327 réponses à ce sujet

[DanteYoda]

I think people are confusing Dark Fantasy with well written fantasy...

 

Because for me Origins wasn't Dark at all, it was just a really well written and the structure was good, the story was interesting and the developers cared about what they were doing back then..

 

Less money making machine more good gaming.. in a nut shell.

[TheOgre]

DA2 was far and away the darkest of the series IMO. DA:O, for all that the setting and opening were grim, was essentially an incredibly optimistic and positive story. The brave heroes unite the people and drive out the darkness. It wasn't all sunshine and rainbows sure, but in the end it boiled down to a good old fashioned triumph of good over evil and you saving the day. DA2, on the other hand was about trying your hardest and still failing. That's far more dark (and realistic) than dead people and rape.

 

You know what man? you got me right here. I forgot how 'real' the story had been(edited because wow proofreading skills are terrible). I will always remind everyone how little time DA2 was in development for yet it had such a dark tone to it. I will say this however. That can be good and bad. I like it myself, but people can take that as 'this has no options' which isn't ENTIRELY true.

 

Being able to send Fenris back to slavery as an option was probably one of the most cruel options I am glad I avoided. I don't like Fenris and how 'damaged' he was but hey he wasn't for me. 

 

Watching the mages turn into demons, templars butchering 'cooperative' mages and little hope to quell any violence, my Hawke left Kirkwall a bloody mess that will haunt him until his demise.I didn't do any of the DLC stuff however, so I can't say he ever encountered the generic Corypheous or will regret 'releasing' him on Thedas. I loved DA2, but I liked DAO more too still.

 

 

I think people are confusing Dark Fantasy with well written fantasy...

 

Because for me Origins wasn't Dark at all, it was just a really well written and the structure was good, the story was interesting and the developers cared about what they were doing back then..

 

Less money making machine more good gaming.. in a nut shell.

 

It had dark elements, it also had very good writing and positive outcomes. It left me wondering "what's next?" I will say DAI's little twist at the end has me wondering still but everything else was ehh..

[Das Tentakel]

The way I understood Cimeas' article - I read it waaaaaaay back - is that DA lost both authenticity and consistency. Authenticity because the later games 'modernized' the setting from something still recognisably medieval European-inspired into something more like - dare I say it  -'Modern America With Swords'. Consistency because, while DA:O and DA2 characters could be kind of brown, they were still pretty much within the skin tone range found among European (and neighbouring related North African and Middle Eastern) populations. There were none who were indubitably 'black' in the sense of resembling sub-Saharan African populations (or their Afro-American descendants).

 

It has certainly become a fantasy world that reflects modern political concerns - to be very specific, US internal political concerns (Canada and much of Europe, for instance, are far more liberal-progressive when it comes to LGBT issues). Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing...well, I personally think it's a 'good' thing from my personal political-moral perspective, but at the same I understand very well that for many people this 'modernization' and 'Americanisation' erodes the credibility and immersiveness of the setting.

 

In some ways it's probably a difference in degree rather than in kind - Ferelden was always a rather bland Anglo-American affair, meaning North American beneath a thin pseudo-English veneer, with most of the other nations being either weirdly flamboyant, evil, quasi-evil, crazy, criminal or just exotic. In DA:O there were usually solutions that were morally acceptable from a modern perspective, though this was certainly not apparent until one or more complete playthroughs.

 

[Deadmac]

DA was never truly a dark fantasy to begin with

 

The only "Dark setting" Origins had was the Blight

 

“Dragon Age: Origins” was a dark fantasy game.

 

If I had to make an analogy, I would say "Dragon Age: Origins" was very similar to the movie "Legend".

 

Link: Legend Scene #1

 

Link: Legend Scene #2

 

"Dragon Age: Origins" was all about fatalistic relationships, dark romances, drinking blood, fighting 'demigod' dragons, hell on earth, slavery, and blood lusting. Wardens would drink blood, so they can track the blight. Mages would use blood to practice dark rituals and magic.

 

Relationships in “Dragon Age: Origins” were attractive because of taboo encounters, dark ironic twists of fate, and kinky interactions. People didn’t care about political statements. Leliana was the reformed virgin. Regardless about if you were gay or straight, the notion of sleeping with a reformed virgin meant corruption. Leliana being a bisexual was just a bonus. Leliana was the ultimate damsel in distress. As you peaked under her cheerleader uniform, you found that Leliana was packing a set of daggers. Leliana's distress was from walking the line between innocence and curruption.

 

Warden practically gave Leliana the proverbial apple.

 

"Dragon Age: Origins" was about the loss of innocense.

 

“Dragon Age: Origins” was a very-very dark fantasy game.

[AlanC9]

That article's kind of a confused mess, isn't it?

DA:O was fairly incoherent WRT ethnicities. Where did those black folks come from, anyway? I don't know how Bio dug themselves into that hole, actually. There's no retcon; DA:I's just sorting out the mess. He also seems to have projected a bunch of sexism stuff onto DA:O that was never actually there.

I'll go with him on the lack of threat in the world, but this is a general RPG problem that gets worse the more nonlinear and open the game is; ME3 avoided the issue by being neither. DA:O's advancing darkspawn army never felt threatening.

[In Exile]

The way I understood Cimeas' article - I read it waaaaaaay back - is that DA lost both authenticity and consistency. Authenticity because the later games 'modernized' the setting from something still recognisably medieval European-inspired into something more like - dare I say it  -'Modern America With Swords'. Consistency because, while DA:O and DA2 characters could be kind of brown, they were still pretty much within the skin tone range found among European (and neighbouring related North African and Middle Eastern) populations. There were none who were indubitably 'black' in the sense of resembling sub-Saharan African populations (or their Afro-American descendants).

 

It has certainly become a fantasy world that reflects modern political concerns - to be very specific, US internal political concerns (Canada and much of Europe, for instance, are far more liberal-progressive when it comes to LGBT issues). Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing...well, I personally think it's a 'good' thing from my personal political-moral perspective, but at the same I understand very well that for many people this 'modernization' and 'Americanisation' erodes the credibility and immersiveness of the setting.

 

Well, except that's entirely false. First off, people's view of the prejudice inherent in the middle ages is actually really anachronistic. It's not that the middle ages (the proper middle ages; so-called medieval settings are actually a hodge podge of a lot of historical periods) didn't have serious prejudice and discrimination. It's that it was quite foundationally different from what we understand today because the identity politcs we use - gender, race, nationality - didn't exist in the same way at the time. So to begin with, Bioware wouldn't really be true to anything if it did follow that setting.

 

Second, Bioware would violate their own setting if they used, for example, gender discrimination in an IRL way. The dominant religion - the Andrastian Chantry - is an entirely matriarchal organization. The Jesus-figure is really Joan of Arc. To have the same gender politics as IRL - the idea of which is anachronistic to begin with - would be contrary to the setting itself. 

 

Third, sexuality as part of identity politics is also a relatively modern invention. It's not that somehow having M/M or F/F sex was seen as the same as M/F sex. But the perception of it didn't quite work out the way people see it today through a modern lens. Different cultures had different attitudes and it often depended on the kinds of sex acts people were having. For example, "medieval" (it's not the right word, but let's just say we're doing it for the sake of reference to the time period) Japan had a totally different view of M/M sex and M/M romance from what would expect. 

 

The view of history that's part of "medieval" fantasy is anachronistic. I don't see why inclusive anachronism is worse as a matter of accuracy or verisimilitude to the historical period purportedly being shown. 

[Pondering Drifter]

I think the reason why Inquisition doesn't come across as dark as the previous titles is that it lacks content related to the blight, blood magic, and abominations. While there are plenty of dark and grisly codex entries, they are not as impactful as actually witnessing an such an event live.

 

In general the blight is fairly dark due to it's nature of corrupting and decaying everything it comes in contact with. However Inquisition's story is only indirectly related to the blight through Corypheus and the Red Templars. I will say though the Red Templars are fairly dark but not on the same level as say a brood-mother or the children. But I would consider the Red Templars to be the darkest element in Inquisition.

 

As for blood magic, I am surprised that Inquisition has only a few blood magic related events. The biggest blood magic event in Inquisition is the ritual binding at Adamant, but it isn't nearly as horrifying as events like the Harvester and the Dragon Age II "All that remains quest". Although the Nightmare in the fade was pretty terrifying, it should have been a boss fight. That is a missed opportunity that could have been as memorable as the brood mother and harvester fights.

 

The other thing I think Inquisition lacks is abominations. With demons pouring out of the fade, I a bit perplexed as to why there isn't any possessions happening aside from some corpses.

 

Also, see the concept art below. To me this something we should have seen in Inquisition. Desperate mages resorting to dangerous magics in the height of the Mage Templar war.

[Das Tentakel]

Well, except that's entirely false. First off, people's view of the prejudice inherent in the middle ages is actually really anachronistic. It's not that the middle ages (the proper middle ages; so-called medieval settings are actually a hodge podge of a lot of historical periods) didn't have serious prejudice and discrimination. It's that it was quite foundationally different from what we understand today because the identity politcs we use - gender, race, nationality - didn't exist in the same way at the time. So to begin with, Bioware wouldn't really be true to anything if it did follow that setting.

Sorry, but you're pretty much reframing the argument here with somebody who pretty well knows that quasi-European medieval fantasy isn't equivalent to actual 'medieval' Europe. I can't speak for Cimeas, but I suspect he isn't exactly naive either. His perception (and that of others) is that modern (particularly US) concerns, as picked up by BioWare, are progressively influencing the evolution of the DA franchise away from the initial depiction of Thedas as a quasi-(oh, very much quasi-) medieval setting. Some call that political correctness; others may call that 'inclusive anachronism'.

He would have to be pretty ignorant not to realise that medieval Europe was, at best, the inspiration for Thedas and I don’t think he was that naive. The presence of Elves and Dwarves and Dragons are pretty much a giveaway that this is perhaps a land of kings, knights, castles ’n stuff, but it’s not exactly Europe circa 1250 AD.
Racism and prejudice are barely discussed in his article anyway, except in passing.

That the racism in DA is anachronistic – sure. For instance, in DA the city Elves are Andrastians. In medieval Europe, Jews who converted to Christianity (unless they were suspected of relapsing, particularly in the late medieval and early modern Spanish context) simply assimilated. Prejudice had religious grounds, but not recognisably racist ones. By medieval European logic, city Elves would have been absorbed rapidly into the general population, even entering the ranks of the nobility or playing an active role persecuting non-Andrastian Elves.



Descendant of Jewish converts having fun with some unconverted relatives

The racism that the City Elves are subject to is more similar to that toward American blacks during the Jim Crow era. Racism towards blacks is still a problem in the USA. It’s also one indicator that DA was already a very ‘modern American’ fantasy in some respects. The equality of women – to the point that they not only enjoy equal rights but fulfil the same professional roles – is another.
There’s a difference though. The racism aspect in DA looks suspiciously like a modern North American translation into a fantasy context of the position of the Jews in medieval Europe. While it can and does provide an opportunity for sociopolitical commentary on the condition of downtrodden minorities (it also inverts the trope of Elves as fantasy Homosapiens Superior) it’s not hard to link a ghetto-dwelling minority in a quasi-medieval setting with the Jews. The modern racist aspect, however, makes it easier for modern westerners (US citizens in particular) to ‘get the point’. It’s definitely a modernized and possibly even an Americanized aspect, but it’s not without medieval / early modern roots.
The gender equality, on the other hand, is clearly and unequivocally modern. Modern-style gender equality is pretty much a given in any modern RPG where you can create male and female characters. This may be partly out of conviction (‘men and women are equal’ etc.) but there are good pragmatic (game-mechanical) and commercial reasons to make this so. I think this is also a point where Cimeas is on weak ground when you look at DA:O’s lore.
 

’Dragon Age: Origins portrayed a world that was in many ways deeply misogynistic. The female City-Elf storyline opens with the player being kidnapped by a nobleman in order to be gang-raped on her wedding day. There are several references to male-on-female sexual assault in the storyline. Hardly a surprise, given that Game of Thrones (or A Song of Ice and Fire) were big inspirations. While some female aristocrats have a degree of power in Dragon Age (as in, you guessed it, real mediaeval Europe), the vast majority of rulers are males, and society remains generally patriarchal, though not to the extent where a female Warden's progress is significantly impeded upon, presumably because Bioware couldn't be bothered to tell two separate storylines.’

Though I will say that I understand why he thinks DA:O is more patriarchal than lore, even in its DA:O stage of development, says it is. Most people with authority in DA:O are men; Anora, the most powerful woman in the game, has a position that seems to originate with her status as the King’s wife. The later games made the gender equality much more visible, but it’s very easy to interpret that as ‘modernization’.
 

Second, Bioware would violate their own setting if they used, for example, gender discrimination in an IRL way. The dominant religion - the Andrastian Chantry - is an entirely matriarchal organization. The Jesus-figure is really Joan of Arc. To have the same gender politics as IRL - the idea of which is anachronistic to begin with - would be contrary to the setting itself.

Oh come on, having powerful abbesses, the Holy Virgin Mary and oodles of female saints didn’t keep medieval Europeans from having strongly defined gender roles. Though these gender roles often were not defined or fixed in the way we think they were, depending on the area, region or social class. ‘Patriarchal’ is a pretty vague term anyway – men may have the ‘external’ power (war, diplomacy etc.), but there’s plenty of room for women to exercise power internally (within the household) – and if circumstances permit, ‘externally’ as well. DA:O can be seen to depict this with the wife of the Teyrn of Highever as well as with Anora.

Never underestimate medieval European women anyway. When the yeomen of Drenthe in the Netherlands marched against their overlord Otto of Lippe, Prince-Bishop of Utrecht in 1227, the chronicles mention that their womenfolk joined the fight. The Prince-Bishop had his throat cut and was scalped after he was defeated, but whether that had anything to do with the presence of woman fighters…

Again, I’ll admit that DA:O ’s lore depicted a more ‘modern’ society when it comes to gender politics than one would find in a more ‘medieval European’ society, but it is very easy to interpret DA:O as being more medieval than it was in the lore. What was shown in-game – rather than told in the in-game books – was broadly compatible with a view of Thedas as ‘fantasy quasi-medieval Europe’ .
 

Third, sexuality as part of identity politics is also a relatively modern invention. It's not that somehow having M/M or F/F sex was seen as the same as M/F sex. But the perception of it didn't quite work out the way people see it today through a modern lens. Different cultures had different attitudes and it often depended on the kinds of sex acts people were having. For example, "medieval" (it's not the right word, but let's just say we're doing it for the sake of reference to the time period) Japan had a totally different view of M/M sex and M/M romance from what would expect.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The whole LBGT issue in the later DA games is quite clearly a modern insertion, it’s a frickin’ hot issue in the USA (though far less so in Canada and much of Europe). It’s bloody obvious why it got into DA. BioWare has every right to do so and I sympathise with the intent, but it’s a very obvious difference between (official) medieval European attitudes (which in one form or another still persist, particularly but not exclusively in the USA and Eastern Europe) – and Thedas post-DA:O.
If you mean ‘other times, other places, other mores’ sure, but that’s precisely Cimeas’ point: Another time’s concerns with gender are inserted in what is perceived as being a (pseudo-) medieval European fantasy setting.
 

The view of history that's part of "medieval" fantasy is anachronistic. I don't see why inclusive anachronism is worse as a matter of accuracy or verisimilitude to the historical period purportedly being shown.

I understand it when some people like the idea of inclusive anachronism and its expansion and elaboration as the DA universe evolves. But while I agree that Cimeas’ interpretation of DA:O era Thedas is certainly (at least partly) contradicted by the lore, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable interpretation (particularly if you consider what is ‘shown, not told’ in DA:O). This also means I understand why he and others object to it. Regardless of how modern and anachronistic DA:O was or can be perceived to be, this is much more the case in the later games.

[Das Tentakel]

Also, see the concept art below. To me this something we should have seen in Inquisition. Desperate mages resorting to dangerous magics in the height of the Mage Templar war.

I'm not so sure I entirely agree with all of your examples, but the picture is a good example of what should have been 'shown', not told. Thing is, stuff like that probably works best as cutscenes or being played out in the context of a 'meaty' quest. Books, piles of corpses and camps of refugees standing around don't just have that kind of impact.

However, that would create a pretty grim tone and one may wonder if that has a place in a game that aims for a mass market.

[Pondering Drifter]

I'm not so sure I entirely agree with all of your examples, but the picture is a good example of what should have been 'shown', not told. Thing is, stuff like that probably works best as cutscenes or being played out in the context of a 'meaty' quest. Books, piles of corpses and camps of refugees standing around don't just have that kind of impact.

However, that would create a pretty grim tone and one may wonder if that has a place in a game that aims for a mass market.

 

Fair enough, although I think we should have some sort of common definition of what dark fantasy "is" for the Dragon Age series.

 

To me, dark fantasy involves grey morals, the occult, a general sense of uneasiness about the events happening in the story, and lastly shock value. Don't get me wrong, I love the idealism of High Fantasy and tales of Griffons heroically charging in to save the day. But Inquisition could use some more situations that make us uneasy and surprise us. Without these less than ideal situations, we don't appreciate those moments when things work out for the better.

 

As other have already said, DA II is the darkest game in series since nothing works out in the end and that wasn't well received by many including myself since it made our choices rather irrelevant since nothing could stop that catastrophe or at least mitigate its impact. On the other hand Inquisition's ending feels like too many things worked out. From a story perspective I feel that things can work out for the better but their should always be price to be paid to obtain that objective. Look at Orgins for example, the only way your Warden could survive the ending was performing the ritual with Morgan. The closet that Inquisition comes to this type of dilemma in the main story is the choice to either support the Templars or Mages, thus saving one and damning the other to a terrible fate. (Which is far more impactful decision than siding with either faction in DA II since their were no lasting consequence). Another example in Inquisition would be choosing who to leave in the fade, but we have yet to see the consequences for this decision.

[AlanC9]

From a story perspective I feel that things can work out for the better but their should always be price to be paid to obtain that objective. Look at Orgins for example, the only way your Warden could survive the ending was performing the ritual with Morgan.

That's not much of a price, of course -- except maybe for Wardens who are still in a relationship with Alistair at that point. This isn't necessarily a problem with any individual choice, but it is a problem if the price that needs to be paid is always an illusion.

[DomeWing333]

“Dragon Age: Origins” was a dark fantasy game.
 
"Dragon Age: Origins" was all about fatalistic relationships, dark romances, drinking blood, fighting 'demigod' dragons, hell on earth, slavery, and blood lusting. Wardens would drink blood, so they can track the blight. Mages would use blood to practice dark rituals and magic.
 
Relationships in “Dragon Age: Origins” were attractive because of taboo encounters, dark ironic twists of fate, and kinky interactions. People didn’t care about political statements. Leliana was the reformed virgin. Regardless about if you were gay or straight, the notion of sleeping with a reformed virgin meant corruption. Leliana being a bisexual was just a bonus. Leliana was the ultimate damsel in distress. As you peaked under her cheerleader uniform, you found that Leliana was packing a set of daggers. Leliana's distress was from walking the line between innocence and curruption.
 
Warden practically gave Leliana the proverbial apple.
 
"Dragon Age: Origins" was about the loss of innocense.
 
“Dragon Age: Origins” was a very-very dark fantasy game.

Wait, what? How the hell is Leliana a reformed virgin and how did the Warden give her the proverbial apple? Her story was about her struggle to reform herself, sure, but it hardly had anything to do with purity or innocence or her potential romance with the Warden. It had to do with the fact that she was and may potentially always be a killer and whether or not her newfound faith can steer her onto a better path. That's not a loss of innocence. That's a story of redemption.

 

Now, Alistair's story. That was about the loss of innocence. But having the loss of innocence be a theme hardly makes something "dark." Hell, Disney's The Little Mermaid was about the loss of innocence. How dark something is perceived to be has less to do with what themes are there and more to do with how they are presented. Inquisition had everything you listed about Origins. Wardens were still doing crazy blood rituals to kill darkspawn (this time, by killing their own members). Mages and Templars were being enslaved by Corypheus and made into monsters. And we did see the hell on earth in our visions of the future. On paper, it's still the same "dark" world. It's just that Inquisition's view of that world didn't focus in on the gritty details the same way Origins did.

[AppalachianApex]

Yes, I agree that Dragon Age has lost it's "dark" and is worse off for it.

 

It don't, however, think it suffers in any other respects.

[Gwydden]

In some ways it's probably a difference in degree rather than in kind - Ferelden was always a rather bland Anglo-American affair, meaning North American beneath a thin pseudo-English veneer, with most of the other nations being either weirdly flamboyant, evil, quasi-evil, crazy, criminal or just exotic. In DA:O there were usually solutions that were morally acceptable from a modern perspective, though this was certainly not apparent until one or more complete playthroughs.

Ferelden at least tried to pass off as Saxon England. That's something I can respect.

 

The view of history that's part of "medieval" fantasy is anachronistic. I don't see why inclusive anachronism is worse as a matter of accuracy or verisimilitude to the historical period purportedly being shown. 

It's not the lack of discrimination that's the issue.

 

Dorian, Krem, Iron Bull with his BDSM... They are all characters blatantly written for the benefit of modern political activism. Their arcs in these respects wouldn't look remotely out of place if the setting was 21st century America.

 

Oh come on, having powerful abbesses, the Holy Virgin Mary and oodles of female saints didn’t keep medieval Europeans from having strongly defined gender roles. Though these gender roles often were not defined or fixed in the way we think they were, depending on the area, region or social class. ‘Patriarchal’ is a pretty vague term anyway – men may have the ‘external’ power (war, diplomacy etc.), but there’s plenty of room for women to exercise power internally (within the household) – and if circumstances permit, ‘externally’ as well. DA:O can be seen to depict this with the wife of the Teyrn of Highever as well as with Anora.

I would add that in addition and contrary to popular belief, gender roles in matriarchal societies are basically the same as in patriarchal society. The shift is merely on which is considered more important and holds the most economic power.

 

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The whole LBGT issue in the later DA games is quite clearly a modern insertion, it’s a frickin’ hot issue in the USA (though far less so in Canada and much of Europe). It’s bloody obvious why it got into DA. BioWare has every right to do so and I sympathise with the intent, but it’s a very obvious difference between (official) medieval European attitudes (which in one form or another still persist, particularly but not exclusively in the USA and Eastern Europe) – and Thedas post-DA:O.

And that is very much the point. Even if the ancient Greeks were largely tolerant and even encouraging of homosexuality, LGBT issues in the classical world were wildly different than they are today.

 

And yes, Thedas wasn't very realistic to begin with. Modern racism is very much a byproduct of colonialism and shouldn't exist in a world that's still in the equivalent of the late Middle Ages. But this was established from the beginning, not tagged on later.

 

Hell, Disney's The Little Mermaid was about the loss of innocence.

You know, that's actually my favorite Disney movie to this day. It amazes me how everyone has a radically different idea of what it is about xD

[AlanC9]

Dorian, Krem, Iron Bull with his BDSM... They are all characters blatantly written for the benefit of modern political activism. Their arcs in these respects wouldn't look remotely out of place if the setting was 21st century America.

Hmm. I still don't see the issue. Sexuality in Thedas isn't very far from 21st-century America, and never has been.

[Handsome Jack]

I fully agree. DA:I felt significantly more sanitized and "wonderlandish" than any RPG I've played or any fantasy universe I've read about. They retconned canon, they rewrote characters, and all of it ended up in the story feeling much less compelling than anything previously.

 

Hmm. I still don't see the issue. Sexuality in Thedas isn't very far from 21st-century America, and never has been.

 

DA:O had some outright sexist or racist-discriminatory content, which I highly appreciated it. It built a far more authentic and enjoyable atmosphere closer to what Medieval Europe was like. Plus it got flak from social justice crybabies, which I loved.

 

DA:I turned it all around. Everyone became tolerant and respectful sexual deviants. Bull, Sera, Krem, just to name a few.

 

-snip-

 

The view of history that's part of "medieval" fantasy is anachronistic. I don't see why inclusive anachronism is worse as a matter of accuracy or verisimilitude to the historical period purportedly being shown. 

 

Nothing personal, but you're one of the worst "historians" I've ever seen in my life. You have a very shockingly "modernized-liberal" view of world history. First you claim history's biggest empires weren't European, then you claim the Middle Ages had no real discrimination and homosexuality was totes okay?

 

Again, this isn't an insult to you, but you are an absolutely abysmal historian. That or you got your knowledge from Prof. Commie Schozenberg down at the local Liberal Indoctrination Camp ----- sorry, I mean "university".

[AlanC9]

And yes, Thedas wasn't very realistic to begin with. Modern racism is very much a byproduct of colonialism and shouldn't exist in a world that's still in the equivalent of the late Middle Ages. But this was established from the beginning, not tagged on later.

Is the current situation for elves very different from a colonialist situation?

[Hazegurl]

The way I understood Cimeas' article - I read it waaaaaaay back - is that DA lost both authenticity and consistency. Authenticity because the later games 'modernized' the setting from something still recognisably medieval European-inspired into something more like - dare I say it  -'Modern America With Swords'. Consistency because, while DA:O and DA2 characters could be kind of brown, they were still pretty much within the skin tone range found among European (and neighbouring related North African and Middle Eastern) populations. There were none who were indubitably 'black' in the sense of resembling sub-Saharan African populations (or their Afro-American descendants).

Wrong.  Dark skinned people were in Europe.  So much so to the point where Queen Elizabeth I started a race war against the "Neggars"  and "Blackamoors."  Mind you, I'm sure it referred just as much to brown skinned people as to dark skinned people. But seriously, I don't get the mind set people have that black people only stayed in one tiny part of Africa until someone came to get them.

 

If anything, DAI resembles more of how the world most likely looked aside from the more Northern European nations. The only thing missing in DAI are Asians considering the Mongols were some heavy hitters in the trade business at that time.

 

But I'm sure someone would then write an article about how Asians weren't in Europe during that time, and how they are now being pandered to.

[AlanC9]

I
DA:O had some outright sexist or racist-discriminatory content, which I highly appreciated it. It built a far more authentic and enjoyable atmosphere closer to what Medieval Europe was like. Plus it got flak from social justice crybabies, which I loved.
 
DA:I turned it all around. Everyone became tolerant and respectful sexual deviants. Bull, Sera, Krem, just to name a few.

As mentioned upthread, sexism in the setting is mostly a projection from people misreading events.

[Handsome Jack]

As mentioned upthread, sexism in the setting is mostly a projection from people misreading events.

 

Howe's sexist. Orlais for the longest time didn't allow women to fight. Female fighters are overall rare in Origins, with a few exceptions.

 

Realistic, authentic, and enjoyable.

[AresKeith]

..oh boy

[Hazegurl]

@Jack, you are projecting way too much.  I don't know how many times Gaider had to write that DA is not really a full representation of the Middle Ages.  The major conflicts are between the Elves and Humans, and Mages vs Non Mages.  Are there some sexiest characters? Yes.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that the most powerful and influential characters have been women.  Men can't even become Divine.  This isn't some brand new development.  Now, I do believe DAI should have had more conflict concerning a non human IQ, and even a Mage IQ. Showing everyone 100% accepting while giving every background a universal conflict was ridiculous. DAI failed to show it's diversity which aided in the lackluster storytelling. 

 

But adding conflict for the purpose of pissing off "SJWs" is just as weak and shallow as "pandering" to them.

[AresKeith]

@Jack, you are projecting way too much.  I don't know how many times Gaider had to write that DA is not really a full representation of the Middle Ages.  The major conflicts are between the Elves and Humans, and Mages vs Non Mages.  Are there some sexiest characters? Yes.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that the most powerful and influential characters have been women.  Men can't even become Divine.  This isn't some brand new development.  Now, I do believe DAI should have had more conflict concerning a non human IQ, and even a Mage IQ. Showing everyone 100% accepting while giving every background a universal conflict was ridiculous. DAI failed to show it's diversity which aided in the lackluster storytelling. 

 

But adding conflict for the purpose of pissing off "SJWs" is just as weak and shallow as "pandering" to them.

 

I do think the bolded part would've played a factor when the game was originally human only 

[Handsome Jack]

@Jack, you are projecting way too much.  I don't know how many times Gaider had to write that DA is not really a full representation of the Middle Ages.  The major conflicts are between the Elves and Humans, and Mages vs Non Mages.  Are there some sexiest characters? Yes.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that the most powerful and influential characters have been women.  Men can't even become Divine.  This isn't some brand new development.  Now, I do believe DAI should have had more conflict concerning a non human IQ, and even a Mage IQ. Showing everyone 100% accepting while giving every background a universal conflict was ridiculous. DAI failed to show it's diversity which aided in the lackluster storytelling. 

 

But adding conflict for the purpose of pissing off "SJWs" is just as weak and shallow as "pandering" to them.

 

"The most powerful and influential characters have been women"

 

What are you smoking? They can become Divines in the Chantry, but the Chantry's a glorified nunnery, the males being more isolative monks or church workers, as are women. Being a Divine doesn't even mean you're that powerful, unless those who follow Andraste are on your side.

 

Gaider's not a very talented writer, hasn't been for a long time. I don't care what he thinks is "Middle Ages" or not, but he's wrong if he thinks Inquisition is it.

[Gwydden]

Hmm. I still don't see the issue. Sexuality in Thedas isn't very far from 21st-century America, and never has been.

So you missed how the qunari went from 'only have sex for the purpose of reproduction' to 'we have sex clinics to make sure no one's feeling horny'?

 

Nothing personal, but you're one of the worst "historians" I've ever seen in my life. You have a very shockingly "modernized-liberal" view of world history. First you claim history's biggest empires weren't European, then you claim the Middle Ages had no real discrimination and homosexuality was totes okay?

History's biggest empire (if only in terms of size, but I'd argue in other ways too) was the British Empire. On the other hand, the Middle Ages are a pretty embarrassing period in the history of the Western world, so personally I don't like to talk about it much 

 

I think the important angle here, and something that is very often ignored when discussing history, is that notions of morality were radically different just a couple centuries back. As such, discrimination in the Middle Ages had nothing to do with discrimination today.

 

Things like religious intolerance and widespread homophobia were pretty rare before Christianity kicked in. Racism as we understand it only came about with colonialism. And so on.

 

Is the current situation for elves very different from a colonialist situation?

Colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. I would describe the human takeover merely as a conquest, one that happened millennia ago. It's more akin to the Franks expanding from Germany and into France and Italy than the British and the Spanish setting up colonies in the Americas.

 

Ferelden used to be elven land, but it's not under any interpretation a 'colony', nor has it ever been.