Apples and oranges.
It's apples and more racist apples. DA:I didn't allow you to express in-setting prejudice, which was a bit of a structural issue (though frankly I don't think it's a big loss). But out-of-setting prejudice is just nonsensical, and the game shouldn't support it. That includes IRL homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism.
It's apples and more racist apples. DA:I didn't allow you to express in-setting prejudice, which was a bit of a structural issue (though frankly I don't think it's a big loss). But out-of-setting prejudice is just nonsensical, and the game shouldn't support it. That includes IRL homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism.
Yes, we'd all prefer if DA would become a social justice and liberal utopia.
Yes, we'd all prefer if DA would become a social justice and liberal utopia.
That'd be somehow boring.
I fear what the next Dragon Ages may become. I am against homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism but if they keep pushing it more, this will almost feel like a preference for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders over heterosexual. A game should show all sides, and not make a preference or support any of them, at best.
Fact: Balance is key.
Solas had some good lines, but I know a lot of people who couldn't stand Solas. I was okay with him.
I was all right with The Iron Bull's personal quest, but I think the battle could have been implemented better. The fiasco kind of spoke poorly of the Inquisition's effectiveness, in my opinion. Also, the quest might not change him forever if you side with the Qunari. He might stay Qunari for good, or he might drift away from it again.
I really liked Cole. If Weekes is responsible for him, then I'll give Weekes some props for that.
Never played ME.
Even if he stays loyal to the Qun on that quest, he's changed forever. This was his first time pretending to be someone he was not, as those were his orders. It's clear that Bull became accustomed to this life and even prefered it, as living under the Qun burnt him out (this is all explained and expressed by Bull himself).
So making the decision to make Bull loyal to the Qun officially changes him forever: he is more aware than ever that this lifestyle was simply a role and that's all that matters. It'll stay with him in any potential future roles they Ben-Hassrath place him under. He'll know not to get attached like he did with the Chargers.
It's also undeniable that he did, in fact, get attached to the Chargers. Just looking at his resistance to Gaat's orders, and the effect the decision to sacrifice the Chargers has on him afterwards. You essentially take this progression he's made over the years and reaffirm (brain-wash more like) him back under the Qun. Perhaps strengthening his faith in the Qun more than it ever was before.
That'd be somehow boring.
I fear what the next Dragon Ages may become. I am against homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism but if they keep pushing it more, this will almost feel like a preference for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders over heterosexual. A game should show all sides, and not make a preference or support any of them, at best.
Fact: Balance is key.
Right. I doubt the DA series will ever become catered mainly to minorities but I do think there should be more options that aren't "PC" or "safe" as long as it makes sense in context. Like, I wouldn't want us to be able to insult or call out Maevaeris' transsexuality if it hasn't been brought up or if it's just mentioned in passing, but if it was forced on the PC (which I'm pretty sure will never happen), then we should get a chance to disagree with it without devs being hesitant to have such an option for fear of being labeled as bigots or whatnot by a certain group of people.
When did the BSN become a bunch of Fainting Fannies? The outrage! We aren't giving the right to personally validate another character's existence? Horrors! The hells, you say!
The irony of this is that the loudest detractors publicly endorse a game with a fixed protagonist, where everything about them is already decided down to name and sexual orientation. Sorry, but if you're going to praise a game where you don't even get to decide your eye color, you don't get to complain about the lack of "I'm a complete jerk" responses in dialogue.
Mind you, I fully support the ability to be an insensitive arse in dialogue (and have other characters cut you down in turn), but the priority here is to cut down characters who really deserve it: the writers' pets.
If Lead Writer Gaider is leaving the Dragon Age series, who will write the Dragon Ages to come?
And how do you think the new Lead Writer change will affect the games to come?
I am excited! How about you?
Gaider is going to write their new IP, which I assume will be Star Wars. Weekes is taking over. Not sure how he'll do, he's written good characters, but we've yet to really see how good his story writing is. Story is a totally different ballpark and requires a different skill set.
Hopefully he kills it in a good way, and doesn't kill it in a bad way.
Right. I doubt the DA series will ever become catered mainly to minorities but I do think there should be more options that aren't "PC" or "safe" as long as it makes sense in context. Like, I wouldn't want us to be able to insult or call out Maevaeris' transsexuality if it hasn't been brought up or if it's just mentioned in passing, but if it was forced on the PC (which I'm pretty sure will never happen), then we should get a chance to disagree with it without devs being hesitant to have such an option for fear of being labeled as bigots or whatnot by a certain group of people.
I totally agree with you leadintea
That'd be somehow boring.
I fear what the next Dragon Ages may become. I am against homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism but if they keep pushing it more, this will almost feel like a preference for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders over heterosexual. A game should show all sides, and not make a preference or support any of them, at best.
Fact: Balance is key.
Utopias are always boring.
Why do people keep forgetting things like romances are OPTIONAL in these games? In that sense, the game shows "all sides", while the "preference or support" is shown by the player, should they choose to play with a homosexual/bi/trans character. Just because there are non-heterosexual options being added that doesn't mean you are forced to play with a non-heterosexual character. And even so, your Warden, Champion or Inquisitor does not necessarily have to be your in-game proxy. You want to keep your game strictly heterosexual? Play as a heterosexual character with a heterosexual LI and don't use the flirt option with any other. Is that simple. Because it's optional, and while getting to know a bit more about your companions if you romance them is nice and all, it's not vital to play the game and make it to the end. Complaining about the game adding options that don't interest you to begin with is letting your homosexual/bi/transphobia show, because if that's not up your allley and you don't wanna play it that way, what do you care? Reminds me of hetero people complaining about marriage equality: how does someone else's marriage affect your own?? It's ridiculous. Those options are not going to negatively affect your playing by itself, if you think it does then you're the one with the problem. Speaking of apples and oranges, the existence of apples does not mean you must eat apples only, someone placing apples on the table next to the oranges is not pushing you to eat them. There's apples and oranges, you prefer oranges? Then eat oranges and ignore the apples! They're not pushing anything, they're adding options for people who may want to go for them, they're adding variety because humans are diverse in nature and interests that don't always allign with your own.
As for people complaining they don't get to be racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist in a videogame, why would you want to reflect in a fantasy fictional setting what you can witness and do IRL is beyond me. If the answer to that is because you already are that way IRL, i hope the game devs never add the choices you want for it.
Among other things, you also can't engage in a racist rant thrown at Vivenne. That Bioware, how dare they refuse to allow you to express IRL prejudices that have no part or justification in the setting. The horror. The horror.
Technically you can. Mages, you know. But no one is demanding prejudice be an option. Merely that differing in opinion be possible. As is the case with almost all issues in the game.
So it's basically confirmed that Maevaris will be a companion in DA4: Tevinter. Nice.
Is being able to disagree with a transgender character's state of being really restricting player choice? Being transgender is not a choice just like being heterosexual or tall is not a choice. I can't recall ever being able to 'disagree' with a characters heterosexuality or physical attribute anywhere in this series. By that vein player choice has been 'restricted' since day one.
Not necessarily. Weekes might just create a new character, especially if he feels that he can't do Gaider's character justice.
You mean, "Is NOT being able to disagree". Yes it is restriction on player choice. Firstly, it prevents a player from defining the beliefs of their character. Second, it defines it for the player. Third, while the character is defined in various ways by the game itself, the important issues are usually left to the player. I think it should be on this issue too, since it's so definitive of a character's philosophies.
"Tis cold in my tent, all alone."
"Then get a thicker blanket."
Plenty of other examples too.
It's apples and more racist apples. DA:I didn't allow you to express in-setting prejudice, which was a bit of a structural issue (though frankly I don't think it's a big loss). But out-of-setting prejudice is just nonsensical, and the game shouldn't support it. That includes IRL homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism.
And yet, the next game is rumored to take place in prejudicial Tevinter. What if one of the origins is the child of a magister? A person who has grown up under the same rules, expectations, and teachings that were held by Halward Pavus? Shouldn't such a character be able to voice his or her OPINION in a case where Maevaris is say for example... exposed to the Magisterium? Shouldn't this be a defining moment where the player can have the custom character choose to stick to Tevinter tradition or else shout a strong rebuke of it?
What you're suggesting is like having a game about Seheron and then not allowing the players to have their Qunari follow the Qun because that would be whateverphobic.
Even if he stays loyal to the Qun on that quest, he's changed forever. This was his first time pretending to be someone he was not, as those were his orders. It's clear that Bull became accustomed to this life and even prefered it, as living under the Qun burnt him out (this is all explained and expressed by Bull himself).
So making the decision to make Bull loyal to the Qun officially changes him forever: he is more aware than ever that this lifestyle was simply a role and that's all that matters. It'll stay with him in any potential future roles they Ben-Hassrath place him under. He'll know not to get attached like he did with the Chargers.
It's also undeniable that he did, in fact, get attached to the Chargers. Just looking at his resistance to Gaat's orders, and the effect the decision to sacrifice the Chargers has on him afterwards. You essentially take this progression he's made over the years and reaffirm (brain-wash more like) him back under the Qun. Perhaps strengthening his faith in the Qun more than it ever was before.
Okay, everyone is "changed forever" by each second, but what I mean is that The Iron Bull might not stick with the Qun even if you save the dreadnaught. That's all.
I don't think his sadness should be mistaken for a reaffirmation of the Qun. I got the impression that he was more or less falling back on the Qun because that's all he had at that point. Just like how he'll worry about losing control if he saves the Chargers and no longer has the Qun.
But he could still choose to drift away from the Qun, especially if his (possible) relationship with Dorian goes to that other level.
And yet, the next game is rumored to take place in prejudicial Tevinter. What if one of the origins is the child of a magister? A person who has grown up under the same rules, expectations, and teachings that were held by Halward Pavus? Shouldn't such a character be able to voice his or her OPINION in a case where Maevaris is say for example... exposed to the Magisterium? Shouldn't this be a defining moment where the player can have the custom character choose to stick to Tevinter tradition or else shout a strong rebuke of it?
What you're suggesting is like having a game about Seheron and then not allowing the players to have their Qunari follow the Qun because that would be whateverphobic.
I think your mind would actually explode if we were in Seheron and you had to follow the Qun, since, of course, the Qun explicitly isn't transphobic, and this would precisely be the view you couldn't under any circumstances express, but the incredible irony aside, I'm sure that wasn't your actual point.
Here's what we know about Tevinter: biological gender determines your branch of military service. Krem didn't get chased out of the army for his gender identity; he got chased out for fraud.
Despite your most feverent wish, there isn't proof that the kind of prejudice you're choping at the bit to express actually exists in game. Tevinter's an immoral place - slavery, blood sacrifice, abuse, that's all rampant. But you're going to need to find another game if you want to yell obscenities at transgendered persons.
Yes, we'd all prefer if DA would become a social justice and liberal utopia.
It's not even close. There is lot of social injustice in terms of in-game groups, mages, elves, Ferelden's and slavery in Tevinter and so on. IRL social injustices however don't belong to game that isn't about them. I really like this approach much more than making the world full of IRL injustices with scapegoat of "realism" when game otherways is fantasy.
That'd be somehow boring.
I fear what the next Dragon Ages may become. I am against homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism but if they keep pushing it more, this will almost feel like a preference for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders over heterosexual. A game should show all sides, and not make a preference or support any of them, at best.
Fact: Balance is key.
Lol. If you count all LGBT+ characters and compare them to straight characters in the series there is clearly more straight characters- or at least characters who appears straight (most of them don't say their sexualities, but are shown to have only intrest to opposite sex). So there is no balance like there isn't with any game in the world in terms of that, there is always more heterosexual characters.
Only thing why people perceive that there is so many LGBT+ characters is similar as Females everywhere?! guy's perception that game is full of female characters. People tend to overcount characters from minorities they aren't used to have in games and media in their minds, because they are not used to seeing lot of them and so the perception is skewed.
Not sure how I feel about not being able to be anti-homosexuality or anti-transgender in future games. On one hand, less role playing choices. On the other hand, personally speaking, I would never choose those anyway because I would hate my own damn character if I made them out to be that way. As someone who detests bigots, I would never conceivably make my own characters bigoted like that. But still, just knowing the option was there if you wanted it (even if just for the sake of intentionally making your character an evil @sshole) would still make it a better game to me. So it wouldn't affect my own characters, but I'm always for choice even when the choice is to be the most immoral bastard in Thedas. Mostly. I have to admit, the "kill the dog" option at Ostagar always seemed excessive to the point that I wish it wasn't an option. I mean... F*ck, who would pick that?! Although I suppose that isn't much worse than killing Samra's daughter anyway after letting Samara commit suicide in ME3...
Only thing why people perceive that there is so many LGBT+ characters is similar as Females everywhere?! guy's perception that game is full of female characters. People tend to overcount characters from minorities they are used to have in games and media in their minds, because they are not used to seeing lot of them and so the perception is skewed.
I think that's it. I once sat down and counted because someone was complaining there were too many LGBT characters in the series. Across all three games AND the books and comics there are actually only thirty-five, and that includes such important characters as Randomly Bisexual Prison Guard, Snooty Orlesian Party-Goer #1, Snooty Orlesian Party-Goer #2 and That Dead Mage Ritts Was Having Sex With.
Since there are a hell of a lot more than three hundred and fifty characters across all the games and spin-off material, I doubt the total number of confirmed LGBT characters exceeds ten percent. Probably not even five percent.
Among other things, you also can't engage in a racist rant thrown at Vivenne. That Bioware, how dare they refuse to allow you to express IRL prejudices that have no part or justification in the setting. The horror. The horror.
Since when prejudices have to be justified , people hate other people because they are different since well always.... so saying that heatred toward group of people don't exist is stupid statement comparable to that atheists don't exist.
Since when prejudices have to be justified , people hate other people because they are different since well always.... so saying that heatred toward group of people don't exist is stupid statement comparable to that atheists don't exist.
You can express your hate to different groups of people in Dragon Age in terms what makes sense in the setting. You can't be racist towards someone based on their skin color, but you can be racist towards other races. Which are human, elf, dwarf and qunari, not black, white, asian and latino. Homophobia and transphobia don't exist in Thedas like it exist in our world.
Since when prejudices have to be justified , people hate other people because they are different since well always.... so saying that heatred toward group of people don't exist is stupid statement comparable to that atheists don't exist.
I'm not talking about justification in the sense of people having to have a rational reason for it. I'm talking about justification in the sense of there being an actual reason to be prejudiced in-setting. We don't have IRL groups of people "prejudiced" about the fact that some people don't paint their toenails purple, or some people have brown eyes. There are lots of reasons we might set groups of people apart.
That'd be somehow boring.
I fear what the next Dragon Ages may become. I am against homophobia, racism, transphobia and sexism but if they keep pushing it more, this will almost feel like a preference for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders over heterosexual. A game should show all sides, and not make a preference or support any of them, at best.
Fact: Balance is key.
Oh please.
We have city elves in DA universe. That alone counters any "SJW" element you had in mind.
You can express your hate to different groups of people in Dragon Age in terms what makes sense in the setting. You can't be racist towards someone based on their skin color, but you can be racist towards other races. Which are human, elf, dwarf and qunari, not black, white, asian and latino. Homophobia and transphobia don't exist in Thedas like it exist in our world.
It is simple impossible that those things don't exist as those things are simple heatred/dislike toward described minority it is like saying that you can't hate/dislike somone for something.Only difference is that it can be less or more present in society.
I'm not talking about justification in the sense of people having to have a rational reason for it. I'm talking about justification in the sense of there being an actual reason to be prejudiced in-setting. We don't have IRL groups of people "prejudiced" about the fact that some people don't paint their toenails purple, or some people have brown eyes. There are lots of reasons we might set groups of people apart.
You don't need to reason to hate somone as people often hate just for being different ,and who is talking about groups of people we are talking about individual who hates somone for something in this particular matter it is hate on minority, even if specific minority is accepted in society doesn't change fact individual still may hate such group and you don't need search long for an example, i can point sexism despite both genders are pretty much accepted in society (both in our world and thedas) you can still meet person that dislike certain gender .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
