561 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Therefore people imagining themselves in a world where they're more or less equal, or able to obtain position of power or influence, is not such bonkers concept and it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

OK, you've made a few points worth thinking about. Generally, I observe that I would have no problem with a world where sexism doesn't exist if it were the world of a science fiction story rather than a fantasy one. On one level, this reflects my opinion that tolerance is something that can't be achieved without a fight against our "lesser" natures, and that fictional worlds where sexism is not an issue should have such a fight in their history, and since science fiction usually takes place in the future, we can imply that such a fight - which, in the real present, is going on - has happened. On another one, it may have something to do with genre conventions.

 

Genre conventions associate fantasy with the past. Some fantasy is essentially timeless, and it would probably not be a problem there, but Thedas associates itself with the past of our dominant culture, very firmly, though religion, technology and social structure. So the relevant question is actually not "can a fictional world without sexism be believable " - of course it can - but rather "Can a fictional world that is otherwise so much like our own late medieval and early modern period be believable without sexism or with a successful fight against it in its history". One thing people who argued against me have overlooked is this: I am not asking for a world with sexism. I am asking "If this world has no sexism, how the heck did it get there"? Because I maintain that, given its prevalence in human history, human nature is like that that we can't get there without a fight. Maybe Andraste and the Chantry is part of the answer, but it's not enough for me. To me, DAI's way of making this explicitly a non-issue still feels artificial. I don't discount the possibility that this feeling is rooted in something only tangentially related, or in the way it was made a non-issue rather than the fact that it was, but if so, I haven't been able to pinpoint it. 

[Heimdall]

2 Cents

Ironically the only issue I have with representation in Dragon Age is male representation. For once I'd like to see a strong male leader that's known for something besides military expertise. Loghain, Gaspard... I'd even include Cullen. It annoyed my that the sole male member of the Inquisition's inner circle had to be the military guy while the more "subtle" and cooperative roles went to women.

The only non military male ruler has been the Viscount, and I wouldn't really call him strong (He was under Meredith's thumb besides).

By contrast, female figures of authority include include Empress Celene and Divine Victoria, both strong and both progressive reformers, neither militarily inclined. You could put Anora here too, what with her doing the real ruling while Cailan played hero on the battlefield. I've already mentioned Leliana and Josie.

For that matter maybe we could use more positive female military focused leader. All we have there is Aveline (Meredith wasn't exactly positive)

Anyway, the tendency to assign militaristic expertise to males is something I'd like Bioware to diversify for both genders.

[Majestic Jazz]

2 Cents

Ironically the only issue I have with representation in Dragon Age is male representation. For once I'd like to see a strong male leader that's known for something besides military expertise. Loghain, Gaspard... I'd even include Cullen. It annoyed my that the sole male member of the Inquisition's inner circle had to be the military guy while the more "subtle" and cooperative roles went to women.

The only non military male ruler has been the Viscount, and I wouldn't really call him strong (He was under Meredith's thumb besides).

By contrast, female figures of authority include include Empress Celene and Divine Victoria, both strong and both progressive reformers, neither militarily inclined. You could put Anora here too, what with her doing the real ruling while Cailan played hero on the battlefield. I've already mentioned Leliana and Josie.

For that matter maybe we could use more positive female military focused leader. All we have there is Aveline (Meredith wasn't exactly positive)

Anyway, the tendency to assign militaristic expertise to males is something I'd like Bioware to diversify for both genders.

I like this, but tell me....have many female Chiefs of Staff have ever existed?

[Heimdall]

@Majestic Jazz

 

I have no idea, probably few I guess.  I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Dieb]

I like this, but tell me....have many female Chiefs of Staff have ever existed?

 

Jeanne d'Arc.

 

Who curiously, was executed by the Inquisition.

[Heimdall]

@Dieb

 

For crossdressing, first they made her swear never to do it again and then she was tricked into putting on male clothing, so they had excuse to execute her as was standard procedure for relapsed heretics.  (I'd wager it was more political than anything else)

 

They wanted to get her on witchcraft, but she was a virgin and thus couldn't be a witch (The belief at the time being that witches had sex with the Devil to get their power, which is why most condemned witches were older women that were already mothers or grandmothers, but Joan was fifteen and had been previously examined by the Queen of France and her ladies in waiting)

 

On another note, when asked years later why they willingly went along with the insane idea of following an inexperienced fifteen year old girl to war, all her lieutenants responded that they followed her orders because she was the best battlefield tactician they had ever seen.

[midnight tea]

That inclusive feeling you get when your particular physical/mental identity is represented in a game (ie the protagonist is female)? That exact feeling is the reason so many protagonists are male. Most people who play AAA games that actually have stories (or try to) are male; gamers are split 50/50, but men are more likely to play AAA games. That's why I said it was marketing: they're trying to make the player character even more relatable to their game's largest demographic (it's really just a feel-good thing though - even if the protagonist is a woman, men will still be the majority consumers if it's a male-oriented genre, like an action game (Bayonetta comes to mind). Companies aren't stupid - they aren't "closed minded", they're audience pandering. Bioware for example, as you probably know, does this all the time.

 

Like you said, companies aren't stupid (well, not entirely stupid...), so they notice that pandering to specific (and fairly narrow) audience demographic obviously doesn't work anymore. More and more women play AAA games (and games in general... and no, not just Bejeweled) and it's also reflected with the slow, but systemic inclusion of more varied protagonists.

I mean, how else are you going to explain what happened, for example, on recent E3? Many new IPs or chapters in major AAA franchises get themselves female PCs or add more female characters (Horizon: Zero Dawn, Recore, Dishonored 2, AC Syndicate, to name a few). Even new FIFA will now have Women's International Teams.

 

Like I said - times change and marketing changes with it.

[midnight tea]

OK, you've made a few points worth thinking about. Generally, I observe that I would have no problem with a world where sexism doesn't exist if it were the world of a science fiction story rather than a fantasy one. On one level, this reflects my opinion that tolerance is something that can't be achieved without a fight against our "lesser" natures, and that fictional worlds where sexism is not an issue should have such a fight in their history, and since science fiction usually takes place in the future, we can imply that such a fight - which, in the real present, is going on - has happened. On another one, it may have something to do with genre conventions.

 

Question is why should we adhere to genre conventions to a T? And why can't there be a fantasy world where this fight happened earlier or hatred never reached levels we know from RL world, because the world found itself more convenient scapegoats - or where misogyny exists, among other things, but is more subtle??

 

 

 

Thedas associates itself with the past of our dominant culture, very firmly, though religion, technology and social structure.  So the relevant question is actually not "can a fictional world without sexism be believable " - of course it can - but rather "Can a fictional world that is otherwise so much like our own late medieval and early modern period be believable without sexism or with a successful fight against it in its history".One thing people who argued against me have overlooked is this: I am not asking for a world with sexism. I am asking "If this world has no sexism, how the heck did it get there"? Because I maintain that, given its prevalence in human history, human nature is like that that we can't get there without a fight. Maybe Andraste and the Chantry is part of the answer, but it's not enough for me. To me, DAI's way of making this explicitly a non-issue still feels artificial. I don't discount the possibility that this feeling is rooted in something only tangentially related, or in the way it was made a non-issue rather than the fact that it was, but if so, I haven't been able to pinpoint it. 

 

Thedas may associate itself with past of our dominant culture, but there are very significant differences between governing structures or turn of events (and I'm not talking about the existence of Fade or magic). That's the beauty of "what if" scenarios, on which fiction thrives. 

 

And DA basically poses a question of "What if the major religious figure - the Messiah of Thedas - was a woman??" - and so, it assumes that it would positively influence their position in society. And I'm not really sure how this can be viewed as artificial. Andraste isn't like Mary in Catholic Church, meant to teach women the virtue of faithfulness, motherly love and obedience - she's a charismatic warrior, a leader and Chantry to this day is pretty much a matriarchal structure. It teaches people that females are more suited for leadership position as they're not prone to anger or passion as men, which deeeeeefinitely influences the way people perceive gender roles.

 

We're yet to find out how other cultures treat their women though - we do have an insight of how the Qun treats them (and it's kinda complicated) and we also can assume that the role of women in Tevinter may not be as strong as in Southern Thedas. Elves I'm not sure - especially ancient ones - but considering that Mythal was at the center of Elven pantheon I assume it influenced the position of women as well.

[X Equestris]

Jeanne d'Arc.
 
Who curiously, was executed by the Inquisition.

She was executed by the English after a sham trial. The Inquisition actually retried her after her death and cleared her of all charges.

[9TailsFox]

Question is why should we adhere to genre conventions to a T? And why can't there be a fantasy world where this fight happened earlier or hatred never reached levels we know from RL world, because the world found itself more convenient scapegoats - or where misogyny exists, among other things, but is more subtle??

 

 

Thedas may associate itself with past of our dominant culture, but there are very significant differences between governing structures or turn of events (and I'm not talking about the existence of Fade or magic). That's the beauty of "what if" scenarios, on which fiction thrives. 

 

And DA basically poses a question of "What if the major religious figure - the Messiah of Thedas - was a woman??" - and so, it assumes that it would positively influence their position in society. And I'm not really sure how this can be viewed as artificial. Andraste isn't like Mary in Catholic Church, meant to teach women the virtue of faithfulness, motherly love and obedience - she's a charismatic warrior, a leader and Chantry to this day is pretty much a matriarchal structure. It teaches people that females are more suited for leadership position as they're not prone to anger or passion as men, which deeeeeefinitely influences the way people perceive gender roles.

 

We're yet to find out who other cultures treat their women though - we do have an insight of how the Qun treats them (and it's kinda complicated) and we also can assume that the role of women in Tevinter may not be as strong as in Southern Thedas. Elves I'm not sure - especially ancient ones - but considering that Mythal was at the center of Elven pantheon I assume it influenced the position of women as well.

So you just told sexism exist in Thedas, just more towards man instead of more towards women. 

[Cobra's_back]

And of course it's about Witcher 3.

 

Trust me, it's a good one, and everyone, whether open or close-minded, every Bioware dev and every CDPR fan would benefit for reading it. (that doesn't really work does it?)

 

http://kotaku.com/th...er-3-1711003491

 

I see this topic also as sort of a feedback one, but I think it was more fitting to be put in here since it contains spoilers for both games (and if it doesn't it will because discussion of the subject requires it IMO)

 

The interesting snippet that made me think of Bioware and DA:I:

 

 

Please have proper use of tags for Witcher 3 spoilers in this topic. DA:I spoilers go unmarked, hence the Scuttlebutt (spoilers) subforum name, naturally.

 

 

Problem: This is a pure fantasy game. So the point here is that this writer wants pure fantasy more real??? Okay that means half the creatures have to go including the main character.

 

"Geralt is a monster hunter for-hire. He possesses superhuman abilities, and is a master swordsman." He fights monsters. There are elves and wizards. Tell me that is real????

 

Players are not looking for real. They know they are playing a fantasy game. Who didn't know Skyrim wasn't pure fantasy comedy?? I shout you to pieces. 

 

These articles are pretty funny when they try to mix real with fantasy. 

[Cobra's_back]

OK, you've made a few points worth thinking about. Generally, I observe that I would have no problem with a world where sexism doesn't exist if it were the world of a science fiction story rather than a fantasy one. On one level, this reflects my opinion that tolerance is something that can't be achieved without a fight against our "lesser" natures, and that fictional worlds where sexism is not an issue should have such a fight in their history, and since science fiction usually takes place in the future, we can imply that such a fight - which, in the real present, is going on - has happened. On another one, it may have something to do with genre conventions.

 

Genre conventions associate fantasy with the past. Some fantasy is essentially timeless, and it would probably not be a problem there, but Thedas associates itself with the past of our dominant culture, very firmly, though religion, technology and social structure. So the relevant question is actually not "can a fictional world without sexism be believable " - of course it can - but rather "Can a fictional world that is otherwise so much like our own late medieval and early modern period be believable without sexism or with a successful fight against it in its history". One thing people who argued against me have overlooked is this: I am not asking for a world with sexism. I am asking "If this world has no sexism, how the heck did it get there"? Because I maintain that, given its prevalence in human history, human nature is like that that we can't get there without a fight. Maybe Andraste and the Chantry is part of the answer, but it's not enough for me. To me, DAI's way of making this explicitly a non-issue still feels artificial. I don't discount the possibility that this feeling is rooted in something only tangentially related, or in the way it was made a non-issue rather than the fact that it was, but if so, I haven't been able to pinpoint it. 

 

Sexism is real. Question for you:

 

What is real in any of these games? Dragons and all the beast we see in these games are pure fantasy. I can't see how adding sexism into a pure fantasy game makes it seem real.

 

DAI fits their books. Many players read the books and play the game. I real questions should be are they following what they wrote?

[BabyPuncher]

I think one of the possible reasons this argument is used is that people don't necessarily think it through - or at least I HOPE that's the case, because the only other reason I can think of is that there are quite a few people who WANT equality among genders or races to remain an unrealistic utopia *shudders*

 

That really depends on what you mean by 'equality.' 

 

I think equality between individuals before anything but the law (and even that inevitably gets fudged) is among the most idiotic concepts imagineable.

 

I really don't think men and women should be or want at all to be treated the 'same.' How precisely equal that is is certainly a matter of interpretation, but in general there are benefits and detriments to both that I think roughly align with what women and men generally want.
 

[Kulyok]

I just read the article. Looks like the Witcher has the same flaws as DAI inquisition - not enough darkness and evil choices. My "dark side" character would take the Bloody Baron's daughter by the hair and drag her back, and the wife the Baron abused would either be beheaded on the spot or, again, dragged back to the Baron. If an evil character gives you a quest, you don't give the hero "good choices" automatically, there must be freedom of choice, an opportunity to do the right thing as opposed to doing the evil thing. If you can't do the evil thing at all, why bother?

[Ieldra]

That really depends on what you mean by 'equality.' 

 

I think equality between individuals before anything but the law (and even that inevitably gets fudged) is among the most idiotic concepts imagineable.

 

I really don't think men and women should be or want at all to be treated the 'same.' How precisely equal that is is certainly a matter of interpretation, but in general there are benefits and detriments to both that I think roughly align with what women and men generally want.

The concept is actually more abstract than that. "Treating people equally" doesn't mean exactly the same, except in the abstract sense of "giving equal consideration to what individuals want, regardless of whether they're men or women [insert any other common distinction]". Basically it means the absence of double standards imposed from without.

[BabyPuncher]

Well then, it's a horrible idea. Gender is full of double standards, many of which people find great value and happiness in.

[VaLe]

Ugh "Kotaku", I threw up a little.

[Ieldra]

Well then, it's a horrible idea. Gender is full of double standards, many of which people find great value and happiness in.

That's why I said "double standards imposed from without"

[Ieldra]

Thedas may associate itself with past of our dominant culture, but there are very significant differences between governing structures or turn of events (and I'm not talking about the existence of Fade or magic). That's the beauty of "what if" scenarios, on which fiction thrives.

Well yes, but as I said - some things are human constants, and if some fictional world doesn't have those, that needs an explanation.

 

My main observation in this regard is that DAI's Thedas feels artificially tame compared to DAO. It lacks a certain grit, lacks certain edges, and everything that may affect the player in any way is designed to be as socially acceptable as possible. They even gave black-skinned characters African features - which they didn't have in the earlier games. The resulting impression is that social issues have dominated world (re-)design to the detriment of its already-established identity. They may have felt it's a price they can pay in order to be more inclusive, but I feel disconnected whenever my attention is brought to these things. Personally, I'd rather be forced to play a gender or a sexual orientation I don't identify with (since romance is a small optional feature), rather than having this world discontinuity. It's a Bioware thing, too. Every time they make a new game in an ongoing series, they seem to forget, or retcon, or rewrite, significant parts of their world. The needs of the day dominate over any long-term vision. I really hate that.

[Cobra's_back]

Well yes, but as I said - some things are human constants, and if some fictional world doesn't have those, that needs an explanation.

 

My main observation in this regard is that DAI's Thedas feels artificially tame compared to DAO. It lacks a certain grit, lacks certain edges, and everything that may affect the player in any way is designed to be as socially acceptable as possible. They even gave black-skinned characters African features - which they didn't have in the earlier games. The resulting impression is that social issues have dominated world (re-)design to the detriment of its already-established identity. They may have felt it's a price they can pay in order to be more inclusive, but I feel disconnected whenever my attention is brought to these things. Personally, I'd rather be forced to play a gender or a sexual orientation I don't identify with (since romance is a small optional feature), rather than having this world discontinuity. It's a Bioware thing, too. Every time they make a new game in an ongoing series, they seem to forget, or retcon, or rewrite, significant parts of their world. The needs of the day dominate over any long-term vision. I really hate that.

 

DAI world connects to the books they wrote:

 

The Stone Throne

The Calling

Asunder

The Masked Empire

 

Their world is as real as any fantasy game that follows its own lore. The original post is making a blanket statement comparing  two different fantasy world. Both these games have different worlds. If they seem real, it is because the author is doing a good job creating a world with its own history.

[Ieldra]

DAI world connects to the books they wrote:

 

The Stone Throne

The Calling

Asunder

The Masked Empire

 

Their world is as real as any fantasy game that follows its own lore. The original post is making a blanket statement comparing  two different fantasy world. Both these games have different worlds. If they seem real, it is because the author is doing a good job creating a world with its own history.

I have read those books. They don't touch the issues dicussed here. If at all, they're only present by implication. Also, I was not making a comparison with the world of TW3, but I was making a statement about continuity in the world of Dragon Age.

[9TailsFox]

Well yes, but as I said - some things are human constants, and if some fictional world doesn't have those, that needs an explanation.

 

My main observation in this regard is that DAI's Thedas feels artificially tame compared to DAO. It lacks a certain grit, lacks certain edges, and everything that may affect the player in any way is designed to be as socially acceptable as possible. They even gave black-skinned characters African features - which they didn't have in the earlier games. The resulting impression is that social issues have dominated world (re-)design to the detriment of its already-established identity. They may have felt it's a price they can pay in order to be more inclusive, but I feel disconnected whenever my attention is brought to these things. Personally, I'd rather be forced to play a gender or a sexual orientation I don't identify with (since romance is a small optional feature), rather than having this world discontinuity. It's a Bioware thing, too. Every time they make a new game in an ongoing series, they seem to forget, or retcon, or rewrite, significant parts of their world. The needs of the day dominate over any long-term vision. I really hate that.

 

This if you make new game please go ahead. But if Bioware ever make Jade empire 2 I don't want white and black people everywhere.

[midnight tea]

So you just told sexism exist in Thedas, just more towards man instead of more towards women. 

 

Yes, I just told that - is that so shocking?

 

The game actually acknowledges that some form of sexism (in Chantry structures at least) against men exists and that it's not fair - both Giselle and Dorian have lines that address it and they acknowledge that not allowing men or other races to priesthood is BS.

[midnight tea]

That really depends on what you mean by 'equality.' 

 

I think equality between individuals before anything but the law (and even that inevitably gets fudged) is among the most idiotic concepts imagineable.

 

I really don't think men and women should be or want at all to be treated the 'same.' How precisely equal that is is certainly a matter of interpretation, but in general there are benefits and detriments to both that I think roughly align with what women and men generally want.
 

 

That's only an issue if you think of "equality" as something very literal and rigid.

 

Like, that each person should be treated the exact same, no matter of circumstances - for example: the circumstances of women being pregnant (and maybe a bit more of free time to take care of herself and her baby would be beneficial for everyone in the long run) or the fact that men are more susceptible to health issues arising from faulty genetics (maybe they require additional subsidized health tests from time to time). Or the fact that a disabled person needs a bit more help from society than being forced through a system designed to perfectly healthy person.

 

Equality is a concept that's a tad more complex - it's when people feel that they're accepted for who they are in a system that helps them/provides opportunities to live up to their personal potential.

[9TailsFox]

That's only an issue if you think of "equality" as something very literal and rigid.

 

Like, that each person should be treated the exact same, no matter of circumstances - for example: the circumstances of women being pregnant (and maybe a bit more of free time to take care of herself and her baby would be beneficial for everyone in the long run) or the fact that men are more susceptible to health issues arising from faulty genetics (maybe they require additional subsidized health tests from time to time). Or the fact that a disabled person needs a bit more help from society than being forced through a system designed to perfectly healthy person.

 

Equality is a concept that's a tad more complex - it's when people feel that they're accepted for who they are in a system that helps them/provides opportunities to live up to their personal potential.

Spoiler