118 réponses à ce sujet

[Dutch's Ghost]

While it is true during our own history through the middle/medieval ages where men kept women no better than inept property and baby makers, this is Thedas, a completely different world based only loosely on our own history. If women had the rights and lack of repression during our middle ages like we do today (which still isn't great in many cultures), I would hypothesize that women would have played a more similar part in the world and military as they do in Thedas.

OFC I am talking in general terms now, I know there are some of us women who are incapable of even tying a shoe lace (same with men but I digress).

Sunnie, that doesn't matter. Even today why do you think that the U.S. military and other Western militaries are almost 90% male? Because war is the province of men, not women. Biologically speaking, women can't handle the pangs of battle against a male opponent in the medieval age unless they're Brieanne of fcking Tarth - which 99% of them aren't. I know it's fantasy and DAverse is liberal as heck but I just can't stretch my imagination enough to accept that a thinly slender woman in armour can out pummel brutish and often big and thick men. Sorry.

[Dutch's Ghost]

I knew that someone from the feminine side will quote me up for that... just want things clear. I am not saying the females can't fight or stand on their own, hell there is woman who can be stronger than a male. What I meant is that, most of the time, being a warrior, Knight, Soldier etc... the statistics are always more on the side of the males... because most of the mans have this desire to prove themselves, fight, go berserk and so on and on, while females can do the same... they are less common, so I agree with the poster that Bioware should have thought about that, before making 90% of the forces, females in the game.

Women also lack testosterone. This is what battle in the medieval age was about - testosterone, fear, adrenaline etc...

[Dutch's Ghost]

I don't want to come off as sexist because I'm not - but I'd prefer a 70% - 30% split of men and women fighting. I don't want to see women as frontline infantry - it simply goes against logic.

[Sunnie]

Sunnie, that doesn't matter. Even today why do you think that the U.S. military and other Western militaries are almost 90% male? Because war is the province of men, not women. Biologically speaking, women can't handle the pangs of battle against a male opponent in the medieval age unless they're Brieanne of fcking Tarth - which 99% of them aren't. I know it's fantasy and DAverse is liberal as heck but I just can't stretch my imagination enough to accept that a thinly slender woman in armour can out pummel brutish and often big and thick men. Sorry.

You are right in that, in reality the average woman would not easily carry heavy armor, and then be able to have the endurance for any kind of physical combat. And I agree that you would rarely see this on a real battlefield. Where women would out perform men would be  in the rear ranks as archers, and as light armor hit and run damage, more akin to a glass cannon in the gaming world. A young fit woman is by far more dexterous than a brutish heavy man in a full set of heavy armor.

[JAZZ_LEG3ND]

I could go for another Dragon Age II. Still my favourite in the series. Human only protagonist is also welcome, if it means better development. Inquisitor is okay, but I don't want okay, I want good, great even. Hawke was great because s/he had a consistent personality spectrum open to the player.

It was a great change to be a normal warrior building your life in the big city. Great concept. You get to explore the world, make friends, and stand against whatever terrors rise with nothing by the strength of your will.

...the statistics are always more on the side of the males... because most of the mans have this desire to prove themselves, fight, go berserk and so on and on, while females can do the same... they are less common, so I agree with the poster that Bioware should have thought about that, before making 90% of the forces, females in the game.

90% might be exaggerating a little bit. But I see your point, however I think there’s a couple things you’re overlooking. Men are typically swayed towards that kind of work because of culture, influenced by historical figures. Female psychology is too similar to males for it to be relevant in a different culture. In Thedas, Andraste is that key historical figure that inspires women to take up arms.

The game actually addresses this by comparing the South to Tevinter. There most things are male dominated. Talk to Dorian about it. Also, if you compare Origins to Inquisition, there’s a deliberate absence of “women struggling against the world” in the latter. In Origins, you could talk to Leliana about chevaliers, and Alistair made a point that he saw “no women in the Wardens”, as the original version of Thedas was more medieval Europe, and less original fantasy world with few gender issues.

[Brass_Buckles]

First of all:  You should read this.

 

You guys realize that women have always, always been in combat, right?  Even on the front lines?  Even when they had to pretend to be men to do so?  There was even an entire culture in Africa where all the warriors were women, and they kicked total butt.  History doesn't much like to remember them though, because it kind of shatters the notion that only manly men can be warriors, or that women are somehow fragile or frail or helpless.

 

There's also new evidence that as many as half of Viking warrior burials were women.  So much for that mental image of hordes of beardy manly men with pointy hats.  These women were buried with war-like goods--they could have simply been migrants, but there's a good chance that they were fighters.  And it is established fact that the Vikings did have women warriors.  Article here.

 

Had society gone a different way, you'd probably see as many (or nearly as many) women on the battlefield as men, and it would not even remotely be considered strange.  In fact, in some nations today, it is mandatory for everyone, male or female, to serve in the military for a certain amount of time.  There's nothing biological about it, it's purely cultural.  It has happened.  Women fought, too, and probably for most of the same reasons that men did--because they thought it was right, because they were protecting their homes, their families, their children.  Because they didn't want their husbands/lovers/whoever to die alone.

 

Laws were created in medieval times specifically to prevent women from fighting.  That means that a significant enough number of women were militarizing that this was considered necessary.  It's probably because someone realized that if no one stayed home to tend the crops, everyone was going to starve, and if women didn't survive to have children, the population was going to collapse.

 

Before you start mouthing off about how there should be fewer women etc. (and there aren't a 50/50 split in Dragon Age games, by the way--as far as I can tell lorewise, women are less frequently warriors than men, unless they have changed that), perhaps you should do a bit of actual research.  And even if you truly believe that women never, ever really fought?  Dragon Age is a fantasy game.  Stop trying to project your cultural norms onto a world whose cultures are not the same as the real world in the first place.  Sometimes we ladies like power fantasies, too, so stop trying to take that away from us.  It makes you look really awful when you don't even want us to have a significant presence in a game that we play for fun.

 

THAT ASIDE, back to the OP:

 

- Human only is not something I'd be interested in.  The primary reason that Inquisition dealt with Inquisitors of different races poorly is that the Inquisitor was originally conceived as human.  If the devs set out with an Inquisitor of any race in mind in the first place, the game will probably deal with the other options better and make that choice carry more weight within the scope of the game.

 

- Please no more "one city" with recycled maps.  I remember being extremely bored and frustrated of wandering back and forth between the same sections of the same city and venturing out to run the same dungeon over and over and over again.  I don't necessarily want a semi-open world again, if they can't add in important hubs that feel alive, and I certainly don't want three deserts again.  But I don't want to be stuck within such a limited scope map again.

 

- Why should we only involve ourselves with a qunari invasion of Tevinter?  What does this have to do at all with the plot that is being set up by the ending of DA:I?  Yes, the stories are separate, but they all build off one another, at least in some small part.  The ending of DA:I suggests that the next game will be building off of DA:I's ending heavily.  Something major is happening and we're going to have to deal with it, whoever we end up playing as.

[Brass_Buckles]

You are right in that, in reality the average woman would not easily carry heavy armor, and then be able to have the endurance for any kind of physical combat. And I agree that you would rarely see this on a real battlefield. Where women would out perform men would be  in the rare ranks as archers, and as light armor hit and run damage, more akin to a glass cannon in the gaming world. A young fit woman is by far more dexterous than a brutish heavy man in a full set of heavy armor.

 

"Rare ranks?"  Um... Actually archers and spear-wielders, and people in light armor, would have made up the bulk of ancient military.  Archers were extremely important!  They usually attacked first.  They were also one of the primary siege fighters.  Heavy armor was extremely expensive to craft, so most people would have been wearing armor made of hide or lamellar, or if they were fairly wealthy, chain mail.  Swords were actually a less common weapon than spears (and when we read about actual historical women warriors like the Viking ladies, they usually were wielding spears, so... it follows).

 

Also, the physical capabilities of some women are greater than the physical capabilities of the average man.  There are also weak men, and weak women, and people in between.  Women have surprisingly good endurance, and heavy armor might slow them down, but they also tend to have smaller frames... which means their heavy armor is going to be quite a bit lighter than a set made to fit a larger man, if made to fit.  Which heavy armor typically is, because it was pretty much only owned by the wealthy.

[line_genrou]

Women also lack testosterone. This is what battle in the medieval age was about - testosterone, fear, adrenaline etc...

 

Testosterone is produced in a female's body, not in the same amount as produced in a male's.

 

There should be women warriors in DA. No problem with that. But it also should have non-warriors.

Though it's kinda weird because I always imagine female warriors to be freaking strong, built like a warrior. That's one of the reasons I can never make a female warrior when playing DA. That slim body holding a giant axe, just no. Yeah, I need some reality in my game.

[Sunnie]

"Rare ranks?

 

Also, the physical capabilities of some women are greater than the physical capabilities of the average man.  There are also weak men, and weak women, and people in between.  Women have surprisingly good endurance, and heavy armor might slow them down, but they also tend to have smaller frames... which means their heavy armor is going to be quite a bit lighter than a set made to fit a larger man, if made to fit.  Which heavy armor typically is, because it was pretty much only owned by the wealthy.

Rear ranks... my mild dyslexia makes appearances from time to time!

 

You don't have to explain any of this to me, I know first hand how strong we really are. But that doesn't mean we are stronger in general, because we are not. We generally do have a higher tolerance for pain though, a gift from nature since we have to bear the burden of child birth.

[Riftwalker]

Sunnie, that doesn't matter. Even today why do you think that the U.S. military and other Western militaries are almost 90% male? Because war is the province of men, not women. Biologically speaking, women can't handle the pangs of battle against a male opponent in the medieval age unless they're Brieanne of fcking Tarth - which 99% of them aren't. I know it's fantasy and DAverse is liberal as heck but I just can't stretch my imagination enough to accept that a thinly slender woman in armour can out pummel brutish and often big and thick men. Sorry.

 

We fight giant dragons riddled with magical rocks alongside giant ox-dudes and elves that can shoot lightning from their fingers, travel into dream-land where nightmares literally come to life and try and kill you, ride on the back of animate dead horses with spikes through their heads, and you cannot 'stretch your imagination' enough to accept a woman kicking some dude's butt.

 

I'm having a difficult time processing this

[Brass_Buckles]

Rear ranks... my mild dyslexia makes appearances from time to time!

 

You don't have to explain any of this to me, I know first hand how strong we really are. But that doesn't mean we are stronger in general, because we are not. We generally do have a higher tolerance for pain though, a gift from nature since we have to bear the burden of child birth.

 

I repeat, some women are stronger than the average man.  This isn't every woman, obviously, or every man.

 

Even so, there has been research to suggest that women's lower body strength is naturally greater than men's on average, while men have greater upper body strength.  And, due to women's physiology, it has also been said that women are actually more ideal astronauts than men.

 

So I despise it when men short-sell women, and women short-sell themselves.  Men aren't better than women.  Just because there are physiological differences, doesn't mean we aren't still pretty similar in the grand scheme of things.  Comparing a male and female human is not like comparing a male and female bear or lion.  The differences are not that great.

[Brass_Buckles]

We fight giant dragons riddled with magical rocks alongside giant ox-dudes and elves that can shoot lightning from their fingers, travel into dream-land where nightmares literally come to life and try and kill you, ride on the back of animate dead horses with spikes through their heads, and you cannot 'stretch your imagination' enough to accept a woman kicking some dude's butt.

 

I'm having a difficult time processing this

 

Quoted for truth, and because you said in a few words precisely what I was getting at.  Even if women did not actually fight in the real world (which they have done for as long as there have been human beings), the fact that it's a fantasy video game where I can shoot magic and where four people with swords and daggers can take down an agile, flying fire-breathing lizard bigger than an elephant...

 

Yeah.  It's just ridiculous to argue against women being powerful in a video game.  Especially a fantasy one.

[Yaroub]

 We generally do have a higher tolerance for pain though.

 

I also believe i watched somewhere on youtube that women have a higher chance of surviving a gun shot, though it would hurt a hell much much more than men, i don't know if this fact applies to cut wounds caused by swords and axes etc.

[line_genrou]

I repeat, some women are stronger than the average man.  This isn't every woman, obviously, or every man.

 

Even so, there has been research to suggest that women's lower body strength is naturally greater than men's on average, while men have greater upper body strength.  And, due to women's physiology, it has also been said that women are actually more ideal astronauts than men.

 

So I despise it when men short-sell women, and women short-sell themselves.  Men aren't better than women.  Just because there are physiological differences, doesn't mean we aren't still pretty similar in the grand scheme of things.  Comparing a male and female human is not like comparing a male and female bear or lion.  The differences are not that great.

 

Men are generally bigger than women. There are some big women and small men? Yes.

Men are also generally physically stronger. Are there stronger women and weaker men? Yes.

 

I'm a woman and I have no problem knowing that men are usually physically stronger. It's just nature, you know. In nature the general rule is that the male is bigger than the female. Just complain to mother nature or whatever.

[Dutch's Ghost]

You are right in that, in reality the average woman would not easily carry heavy armor, and then be able to have the endurance for any kind of physical combat. And I agree that you would rarely see this on a real battlefield. Where women would out perform men would be in the rear ranks as archers, and as light armor hit and run damage, more akin to a glass cannon in the gaming world. A young fit woman is by far more dexterous than a brutish heavy man in a full set of heavy armor.

Agree. It's more believable that women in DA would be rogues and of course mages but warriors nope. Cassandra and how she's built seems to defy logic.

[Dutch's Ghost]

First of all: You should read this.

You guys realize that women have always, always been in combat, right? Even on the front lines? Even when they had to pretend to be men to do so? There was even an entire culture in Africa where all the warriors were women, and they kicked total butt. History doesn't much like to remember them though, because it kind of shatters the notion that only manly men can be warriors, or that women are somehow fragile or frail or helpless.

There's also new evidence that as many as half of Viking warrior burials were women. So much for that mental image of hordes of beardy manly men with pointy hats. These women were buried with war-like goods--they could have simply been migrants, but there's a good chance that they were fighters. And it is established fact that the Vikings did have women warriors. Article here.

Had society gone a different way, you'd probably see as many (or nearly as many) women on the battlefield as men, and it would not even remotely be considered strange. In fact, in some nations today, it is mandatory for everyone, male or female, to serve in the military for a certain amount of time. There's nothing biological about it, it's purely cultural. It has happened. Women fought, too, and probably for most of the same reasons that men did--because they thought it was right, because they were protecting their homes, their families, their children. Because they didn't want their husbands/lovers/whoever to die alone.

Laws were created in medieval times specifically to prevent women from fighting. That means that a significant enough number of women were militarizing that this was considered necessary. It's probably because someone realized that if no one stayed home to tend the crops, everyone was going to starve, and if women didn't survive to have children, the population was going to collapse.

Before you start mouthing off about how there should be fewer women etc. (and there aren't a 50/50 split in Dragon Age games, by the way--as far as I can tell lorewise, women are less frequently warriors than men, unless they have changed that), perhaps you should do a bit of actual research. And even if you truly believe that women never, ever really fought? Dragon Age is a fantasy game. Stop trying to project your cultural norms onto a world whose cultures are not the same as the real world in the first place. Sometimes we ladies like power fantasies, too, so stop trying to take that away from us. It makes you look really awful when you don't even want us to have a significant presence in a game that we play for fun.

THAT ASIDE, back to the OP:

- Human only is not something I'd be interested in. The primary reason that Inquisition dealt with Inquisitors of different races poorly is that the Inquisitor was originally conceived as human. If the devs set out with an Inquisitor of any race in mind in the first place, the game will probably deal with the other options better and make that choice carry more weight within the scope of the game.

- Please no more "one city" with recycled maps. I remember being extremely bored and frustrated of wandering back and forth between the same sections of the same city and venturing out to run the same dungeon over and over and over again. I don't necessarily want a semi-open world again, if they can't add in important hubs that feel alive, and I certainly don't want three deserts again. But I don't want to be stuck within such a limited scope map again.

- Why should we only involve ourselves with a qunari invasion of Tevinter? What does this have to do at all with the plot that is being set up by the ending of DA:I? Yes, the stories are separate, but they all build off one another, at least in some small part. The ending of DA:I suggests that the next game will be building off of DA:I's ending heavily. Something major is happening and we're going to have to deal with it, whoever we end up playing as.

Some cultures in Africa and Viking shield maidens is not enough proof sorry. Roman legions conquered with armies exclusively men. Macedonians, the Chinese empires, Islamic empires, Turko-Mongol empires had no women as warriors etc....It is biological, you should look it up. If what you say is true then there should be no gender division in wrestling, boxing, mma etc....

[The Ghost]

Come on guys, are we really arguing over are the woman equal to man... as some people said nature is nature, man are bigger than woman, BUT! There is exceptions... in large amount... so I don't see what the problem is... I will simply equalize both or near equality 60/40 or 70/30, depending how people look at it. I am not saying that there isn't woman who can be stronger than males... this should be well known fact by now... *looking at the Amazons* for one example... but yea... in every universe... most of the time males are the warrior, bulky type... speaking strictly for humans... as far for the animal kingdom, I can point out few species which have female gender as the most dominant one... even in nature 70% of the species have male gender as the strongest, fighting type gender... it's not as some people express themselves 'morals', it's how it is... it's how the world was built... 

[correctamundo]

Thedas is not earth and earth is NOT Thedas.

[Wolven_Soul]

Here's my idea of DA4.

It should be like DA2, in the sense that it primarily takes place in a city. Which city you ask? Minrathous the capital of Tevinter. We should only play as humans since I feel that DAI's inquisitor was the poorest Bioware PC because of there being too much character options which diluted the experience of being the Inquistor.

Unlike DA2 we should have diverse environments within the city and be able to venture out to surrounding areas that would serve a purpose to the main storyline.

The background of the game would be a full-scale Qunari invasion of the imperium and something. Feel free to use this idea Bioware.

 

I disagree.  Having more character options didn't dilute anything at all.  It makes multiple playthroughs more enjoyable.  People react to different races in different ways.  Granted, this is coming from someone who hasn't yet made it through a single playthough, but DA:O gave us these options and they were wonderful.

[MyKingdomCold]

I agree  in general women aren't as strong as men. However, I don't see how that equates to " Cassandra and how she's built seems to defy logic".  Now, if there were many examples of women built like her I might agree but seeing as how she's the minority I don't see it.  In real life, there are quite a few examples of women built like her. For example. there are women bodybuilders, boxers, and MMA fighters.

 

Oh, and if we're talking about historically, there are examples as well. For example, women fought in the Crusades.

[line_genrou]

I agree  in general women aren't as strong as men. However, I don't see how that equates to " Cassandra and how she's built seems to defy logic".  Now, if there were many examples of women built like her I might agree but seeing as how she's the minority I don't see it.  In real life, there are quite a few examples of women built like her. For example. there are women bodybuilders, boxers, and MMA fighters.

 

Oh, and if we're talking about historically, there are examples as well. For example, women fought in the Crusades.

 

Receipts please? I've never heard of this.

[MyKingdomCold]

Not sure how accurate this site is but:

 

http://thetemplarkni...n-the-crusades/

 

"Dr. Helen Nicholson argues that women did take the cross – they certainly accompanied their husbands and may have acted as auxiliary forces bringing supplies to warriors.  But did they actually fight in battle?  Well, Dr Nicholson quotes a Saracen source that describes female corpses on the battlefield at Acre in 1190 – the writing is so vivid that it’s probably true."

 

I just did a Google search on women fighing in Crusades and received links.  And I'm not sure if a lot of them fought but I also don't think none did either.

 

Also here's a list of women warriors from the 5th century to 1499.

 

https://en.wikipedia...assical_warfare

[JAZZ_LEG3ND]

It really doesn't matter. The world-view that doesn't want women to fight or the world-view that wants women to the best most awesome warriors in history, doesn't do anything to effect the real women out in the world who are fighting and dying right now, or those you've fought throughout history.

The United States army lifted its ban on women serving in combat roles. The part where it was a ban should tell you everything you need to know about this topic.

[Brass_Buckles]

One last thought on the "OMG women fighting in a game/beating men in combat is so unrealistic!" crowd...

 

In Dragon Age, I can throw fireballs and lightning from my hands.

 

I can take four people equipped with daggers up against a thick-scaled beast larger than an elephant, which also flies and breathes fire, and those four people can kill that animal.

 

Yeah, I really don't think, for a fantasy game, that it's so far-fetched for women to be highly effective warriors.

 

And you know what else?  I'm tired of people trying to take away women's power fantasies.  Yes, I know most women aren't as strong as most men (at least in upper body strength).  But this is a game, which I play for fun.  I am not a particularly strong person in real life.  I am also not able to change the entire world, in real life--I lack that level of influence.  I doubt if most of the male players who play this game are all that strong (sure there are probably some), and I sincerely doubt many of you have massive influence over world politics.  So instead of trying to take away someone else's enjoyment of a fantasy game where they can actually achieve great things, why don't we all just enjoy it?  Because it's fantasy.  And the moment you have people throwing fireballs and lightning bolts, you pretty much lose your claims to "realism."

[The Ghost]

One last thought on the "OMG women fighting in a game/beating men in combat is so unrealistic!" crowd...

 

In Dragon Age, I can throw fireballs and lightning from my hands.

 

I can take four people equipped with daggers up against a thick-scaled beast larger than an elephant, which also flies and breathes fire, and those four people can kill that animal.

 

Yeah, I really don't think, for a fantasy game, that it's so far-fetched for women to be highly effective warriors.

 

And you know what else?  I'm tired of people trying to take away women's power fantasies.  Yes, I know most women aren't as strong as most men (at least in upper body strength).  But this is a game, which I play for fun.  I am not a particularly strong person in real life.  I am also not able to change the entire world, in real life--I lack that level of influence.  I doubt if most of the male players who play this game are all that strong (sure there are probably some), and I sincerely doubt many of you have massive influence over world politics.  So instead of trying to take away someone else's enjoyment of a fantasy game where they can actually achieve great things, why don't we all just enjoy it?  Because it's fantasy.  And the moment you have people throwing fireballs and lightning bolts, you pretty much lose your claims to "realism."

 

 

So you want 100% of the warriors in the game (speaking mob Non PC Controlling NPC's), be just women? Because we argue exactly for that... how would I know that in the next game they won't do exactly that... after all in DA3 they did like 70-80% forces females... somehow doesn't fit in the world no matter how I see it... I don't mind having woman fighting, but over 50% is a bit too much and unrealistic... even if this is a game were we have fireballs, lightning bolts, killing dragons and shits... You will ask me why I think so.. well excuse me, but all I see in the woman body build in Dragon Age Inquisition (disculudding Cassandra) is a normal human body build as our woman body build, yea I agree for Cassandra being a warrior, hell we need at least 30% of these... but the rest... they don't fit that role... and right now you disclude enjoyment of other people... let's not be focused over just one gender, that what 95% of the guys ask here... we want equality... you've never seen somewhere in the other comments, saying 'don't include at all female warriors' they said we want more equality... where woman are not the main force in the world... because feels out of place... in the first 2 games as far as I remember we still had female warriors, but the most where males... you can't out of nowhere suddenly turn all this force into females... it doesn't fit the previous two games lore.