318 réponses à ce sujet

[maia0407]

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. 

Excellent post. I'm not going to cry if some people don't get to live out their fantasy of playing a character with all their real life hang ups in a video game.

 

Honestly, showing a society that is past skin color/homophobia/transphobia/sexism is not necessarily depicting a utopia. There are plenty of other problems to be tackled beyond those issues.

[Patchwork]

Weekes has a tendency to write quests heavily skewed towards his preferred outcome like the Rannorch missions, the server one in particular, and Iron Bull's personal quest is very unsubtle in it's attempts to make you choose the Chargers. Given the creepy vibe in Cole's final scene I suspect human is the choice Weekes wants players to make.

 

The lead writer obviously isn't going to be writing the whole game themselves but I am a little concerned that there's always going to be a best option and our character is going to be a White Hat in a sea of Black Hats. If we're going to Tevinter I want things to be a little more ambiguous than that.   

[uzivatel]

Patrick Weekes is the new lead.

Not saying I did not like his quests, but most of them seem to end up with:

sacrifice favourite character A x sacrifice favourite character B

with a variation:

sacrifice favourite character x be responsible for mass atrocity

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Too bad Weekes is a SJW.

 

Better an SJW than a heartless bastard.

[maia0407]

Better an SJW than a heartless bastard.

ooohhh, welcome to the SJW club Patrick! Come sit by me and we'll snicker at the troglodytes!

[Matriarch]

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.

 

Imo Solas was one of the best and most complex characters and the added romance gave him even more depth. A classically romanticized character!

So I'd say Weekes also did a good job there.

 

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. 

 

Notice that anywhere in my post did I say otherwise or mentioned romances, I meant overall. I even added that I am not racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist. I agree with you in all you've said!

Nevertheless, people in this thread said Weekes will give us less choices of reaction to some events and that's what I worry about.

 

I am not criticising the Dragon Age series. It's the series I like the most and I hope they keep at it! It's because I like it that I worry about it and like to discuss it with people who share this taste.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Yes I agree with you. In my post I worried about what comes next rather than what is already presented to us.

[quinwhisperer]

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.

Bless you and your wonderful post.

[uzivatel]

Better an SJW than a heartless bastard.

Thats not mutually exclusive, is it?

Anyway, if thats the only two writers at BioWare, I would like to see what the heartless bastard can come up with.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Thats not mutually exclusive, is it?

Anyway, if thats the only two writers at BioWare, I would like to see what the heartless bastard can come up with.

That is easy Hatred, Border Security, and that one game created by white surpemists. 

[uzivatel]

That is easy Hatred, Border Security, and that one game created by white surpemists.

Because all heartless bastards are required to be racists, right? Its like a law or something...

[Karai9]

Weekes has a tendency to write quests heavily skewed towards his preferred outcome like the Rannorch missions, the server one in particular, and Iron Bull's personal quest is very unsubtle in it's attempts to make you choose the Chargers. Given the creepy vibe in Cole's final scene I suspect human is the choice Weekes wants players to make.
 
The lead writer obviously isn't going to be writing the whole game themselves but I am a little concerned that there's always going to be a best option and our character is going to be a White Hat in a sea of Black Hats. If we're going to Tevinter I want things to be a little more ambiguous than that.

Patrick Weekes has actually stated in his VGS interview that he chooses for Cole to remain more spirit rather than human.

[AlanC9]

I disapprove of efforts to restrict player choice.

"Efforts to restrict player choice" is a very confused way to think about this. Every game has a nearly infinite amount of restriction on player choice in this sense, since the vast majority of options the devs could theoretically have written were not written. Instead, they put in the options they felt were worth putting in.

Weekes doesn't think your pet dialogue options are worth the zots? That's a shame.

[maia0407]

Thats not mutually exclusive, is it?
 

Most social justice warriors take on these issues as they aren't heartless bastards. We actually care about people and want those that are oppressed to get a fair shake. I suppose there might be some rare instance where someone takes up the cause just to....I dunno, stir the pot or something. But, beyond those rare cases, most SJW's are nice people.

[slimgrin]

Better an SJW than a heartless bastard.

 

Looking at their respective Twitter accounts, I'd say Gaider is far more reasoned and less inclined to let agenda fuel his writing. Weekes? Well, I hope you're not too attached to this franchise...

[maia0407]

What agenda?

[Toasted Llama]

For the people argueing that "wahhh not being able to be <insert minority here>phobic is bad and restricting the player, waahhh!"

I support choice. I also support the freedom that marginalized, abused, bullied, threatened, murdered, assaulted and disowned demographics of people can choose a game where they aren't being faced with their daily struggle.

 

Plus you get to use and see other forms of discrimination. Forms that fit in Thedas. This whole templar/mage conflict is in fact a great opportunity to act like a generalizing douche.

 

So I'm okay with being told "no, you can't be transphobic/racist, but you can TOTES sh*t all over elves! Or mages!"

 

Either way there's plenty of other games where you can be a douche. (Load up GTA, pick a random demographic and start murdering everyone of that demographic.)

 

Anyway, on the other hand:

 

Most social justice warriors take on these issues as they aren't heartless bastards. We actually care about people and want those that are oppressed to get a fair shake. I suppose there might be some rare instance where someone takes up the cause just to....I dunno, stir the pot or something. But, beyond those rare cases, most SJW's are nice people.

 

I personally disagree with this, based on what I've seen. There's a lot of radical SJWs that justify blind hatred against "not oppressed" groups of people. Things like #killallmen for example (some of those people were serious). They're especially prominent on tumblr. I've also seen a lot of people being fond of thought-policing.

Aaaaand I've seen some SJW tumblrette's praise this one female criminal because "lol she's a strong woman lol".

 

They use hate to counter hate. I guess the sane SJWs would label them "not-SJWs" but that's the same circular argument among radfems and (sane) feminists.

[Matriarch]

For the people argueing that "wahhh not being able to be <insert minority here>phobic is bad and restricting the player, waahhh!"

I support choice. I also support the freedom that marginalized, abused, bullied, threatened, murdered, assaulted and disowned demographics of people can choose a game where they aren't being faced with their daily struggle.

 

Plus you get to use and see other forms of discrimination. Forms that fit in Thedas. This whole templar/mage conflict is in fact a great opportunity to act like a generalizing douche.

 

So I'm okay with being told "no, you can't be transphobic/racist, but you can TOTES sh*t all over elves! Or mages!"

 

Either way there's plenty of other games where you can be a douche. (Load up GTA, pick a random demographic and start murdering everyone of that demographic.)

 

I like you! 

[maia0407]

For the people argueing that "wahhh not being able to be <insert minority here>phobic is bad and restricting the player, waahhh!"

I support choice. I also support the freedom that marginalized, abused, bullied, threatened, murdered, assaulted and disowned demographics of people can choose a game where they aren't being faced with their daily struggle.

 

Plus you get to use and see other forms of discrimination. Forms that fit in Thedas. This whole templar/mage conflict is in fact a great opportunity to act like a generalizing douche.

 

So I'm okay with being told "no, you can't be transphobic/racist, but you can TOTES sh*t all over elves! Or mages!"

 

Either way there's plenty of other games where you can be a douche. (Load up GTA, pick a random demographic and start murdering everyone of that demographic.)

 

Anyway, on the other hand:

 

 

I personally disagree with this, based on what I've seen. There's a lot of radical SJWs that justify blind hatred against "not oppressed" groups of people. Things like #killallmen for example (some of those people were serious). They're especially prominent on tumblr. I've also seen a lot of people being fond of thought-policing.

Aaaaand I've seen some SJW tumblrette's praise this one female criminal because "lol she's a strong woman lol".

 

They use hate to counter hate. I guess the sane SJWs would label them "not-SJWs" but that's the same circular argument among radfems and (sane) feminists.

Haven't seen those people but I don't find it hard to believe that there are some messed up people that also claim to be SJWs. But, I'll argue those people are in the minority although they might have big mouths that make them seem more prevalent. Most groups I've been in are quick to jump all over someone that tries to actually harm another person. Just today I saw a person arguing that Josh Duggar should commit suicide and feminists were quick to denounce that person. I just don't see people taking up causes, especially social causes that inherently require a person to have some empathy for others not like them, being primarily 'heartless bastards'.

 

ETA: Rest of your post is awesome, though.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Because all heartless bastards are required to be racists, right? Its like a law or something...

 

 

I would add Climate Change deniers and Religious Zealots. 

[Matriarch]

Looking at their respective Twitter accounts, I'd say Gaider is far more reasoned and less inclined to let agenda fuel his writing. Weekes? Well, I hope you're not too attached to this franchise...

 

I am  

[Dieb]

Warriors seldolmy fight for social justice.

[Toasted Llama]

I like you! 

 

c:

 

 

Haven't seen those people but I don't find it hard to believe that there are some messed up people that also claim to be SJWs. But, I'll argue those people are in the minority although they might have big mouths that make them seem more prevalent. Most groups I've been in are quick to jump all over someone that tries to actually harm another person. Just today I saw a person arguing that Josh Duggar should commit suicide and feminists were quick to denounce that person. I just don't see people taking up causes, especially social causes that inherently require a person to have some empathy for others not like them, being primarily 'heartless bastards'.

 

ETA: Rest of your post is awesome, though.

 

I suppose it's not necessarily "heartless bastards", I'll give you that but more anger over being set back by society. Anger that leads to hate. Or insecurity, I think there's a lot of insecurity mixed in the toxic behaviour. I suppose that just makes them seem like heartless bastards.

 

And you haven't seen those people? Never saw the outrage over a shirt (that was dubbed the shirtstorm) where people (including lots of feminists) bullied a scientist (that just accomplished an amazing feat for humanity as a whole) to the point of making a public apology whilst borderline crying? His accomplishments didn't matter because he happened to make (the somewhat hilarious) choice to wear a shirt with scandily clad women. I dunno, but that just rubs me the wrong way; someone's choice of wardrobe affecting their accomplishments.

 

Either way, tl;dr; I get where you come from; equality is a great thing, definitely not a heartless cause, I've just seen a lot of demonizing, "us vs them" wars and anger that makes me think twice of the SJW label.

[uzivatel]

BioWare kind of loves writing itself into these situations. With Dragon Age they created a fantasy world and rather than some utopia, they decided to make it somewhat more believable by including some "flaws" - fantasy racism, sexism, nationalism, religious zealotry etc. are common place in DA. At the same time BioWare is a nice western company, which means it is actively pro-LGBT (and some really feel like making statements), while completely ignores actual racism to avoid any possible controversies.

As such the Chantry discriminates dwarves, elves, mages, males (admittedly somewhat downplayed in DAI) or pretty much every one, but just happens to be among the most tolerant religious organization when it comes to sexuality. Qunari may send people to re-education camps over lot of things, but sexuality is not an issue. Especially rich considering the former feels like Christians with female lead while the later like some sort of communist Muslims.
Humans in Thedas may hate members of other species, other countries or other religions with great passion, but a rather visual trait as race seem completely ignored.
 

I would add Climate Change deniers and Religious Zealots.

My sarcasm radar is broken.

[leadintea]

c:

 

 

 

I suppose it's not necessarily "heartless bastards", I'll give you that but more anger over being set back by society. Anger that leads to hate. Or insecurity, I think there's a lot of insecurity mixed in the toxic behaviour. I suppose that just makes them seem like heartless bastards.

 

And you haven't seen those people? Never saw the outrage over a shirt (that was dubbed the shirtstorm) where people (including lots of feminists) bullied a scientist (that just accomplished an amazing feat for humanity as a whole) to the point of making a public apology whilst borderline crying? His accomplishments didn't matter because he happened to make (the somewhat hilarious) choice to wear a shirt with scandily clad women. I dunno, but that just rubs me the wrong way; someone's choice of wardrobe affecting their accomplishments.

 

Either way, tl;dr; I get where you come from; equality is a great thing, definitely not a heartless cause, I've just seen a lot of demonizing, "us vs them" wars and anger that makes me think twice of the SJW label.

 

Yeah, SJWs tend to aggressively force their views on others and will shame them in order to get them to submit to the SJW. They aren't the type of people I would ever call "nice."

[maia0407]

c:

 

 

 

I suppose it's not necessarily "heartless bastards", I'll give you that but more anger over being set back by society. Anger that leads to hate. Or insecurity, I think there's a lot of insecurity mixed in the toxic behaviour. I suppose that just makes them seem like heartless bastards.

 

And you haven't seen those people? Never saw the outrage over a shirt (that was dubbed the shirtstorm) where people (including lots of feminists) bullied a scientist (that just accomplished an amazing feat for humanity as a whole) to the point of making a public apology whilst borderline crying? His accomplishments didn't matter because he happened to make (the somewhat hilarious) choice to wear a shirt with scandily clad women. I dunno, but that just rubs me the wrong way; someone's choice of wardrobe affecting their accomplishments.

 

Either way, tl;dr; I get where you come from; equality is a great thing, definitely not a heartless cause, I've just seen a lot of demonizing, "us vs them" wars and anger that makes me think twice of the SJW label.

Yes, I saw the issue with the shirt and the scientist. Nowhere did I see anyone calling for him to be harmed; his shirt was criticized and rightly so. He made a poor choice to wear that shirt in a time when many women scientists are coming out and complaining about sexual harassment within their jobs. I'll just have to disagree that calling him out for that choice is bullying.