation can be done without sacrificing creativity. Representing a character in a minority group does not mean that the character must have all the "good" qualities. If the character is multi-facet, has strength and flaws, and has their own agency, I would call it a good representation. 

 

Dorian is an example of how representation done right. He does not exist solely just to satisfy some checklist. He does not exist as a caricature. 

 

I think Bioware has done quite a decent job at representing LGBTQ, but there is always a room for improvement. One way to improve is, well, more variety in representation. On one hand Bioware has a character like Dorian, how's about next time we have a character like the one in the gay KISA thread?

 

Creating representations actually requires a significant amount of creativity. From the KISA thread, I see so many people come up with creative ideas how a gay KISA would fit into the Dragon Age universe. I believe Bioware is capable of doing the same.