134 réponses à ce sujet

[Vanilka]

The Qunari are poorly done in this game. They'd be the first object of my criticism. Right now, it seems they mostly exist because of a loud minority. Outside reasons rather than interesting in-game reasons. The internet is full of people who said DA2 and humans were "boring", and Bioware mistook them as majority. Lo and behold, their opinion meant little. The amount of human characters was still roughly the same as DAO -- 80 percent. And we have a year and millions of dollars that could have been better served on the story.

 

As for diaspora communities, I don't think anything like this is simple. Even the melting pot I live in (America) is full of community stories. It isn't inclusive just because of ideals.. there was a story behind all of it. There's a reason why, say, there are many Vietnamese in New Orleans and Houston. Or why Irish moved en masse to early America. I'd expect fantasy worlds tell similar stories... at least half as well.

 

What's wrong with the qunari? They have been part of the franchise since DAO. In the first game, they seemed kind of underdeveloped, but they expanded upon them in DAII and DAI + Trespasser. And if the qunari are a problem, aren't also dragons and demons and magic? Where do we draw the line with this so called "realism" in a fantasy game? Plus, how do we objectively decide that since this issue is all but objective? I admit I don't know.

 

I'm not sure why this has been brought up at all in this particular conversation, but I honestly do think the humans are kind of boring. Not because they're humans (I love my mTrevelyan.), but because we get the same formula with them in every game. For three games now, it's been about the Chantry, Andraste, Circles, nobility, politics, human issues. (Never thought I'd ever say such a thing, but thank god for the Blight.) The human protagonist is always somehow connected to these things with the exception of the mage Warden Amell, somewhat, who also turns out to be related to nobility in the end. Hawke has something interesting going at first, but then you also find out they're of noble blood and they get rich within the beginning of the game and Chantry politics is what they deal with most of the time. If you're into that, I envy you because, while I enjoy the games for the most part (in significant part because I'm not always forced to play a human and an Andrastian), I think the treatment of the human protags is getting extremely repetitive. But that's off topic and I'm not sure why we started this. What I know is that I don't want more of this. Yet again. (But I probably won't have a choice.)

 

If your opinion is that a fantasy franchise should focus more on the stories of human migration, I don't have a problem with it. I mean, I'm not interested in the same things and I'm going to express that opinion as I prefer DA focusing on telling fantasy stories and fantasy races and, sure, the worldbuilding as a whole which includes humans and related matters, but I don't see it as some great loss that we don't directly deal with how each person got where. I'm fine with us having different opinions, though, and I think you make some good points about that there could definitely be more to the human nationalities and their stories.

[ThomasBlaine]

But the thing is that Thedas is already established as a world where we have countries with different kinds of people and we also know that they travel a lot for various reasons - trade, wars, Blight, work, assassins, bards, magical and natural catastrophes, just because they want to, rich people that wish to study, show off or enjoy, etc. Some of them settle down, have children, those children grow up in the new country.

 

That's why it's mind-boggling to me it's still such a big deal.

 

Trade, Blight, assassins, bards and catastrophe aren't exactly events that cause migration(which is what it takes to create a multiethnic population) towards the places where they happen, so that's kind of a false argument. A few killers and spies from neighboring countries don't significantly affect the general gene pool, and singular ethnic foreigners growing up in a medieval country are either heavily discriminated against by the common man or made into jokes and novelties by the socialite. Again, perfect peaceful cohabitation isn't realistic. You might have the impression of people traveling all the time because the characters we play are part of a tiny minority who does travel a lot, spending very limited amounts of time in foreign locales for very specific reasons that have nothing to do with their livelihoods. That doesn't happen in the general populace.

 

What's mind-boggling to me is that some people make such a big deal of others not liking this cartoonish approach to worldbuilding. The original issue of this thread wasn't "Racism depicted in video games: pros and cons", it was "Why do people complain about this depiction of medieval society? That's racist, isn't it? I think that's racist!"

 

You attacked us first, so to speak, don't start complaining about it being a discussion now.

 

 

Some ways that Thedas is not like Medieval Europe that have nothing to do with magic:

 

1. Practically everyone, at least in the south, is literate. (We've read notes from everyone from hunters to cooks to jailers, and Hawke is actually surprised when Fenris can't read.)

 

2. Nationalism is a thing, to a far greater extent than it was in Earth's Middle Ages.

 

3. Everyone speaks a common language. Well, the Qunari still have their own day-to-day language, but everyone else seems to communicate in the common tongue. It's not like Medieval Europe where you could walk to the next county and have trouble understanding people.

 

4. There's no evidence of massive infant mortality - nobody has five dead siblings who died in childhood, the graveyards aren't full of people who died before they're five.

 

5. In fact, there's evidence that there might be reliable contraception, given the size of the average family. We know that the Circle has it, but to be fair that might be magic.

 

6. There are four different sapient species running around dealing with each other. (Or maybe five, because Fex.)

 

7. They've already got block printing. (Implied by Varric being a famous author - not very plausible if manuscripts were being copied by hand.)

 

8. The church is a matriarchy, and women are relatively equal in status to men and have far more social roles available to them than women in Europe's Medieval period.

 

9. Speaking of the church, nobody seems to think that kings are chosen by divine right.

 

10. Also, there are some black people about the place. (I mean, there were in Medieval Europe too, depending on whether you were in Spain or not. So maybe that's the thing that doesn't belong on this list.)

 

That's off the top of my head.

 

Great post, but there are mitigating circumstances for most of those examples.

 

1: The Chantry doesn't preach and teach in a dead foreign language that it considers holy and only for itself, giving average children much better opportunity to learn their letters along with early religious teaching.

 

2: ...What? What makes you think there wasn't nationalism in the middle ages compared to Thedas?

 

3: True, although there are obvious gameplay reasons behind this.

 

4+5: These two kind of contradict each other. The average family size is at least as much an indication of infant mortality as it is of reliable contraception. We don't get such an in-depth view into the lives of any established families that we have any reason to expect find out about the specific number of dead babies between surviving siblings. People didn't walk around advertising that, and not just because it would have hurt to talk about. Deeply ingrained feelings of shame and unworthiness and impotence were attached to the early deaths of one's children. The nobility might have some access to magical healing, yes, which would also help counter infant mortality as much as unwanted pregnancies.

 

6: That's what I mean by clearly defined fantastical elements. Part of what's supposed to separate Ferelden and medieval England is that in Ferelden there live dwarves and elves and "Qunari", and their cultures interacting with human ones is part of the world's history. Inexplicable and genuine national generosity towards foreigners is not shown to be one of the defined fantastical elements that separate Thedas and medieval Earth, and so shouldn't be discounted as such.

 

7: ...Why not? Books existed long before block printing did, and widespread fictional novels too. Scribes were a thing back then.

 

8: Again, a clearly defined part of the world intended to differ from ours. In theirs the messiah was a woman, inspiring a religion that treated women as the only gender with potential for divine authority, all part of the worldbuilding and intended atmosphere of the game world. Nothing to do with and hard to compare to isolated and inexplicable peaceful multiethnicism.

 

9: No matter how prevalent a religion is supposed to be, its priest(esse)s would have a hard time bending it's subjects' views so far around as to reconcile a deity having completely abandoned the world with that deity personally anointing each lawful monarch. So no, no divine will involved with becoming king in Andrestian Thedas.

 

10: If they aren't slaves, which we can say for certain that they aren't, how did they get there, where do they come from and why are nobody commenting on it in this otherwise pretty hateful, xenophobic society? If there's no sense or story at all behind it, if they're just there because the developers felt pressured into dotting the place with black people on general principle without ever daring to justify it, then why should you not feel justified in calling that ridiculous? And how exactly are you harming or threatening anybody's rights by doing so?

 

If a game was set in the 1000s in what's now Somalia, wouldn't it be silly to see the occasional Caucasian inexplicably walking around as part of society without anybody treating them as out of place? Of course it would, and you can bet that people who take realistic worldbuilding seriously would be annoyed by that as well.

[Vanilka]

Trade, Blight, assassins, bards and catastrophe aren't exactly events that cause migration(which is what it takes to create a multiethnic population) towards the places where they happen, so that's kind of a false argument. A few killers and spies from neighboring countries don't significantly affect the general gene pool, and singular ethnic foreigners growing up in a medieval country are either heavily discriminated against by the common man or made into jokes and novelties by the socialite. Again, perfect peaceful cohabitation isn't realistic. You might have the impression of people traveling all the time because the characters we play are part of a tiny minority who does travel a lot, spending very limited amounts of time in foreign locales for very specific reasons that have nothing to do with their livelihoods. That doesn't happen in the general populace.
 
What's mind-boggling to me is that some people make such a big deal of others not liking this cartoonish approach to worldbuilding. The original issue of this thread wasn't "Racism depicted in video games: pros and cons", it was "Why do people complain about this depiction of medieval society? That's racist, isn't it? I think that's racist!"

 
Yet again it needs to be repeated that Thedas is not the real world, Orlais is not France, Ferelden is not actually Britain, and their ways of thinking, living, etc. are not the same as the real world's. It's also that people make false comparisons in the first place expecting that Thedas works exactly like Earth, despite the game presenting us with evidence that this is not so. If you say that the events I mentioned do not cause migration, then you'll have to explain all the Fereldan refugees in Kirkwall and why you think that is an isolated and rare event.

 

The only people who make a big deal are usually people who aggressively argue against the "cartoonish approach to worldbuilding" because they think Thedas works exactly like Earth in everything and everybody who disagrees is wrong because real world's geography, prejudice, and such.
 

You attacked us first, so to speak, don't start complaining about it being a discussion now.

 

I attacked no one. I asked a question. How sensitive are you? With the way you worded your argument, particularly the last part of it, are you sure I'm the one attacking and belittling people? (And I never complained about it being a discussion so, please, be so kind and don't put words in my mouth.)

[Ashagar]

 

1: The Chantry doesn't preach and teach in a dead foreign language that it considers holy and only for itself, giving average children much better opportunity to learn their letters along with early religious teaching.

 

 

A minor point but Latin didn't truly become a dead language until the Renaissance when humanistic scholars decided to "purify" the language back to its classical roots throwing out more than a thousand years of evolution of the language making it impossible for most people to understand it. Another minor point is that there were two Latin languages in the middle ages, medieval Latin used science, literature, law, and administration and Ecclesiastical Latin used by the church.

 

Also on the matter of education having looked into it apparently there were schools available for commoners in the middle ages provided by a number of kingdoms and the church itself that required no payment but parents generally didn't to not send their children to them because they were needed to work to keep the family alive.

 

Also looking into it apparently a lot of the drop in literacy could be blamed on the chaos  in the late roman empire and the early middle ages, apparently constant warfare, plague and famine does massive damage to widespread education. The viking invasions for instance wiped out general literacy in Anglo-Saxon England much to the lament of Alfred the great.

[ThomasBlaine]

 
Yet again it needs to be repeated that Thedas is not the real world, Orlais is not France, Ferelden is not actually Britain, and their ways of thinking, living, etc. are not the same as the real world's. It's also that people make false comparisons in the first place expecting that Thedas works exactly like Earth, despite the game presenting us with evidence that this is not so. If you say that the events I mentioned do not cause migration, then you'll have to explain all the Fereldan refugees in Kirkwall and why you think that is an isolated and rare event.

 

The only people who make a big deal are usually people who aggressively argue against the "cartoonish approach to worldbuilding" because they think Thedas works exactly like Earth in everything and everybody who disagrees is wrong because real world's geography, prejudice, and such.
 

 

I attacked no one. I asked a question. How sensitive are you? With the way you worded your argument, particularly the last part of it, are you sure I'm the one attacking and belittling people? (And I never complained about it being a discussion so, please, be so kind and don't put words in my mouth.)

 

Who is it you think is walking around thinking that Thedas is the real world? The point is that none of the ways Thedas differs from the real world account for random black people here and there in a medieval Caucasian country, that the phenomenon has no logical or lore-based reason behind it in a game world originally prized for being authentic and well-thought out, and that some of us think that makes it pretty silly and immersion-breaking.

 

It isn't even a big deal to us, just one small deal among many many others, but it becomes a big deal when those of us who think that are terrorized for supposedly perpetuating real-world prejudice by people who insist on reducing the argument to "It's not the real world, they can have black people wherever they want, do you have something against black people?" as if that has anything to do with our annoyance.

 

By "you attacked us first, so to speak" I meant exactly what I said, that this thread was started by the OP trying to poke at what s/he assumed to be racism, and we've just been trying to explain what the issue is actually about. The thing about you complaining was because of your "it's mind-boggling to me it's still such a big deal", as if we're the ones "aggressively arguing" by defending ourselves from accusations of prejudice by people who apparently refuse to understand that something concerning, among other things, race can actually be game critique and not apartheid-nostalgia. And call me a hothead, but yes, that does infuriate me, and no, I don't see that I've put words in your mouth.

 

If I say that some of us enjoy fantasy as a fascinating study in what different worlds of combined realistic and fantastical elements would look like and work and what it would be like to live there, would that in any way make things clearer? We just take the realistic parts of fantasy worlds a little more seriously than you do because it's really really really interesting to mix that with things like dwarves and dragons and elves, and so are understandably annoyed when the writers of a very promising fantasy game series decide to dramatically lower the realistic quality of their setting from game to game - in a hundred different ways in addition to weird and nonsensical handling of races.

[Vanilka]

Who is it you think is walking around thinking that Thedas is the real world? The point is that none of the ways Thedas differs from the real world account for random black people here and there in a medieval Caucasian country, that the phenomenon has no logical or lore-based reason behind it in a game world originally prized for being authentic and well-thought out, and that some of us think that makes it pretty silly and immersion-breaking.

 
I've seen it brought up in this very thread countless times and that's what I'm also referring to. People comparing various parts of Thedas to Europe in Middle Ages and how it worked despite the fact that these are two very different things. When you use things like "medieval" and such, that's the impression you're giving. It just takes to have a look at the position of women in Thedas society and position of women in that period of time in our world or the way Thedas has no racial prejudice based on just skin colour whatsoever and instead has it against elves. Thedas has very modern mindset in some things and there's no reason or evidence that it's not different in thousands other ways. We have grey giant people invading from the North. And so on. For reference, you may have a look at the map:

Spoiler

 

It isn't even a big deal to us, just one small deal among many many others, but it becomes a big deal when those of us who think that are terrorized for supposedly perpetuating real-world prejudice by people who insist on reducing the argument to "It's not the real world, they can have black people wherever they want, do you have something against black people?" as if that has anything to do with our annoyance.

 

Terrorised? By having a discussion? That seems funny. Have you seen arguments of people that argue that e.g. including Vivienne at all, no matter how well written she is, is just being "politically correct" and catering to "SJWs"? They don't have trouble with the setting as such, they usually just fall back on it when they find out people don't share their sentiment. Do you feel that you're part of this group? If the answer is no, then you're not who OP was talking about at all. This is often not about worldbuilding at all. This is about people who argue ANY inclusion of these characters at all, despite the fact the game does have countries they can potentially come from, and also that doing otherwise is "SJWing". It has little to do with realism. The OP's point was, "Hello, did they not notice there were all kinds of people there from the beginning?"

 

By "you attacked us first, so to speak" I meant exactly what I said, that this thread was started by the OP trying to poke at what s/he assumed to be racism, and we've just been trying to explain what the issue is actually about. The thing about you complaining was because of your "it's mind-boggling to me it's still such a big deal", as if we're the ones "aggressively arguing" by defending ourselves from accusations of prejudice by people who apparently refuse to understand that something concerning, among other things, race can actually be game critique and not apartheid-nostalgia. And call me a hothead, but yes, that does infuriate me, and no, I don't see that I've put words in your mouth.

 

Except that OP came from another place on the internet, baffled by somebody who "was basically going into all this detail about how somehow 'SJWs' (whoever they are) forced bioware to include black people in this "dark european setting." If you feel attacked by that, then I don't know what to tell you. I think you're reading into it a little bit too much. So, yeah, the whole thing is mind-boggling.

 

If I say that some of us enjoy fantasy as a fascinating study in what different worlds of combined realistic and fantastical elements would look like and work and what it would be like to live there, would that in any way make things clearer? We just take the realistic parts of fantasy worlds a little more seriously than you do because it's really really really interesting to mix that with things like dwarves and dragons and elves, and so are understandably annoyed when the writers of a very promising fantasy game series decide to dramatically lower the realistic quality of their setting from game to game - in a hundred different ways in addition to weird and nonsensical handling of races.

 

And I have no issue with that and respect that. We all have our pet peeves and all that. From the rest of the post, I know you're not the kind of person I have problem with at all. In fact, you're not the kind of person I think I need to be arguing with at all. To me it is pointless to argue personal tastes and opinions. To me the only proper reaction is to accept them. I just want to say that as much as it is annoying for you guys to fight for realistic setting, it is annoying for us to hear angry ranting whenever something we like is included, even if it's done really well, usually blaming some "SJW" or other political agenda. (Again, not what you are doing here. Let me make that clear.)

 

Otherwise, the thing is that we seem to want different things. If it must be a big deal, then I'd rather have the current state of world explained, rather than culled. But that's just me.
 

[ThomasBlaine]

 
I've seen it brought up in this very thread countless times and that's what I'm also referring to. People comparing various parts of Thedas to Europe in Middle Ages and how it worked despite the fact that these are two very different things. When you use things like "medieval" and such, that's the impression you're giving. It just takes to have a look at the position of women in Thedas society and position of women in that period of time in our world or the way Thedas has no racial prejudice based on just skin colour whatsoever and instead has it against elves. Thedas has very modern mindset and there's no reason or evidence that it's not different in thousands other ways. We have grey giant people invading from the North. And so on. For reference, you may have a look at the map:

Spoiler

 

 

Terrorised? By having a discussion? That seems funny. Have you seen arguments of people that argue that e.g. including Vivienne at all, no matter how well written she is, is just being "politically correct" and catering to "SJWs"? They don't have trouble with the setting as such, they usually just fall back on it when they find out people don't share their sentiment. Do you feel that you're part of this group? If the answer is no, then you're not who OP was talking about at all. This is often not about worldbuilding at all. This is about people who argue ANY inclusion of these characters at all, despite the fact the game does have countries they can potentially come from, and also that doing otherwise is "SJWing". It has little to do with realism. The OP's point was, "Hello, did they not notice there were all kinds of people there from the beginning?"

 

 

Except that OP came from another place on the internet, baffled by somebody who "was basically going into all this detail about how somehow 'SJWs' (whoever they are) forced bioware to include black people in this "dark european setting." If you feel attacked by that, then I don't know what to tell you. I think you're reading into it a little bit too much. So, yeah, the whole thing is mind-boggling.

 

 

And I have no issue with that and respect that. We all have our pet peeves and all that. From the rest of the post, I know you're not the kind of person I have problem with at all. In fact, you're not the kind of person I think I need to be arguing with at all. To me it is pointless to argue personal tastes. To me the only proper reaction is to accept them. I just want to say that as much as it is annoying for you guys to fight for realistic setting, it is annoying for us to hear angry ranting whenever something we like is included, even if it's done really well.

 

The thing is that we seem to want different things. If it must be a big deal, then I'd rather have the current state of world explained, rather than culled. But that's just me.
 

 

So where exactly do you feel you're drawing the line between the people whose personal tastes you respect and shouldn't be arguing with and the people who you think are just falling back on stock arguments to hide their prejudice and need to be put in their place? I've never used the term "SJW", but I do get people resenting television networks, movie directors and game developers making strange and forced decisions that compromise the authenticity of their product out of fear of appearing politically incorrect to masses always looking for something to be outraged over, which as I understand it is the thrust of that argument.

 

While it's true that I can't speak for everyone, I can definitely tell you that the reason things like that turn me off have to do with pretty much everything but an irrational hatred towards non-caucasian people, homosexuals, women, the mentally challenged or anyone else that people may feel the need to champion in such a context.

 

What I, and others I imagine, have a problem with is that oppressive drive to cull, as you say, everything that sounds or seems or looks even vaguely like something someone might feel "problematic", like a lawnmower flattening entire corn fields looking for weed that it can't actually identify. Because, you know, you can't read thoughts. And not just because it prevents us from examining and exploring issues that need to be examined and explored to potentially alleviate, or because it's insanely hypocritical, going directly against the notions of both free thought and free speech, or because it perpetually tries to draw you into this ridiculously simplistic view of the world where symmetry and fairness are the same thing.

 

The biggest problem for me right now is that the fake crap it produces in entertainment in place of whatever it sees fit to take issue with is hard to enjoy or believe for anyone who wants to see fictional people and societies that operate remotely like people and societies do.

 

And underneath all those thoughts is this absolute and bone-deep terror that this generation of adults raised by cartoons is steadily growing incapable of just dealing with things.

[Vanilka]

So where exactly do you feel you're drawing the line between the people whose personal tastes you respect and shouldn't be arguing with and the people who you think are just falling back on stock arguments to hide their prejudice and need to be put in their place? I've never used the term "SJW", but I do get people resenting television networks, movie directors and game developers making strange and forced decisions that compromise the authenticity of their product out of fear of appearing politically incorrect to masses always looking for something to be outraged over, which as I understand it is the thrust of that argument.
 
While it's true that I can't speak for everyone, I can definitely tell you that the reason things like that turn me off have to do with pretty much everything but an irrational hatred towards non-caucasian people, homosexuals, women, the mentally challenged or anyone else that people may feel the need to champion in such a context.
 
What I, and others I imagine, have a problem with is that oppressive drive to cull, as you say, everything that sounds or seems or looks even vaguely like something someone might feel "problematic", like a lawnmower flattening entire corn fields looking for weed that it can't actually identify. Because, you know, you can't read thoughts. And not just because it prevents us from examining and exploring issues that need to be examined and explored to potentially alleviate, or because it's insanely hypocritical, going directly against the notions of both free thought and free speech, or because it perpetually tries to draw you into this ridiculously simplistic view of the world where symmetry and fairness are the same thing.
 
The biggest problem for me right now is that the fake crap it produces in entertainment in place of whatever it sees fit to take issue with is hard to enjoy or believe for anyone who wants to see fictional people and societies that operate remotely like people and societies do.

 
Yay for long off topic.
 
I draw the line according to the arguments people make and how they're handing discussions. If somebody's adamant against the inclusion of something, no matter how well it is handled, and somewhere in the middle remembers that "Oh, and it doesn't fit the setting," then that's pretty suspicious. If somebody keeps arguing something that "shouldn't be" because of REASONS, despite given facts taken right out of the game to disprove them. When they have no problem to act offensive and insult others. Etc.
 
I'd also like to see how companies "compromise the authenticity of their product out of fear of appearing 'politically incorrect' to masses". That's what I'm talking about. Making these sorts of ridiculous leaps. Some gamers love to believe that some companies are forced by some sort of irrational, vocal handful of people to do whatever, when ultimately most companies just keep doing their thing and worry about making money and popular products. If they go in particular directions, it is because they are interested in them for one reason or another - maybe they came up with it themselves, maybe they listened to feedback and liked it, etc. If they make mistakes, they just make mistakes.

 

Being friendly to the general audience also doesn't mean that we can't have stories about xenophobia, violence, and other dark topics. It is about the execution that respects its audience while dealing with these topics. Being friendly to the general audience doesn't mean censorship, either. It doesn't equal bad quality. If you believe there's some problem with the worldbuilding, then it is with the worldbuilding, not because this or that was included, not "political correctness", but because whatever was included or done was poorly executed.

 

And underlying all those thoughts is this absolute and bone-deep terror that this generation of adults raised by cartoons is steadily growing incapable of just dealing with things.

Oh, dear lord. Just, bye.

 

PS: Please, don't let your TV and video games raise your children.

[ThomasBlaine]

 
Yay for long off topic.
 
I draw the line according to the arguments people make and how they're handing discussions. If somebody's adamant against the inclusion of something, no matter how well it is handled, and somewhere in the middle remembers that "Oh, and it doesn't fit the setting," then that's pretty suspicious. If somebody keeps arguing something that "shouldn't be" because of REASONS, despite given facts taken right out of the game to disprove them. When they have no problem to act offensive and insult others. Etc.
 
I'd also like to see how companies "compromise the authenticity of their product out of fear of appearing 'politically incorrect' to masses". That's what I'm talking about. Making these sorts of ridiculous leaps. Some gamers love to believe that some companies are forced by some sort of irrational, vocal handful of people to do whatever, when ultimately most companies just keep doing their thing and worry about making money and popular products. If they go in particular directions, it is because they are interested in them for one reason or another - maybe they came up with it themselves, maybe they listened to feedback and liked it, etc. If they make mistakes, they just make mistakes.

 

Being friendly to the general audience also doesn't mean that we can't have stories about xenophoby, violence, and other dark topics. It is about the execution that respects its audience while dealing with these topics. Being friendly to the general audience doesn't mean censorship, either. It doesn't equal bad quality. If you believe there's some problem with the worldbuilding, then it is with the worldbuilding, not because this or that was included, not "political correctness", but because whatever was included or done was poorly executed.

 

Oh, dear lord. Just, bye.

 

PS: Please, don't let your TV and video games raise your children.

 

Heh, what was that about accepting the personal tastes and opinions of others being the only right thing to do? You literally asked me if I fell into that horribly offensive group you think hangs around on game forums looking for fellow closet racists to connect with, and I said my piece. Don't be such a baby.

 

I won't argue that a person or two like the ones you have such a problem with are probably on here somewhere, but unless someone appointed you Bioware's Bigby Wolf I don't see how it's your job to suss out which of the people criticizing your darlings are secretly bigots who need to be put down and which are just obsessed geeks who suck at communication. If you think you've made a case as compelling as possible and it isn't taking then move on, don't worry so much about the ulterior motives and sinister purposes that keep us from relenting to your little crusades. And no, let's not get into the now suddenly dubious existence of outrage culture, or the effect it has on entertainment. You can only take this madness so far.

 

I'm kind of curious what you think "being friendly to the general audience" means exactly if not censorship. It's actually an apt euphemism, in the same sense that 'providing our children the best and safest possible environment in which to rise above the competition' is a pretty good spin on genocide.

 

Aaw, and here I bared my soul to you and everything. Now you've hurt my feelings. So much for universal acceptance. And I guess our union of the minds is over, then.

[Vanilka]

Heh, what was that about accepting the personal tastes and opinions of others being the only right thing to do? You literally asked me if I fell into that horribly offensive group you think hangs around on game forums looking for fellow closet racists to connect with, and I said my piece. Don't be such a baby.
 
I won't argue that a person or two like the ones you have such a problem with are probably on here somewhere, but unless someone appointed you Bioware's Bigby Wolf I don't see how it's your job to suss out which of the people criticizing your darlings are secretly bigots who need to be put down and which are just obsessed geeks who suck at communication. If you think you've made a case as compelling as possible and it isn't taking then move on, don't worry so much about the ulterior motives and sinister purposes that keep us from relenting to your little crusades. And no, let's not get into the now suddenly dubious existence of outrage culture, or the effect it has on entertainment. You can only take this madness so far.
 
I'm kind of curious what you think "being friendly to the general audience" means exactly if not censorship. It's actually an apt euphemism, in the same sense that 'providing our children the best and safest possible environment in which to rise above the competition' is a pretty good spin on genocide.
 
Aaw, and here I bared my soul to you and everything. Now you've hurt my feelings. So much for universal acceptance. And I guess our union of the minds is over, then.

 
You're the one making this discussion ridiculous and derailing, making it about you and your hurt feelings as regards the game's world building and your irrational fears because you think media give children mental problems, then you call me a baby. Sure. Whatever you say.
 
It's not "my job" and I have never stated so. God, nor do I want it to be. I said my piece about why I think Thedas might be diverse and you randomly picked up on it and dismissed it, because your opinion is more correct than anyone else's of course and we couldn't just agree to disagree because we know with 100% accuracy how everything in Thedas works (This is supposed to be sarcasm, just for the record.), after you conveniently ignored what I thought was a rather relevant point about refugees in Kirkwall, in order to drive this to this ridiculous place. You can make your baseless assumptions in attempts to offend me, I don't really mind or care.
 
I can mostly chuckle at your idea of censorship. Fans being like, "Hey, I like this, but maybe not this," and BioWare being like, "Okay," is not censorship. Even if the fans scream that they hate something, like many are currently yelling they despise the open world approach of Inquisition, that's still not censorship. It's criticism. Government can censor the media. Fans can hardly censor anything. If a company removes something from their game because they agree with their fans or think it's better for their games to sell, that's not censorship, it's marketing.

 

Oh, god, the genocide comparison and the fact you even thought of bringing it up in this context... Oh my. Please, tell me you're just successfully trolling me. Really. I will be glad to find out I've been had.

 

I like how you got all passive aggressive though, lol. Okay. Have a nice day, I guess.

[ThomasBlaine]

 
You're the one making this discussion ridiculous and derailing, making it about you and your hurt feelings as regards the game's world building and your irrational fears because you think media give children mental problems, then you call me a baby. Sure. Whatever you say.
 
It's not "my job" and I have never stated so. God, nor do I want it to be. I said my piece about why I think Thedas might be diverse and you randomly picked up on it and dismissed it, because your opinion is more correct than anyone else's of course and we couldn't just agree to disagree because we know with 100% accuracy how everything in Thedas works (This is supposed to be sarcasm, just for the record.), after you conveniently ignored what I thought was a rather relevant point about refugees in Kirkwall, in order to drive this to this ridiculous place. You can make your baseless assumption in attempts to offend me, I don't really mind or care.
 
I can mostly chuckle at your idea of censorship. Fans being like, "Hey, I like this, but maybe not this," and BioWare being like, "Okay," is not censorship. Even if the fans scream that they hate something, like many are currently yelling they despise the open world approach of Inquisition, that's still not censorship. It's criticism. Government can censor the media. Fans can hardly censor anything. If a company removes something from their game because they agree with their fans or think it's better for their games to sell, that's not censorship, it's marketing.

 

Oh, god, the genocide comparison. Oh my. Please, tell me you're just successfully trolling me. Really. I will be glad to find out I've been had.

 

I like how you got all passive aggressive, lol. Okay. Have a nice day, I guess.

 

Yes. Insulting, derailing and passive-aggressive, and absolutely loving those baseless assumptions. All me. None of that going around elsewhere. Gotcha.

 

So now it's about me not agreeing to disagree? I think we were getting there before you went off about the uncouth conspiracy of racists hiding behind arguments similar to mine whom you couldn't decide if I was colluding with. Don't act like I'm the one who took this somewhere ridiculous. When did I indicate that I mind you enjoying and thinking about the games however you want? You're the ones who take exception to me and others "fighting for a realistic setting" and ranting about things you like. Because clearly we don't have a right to do that without being accused of "problematic thinking". Again, really digging the acceptance.

 

How does Fereldan refugees in Kirkwall fleeing the Blight do anything to justify foreign refugees in Ferelden during the same or worse events? You're right that migrations do happen in Thedas, yes, but extrapolating a suicidal exodus which nobody ever mentions towards the poorest country on the continent which is also the ground zero of an escalating Blight and/or demon invasion from all corners of the world is something of a leap from there.

 

I got a bit overzealous with the outrage thing, yeah. Not that I don't find it pathetic and self-destructive, but it's not worth getting that worked up over. Sue me.

 

Well, after that wonderfully condescending "bye" I didn't expect you to reply to me again. We can go on if you like, but it seems that we've pretty much exhausted the topic. Have a nice day yourself?

[Vanilka]

Yes. Insulting, derailing and passive-aggressive, and absolutely loving those baseless assumptions. All me. None of that going around elsewhere. Gotcha.
 
So now it's about me not agreeing to disagree? I think we were getting there before you went off about the uncouth conspiracy of racists hiding behind arguments similar to mine whom you couldn't decide if I was colluding with. Don't act like I'm the one who took this somewhere ridiculous. When did I indicate that I mind you enjoying and thinking about the games however you want? You're the ones who take exception to me and others "fighting for a realistic setting" and ranting about things you like. Because clearly we don't have a right to do that without being accused of "problematic thinking". Again, really digging the acceptance.

 
Ugh, no, you're putting words in my mouth the entire time. I said the problem was with people that protest against stuff being included at all no matter how well done it is and with people who act as if some stuff was only added with Inquisition while ignoring the previous games, and I also went out of my way to exclude you because I thought you seemed reasonable. And I'd very much like to keep thinking that, but I also feel that it's not my fault that you immediately jumped on the opportunity to get offended by it. I was trying to agree to disagree quite some time ago, but you weren't happy with that, either. So, yeah, it seems we could keep going forever, but at this point we're just making the thread unpleasant for ourselves and everybody else.
 

How does Fereldan refugees in Kirkwall fleeing the Blight do anything to justify foreign refugees in Ferelden during the same or worse events? You're right that migrations do happen in Thedas, yes, but extrapolating a suicidal exodus which nobody ever mentions towards the poorest country on the continent which is also the ground zero of an escalating Blight and/or demon invasion from all corners of the world is something of a leap from there.

I made that argument because you said that things I mentioned earlier changed nothing. I pointed that out as an example of the fact that people do get forced out of their homes and countries for various reasons. I didn't want to list a bunch and I was talking in general. And, no, it doesn't take apocalyptic events. DAI is scattered with notes and NPCs fleeing e.g. Exalted Planes and other places with constant unrest. (Could've been portrayed better but, eh, wrong discussion.) Thedas seems to have something crap happening every ten years. The entire history of Thedas is full of that. I don't think that and other stuff gets isolated to Ferelden and Orlais. Whatever. But it's not the only reason why people move from place to place. If you don't think I have any point whatsoever in whatever I said before, I'm okay with that, but I felt you skipped the on-topic discussion before just to jump on the other stuff.
 

I got a bit overzealous with the outrage thing, yeah. Not that I don't find it pathetic and self-destructive, but it's not worth getting that worked up over. Sue me.

 

Look, I don't want or like to argue and I'm not angry with you. I'm old enough not to let internet get to me. We're just having a disagreement. A crappy disagreement at that. So, yeah, we probably shouldn't waste our precious little time with it. I'm sure you've got something more entertaining and less frustrating to do yourself.
 

Well, after that wonderfully condescending "bye" I didn't expect you to reply to me again. We can go on if you like, but it seems that we've pretty much exhausted the topic. Have a nice day yourself?

Yeah, okay, I admit that was a dick move, sorry. I do think it is ridiculous though to think that everybody's somehow growing oversensitive to stuff, media, or people because of media, or that they can't deal with real life because of it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm getting desensitised to many things in media, be it sex or violence. I mean, unless you judge all young people based on Tumblr, it should be all fine. That's why I was so... surprised by the notion. But I guess that unless we have any research to back it up, we might both as well shut up.

Anyway. Dropping the topic. I suppose I should say, sorry for the offence made.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

No, it wouldn't. We're given no reason to believe that more travel occurs in Thedas than did in medieval Europe. Mixed gene pools require a clear and/or constant influx of foreign genes, which simply doesn't occur without modern transportation or a history of warfare between two cultures of different ethnic origins wherein one has or is occupying the other, none of which applies to either Orlais or Ferelden where DA:O and DAI take place. Thedas is only unlike medieval Europe in the ways that it's shown to be unlike medieval Europe, and the way it's presented doesn't account for sudden and inexplicable multiethnicism.

 

Just because a setting has some fantastical elements doesn't mean it's not supposed to follow any logic at all, unless the setting being illogical and inconsistent is specifically part of what makes it fantastical, such as for example with the Fade. In Thedas the principles of cause and effect, human nature and a mildly adjusted spin on the laws of physics are all supposed to be in effect unless stated otherwise. Mixed racial groups, among other things, happen to be subject to those.

 

If you're so comfortable saying that it being fantasy excuses everything and that there's no point analyzing or finding holes in the logic because that's what your idea of the genre is, why can't you afford the same courtesy to people who just like to take the consistency in fantasy settings a little more seriously? You not caring about that doesn't make you a lunatic who thinks nothing in the world is real, why should us caring it about make us racists and worse just because those issues are part of a consistent depiction of reality? Hoping for the opportunity to kill Howe doesn't make us supportive of frontier justice, does it?

 

And more importantly, why would painting those issues over with crayons as if they don't and have never existed in any way do any good, that people have such a problem with some of us disapproving of the attempt? Any highly realistic and merciless depiction of human cruelty is a hundred times better at demonstrating how horrible such a thing is and how important it is to safeguard against it than blissful images of people unaccountably getting along with a subtle implication of "or else..."

 

Supporting censorship of something because you find it "problematic" is one of the most destructive things you can possibly do. If problems could be censored away then we'd be living in a perfect world by now. Society betters itself by looking straight in the mirror and figuring out where the issues come from as it recognizes them, and we're all supposed to halt that process for fear of touching on something you feel sensitive about? Get over yourself.

I wasn't crying, you know.  I'm perfectly calm.  It's not important to me in the slightest.  I was just trying to add some logic to the conversation.

[In Exile]

Humans aren't native to Thedas - they came from "elsewhere" in at least one or more migrations. We have no idea what Dwarves are or were, given Descent. And as for elves, well, we learn that they had a means of mass transportation that's far more advanced than anything IRL. All this absurd arble-garble in a setting that (i) actively eschews genetics; and (ii) hand-writing about migration patterns is, really, kind of just embarrassing. 

[Ashagar]

Yes at least two migrations at the very least for humans given we have at least two major different cultural tribal groups migrating out of the north and west in the lore plus groups that get mentioned in lore but nothing given on where they came from which is unsurprising given in real life there are cultures that nobody knows how they got there and where they came from like the Etruscans and Basques.

[Heimdall]

Humans aren't native to Thedas - they came from "elsewhere" in at least one or more migrations. We have no idea what Dwarves are or were, given Descent. And as for elves, well, we learn that they had a means of mass transportation that's far more advanced than anything IRL. All this absurd arble-garble in a setting that (i) actively eschews genetics; and (ii) hand-writing about migration patterns is, really, kind of just embarrassing.

The only ones we really know much about are the Neromenians that the Tevinter descend from. The Alamarri apparently came from the west. The Rivaini presumably came from somewhere else. No information about the Ciriane people that inhabit Orlais or the Planascene people that came to inhabit the Free Marches (And apparently the Ciriane and Planascene people both descend from "Hacian" tribes according to the wiki)

[Gileadan]

The cynic in me thinks that at least a part of the reason for the ethnic diversity in DA:I is that it's actually an attempt to hide the re-use of models for groups of NPCs a bit. A group of Inquisition soldiers with the same face and body looks at least a bit different if skin and hair color are chosen randomly.  And it's gotta be random given some of the weird combinations you could get. For example, just replay the scene of Ser Barris' promotion a few times. At the end, the camera turns to show four saluting templars (more likely squires or something though, given their not very templary looking armor). All four use the same model, but the skin and hair color are chosen randomly every time.

[Illegitimus]

The cynic in me thinks that at least a part of the reason for the ethnic diversity in DA:I is that it's actually an attempt to hide the re-use of models for groups of NPCs a bit. A group of Inquisition soldiers with the same face and body looks at least a bit different if skin and hair color are chosen randomly.  And it's gotta be random given some of the weird combinations you could get. For example, just replay the scene of Ser Barris' promotion a few times. At the end, the camera turns to show four saluting templars (more likely squires or something though, given their not very templary looking armor). All four use the same model, but the skin and hair color are chosen randomly every time.

 

Which would put it in the category of the improbable hair colours and style of Japanese cartoons.  It lets you tell the characters apart with a minimum of work.  

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

I'm not mad. One can disagree and question without being angry.

Yet you accusing me of lying which I didn't.

[Deadmac]

I saw a article on another site and I was deeply troubled, but mostly curious about something.

 

The author was basically going into all this detail about how somehow "SJWs"(whoever they are) forced bioware to include black people in this "dark european setting". It was long and the author(supposedly not white, but I has suspicions about that) argued that was the case because Bioware artists, writers, and devs used different cultures in Europe and the Ottoman empire for the basis of the different societies in Dragon Age: Origins.

 

 

So my question is this...did people legitimately believe this was an all white European ethnic setting?

"Dragon Age" draws upon European folk lore. During the medieval and dark age periods, black people were practically non-existent in Europe. People who lived in Africa had an entirely different set of norms and beliefs. Once the British Empire came into existence, the poor white civilizations, Irish and Scottish specifically, were conquered and put into slavery. As a matter of actual historical context, the Portuguese were originally responsible for slavery. Even though black people were becoming slaves, the poor white cultures in Europe had been slaves for years. In order to try to control Ireland, the British poisoned the food supply. (Aka - The Potato Famine). Around the same time period, the Egyptians were also using slaves.

At this exact point in time, white and black females are sex slaves in Mexico, Central America, and Middle-East.

 

Africans were not the only slaves.

 

Second, "Dragon Age" borrows 100% of its themes from European cultures and mythologies. Although I enjoy the diverse nature of "Dragon Age: Inquisition", the inclusion of Africans make the game historically, regionally, and mythology inaccurate. When it comes to lesbians and gays, you 'can' find them throughout the region. Plato was a very famous bisexual.

 

Up until I saw this post, I didn't think diversity was an issue. I live colorblind.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

"Dragon Age" draws upon European folk lore. During the medieval and dark age periods, black people were practically non-existent in Europe. People who lived in Africa had an entirely different set of norms and beliefs. Once the British Empire came into existence, the poor white civilizations, Portuguese, Irish, Scottish, and Spain specifically, were conquered and put into slavery. As a matter of actual historical context, the British were originally responsible for slavery. Even though black people were becoming slaves, the poor white cultures in Europe had been slaves for years. In order to try to control Ireland, the British poisoned the food supply. (Aka - The Potato Famine). Around the same time period, the Egyptians were also using white and black slaves.

Africans were not the only slaves.

Second, "Dragon Age" borrows 100% of its themes from European cultures and mythologies. Although I enjoy the diverse nature of "Dragon Age: Inquisition", the inclusion of Africans make the game historical and mythological inaccurate. When it comes to lesbians and gays, you 'can' find them throughout the region.

Egyptians never have slaves and it was the Ottoman Turks who enslaving Africans first the British came last. Africans have indentured servitude which means if you did something wrong (not like murder or nothing cause we never have crime and a penal system) you spend your time by doing service to a family and a community. There is never any historical evidence of Africans owning slaves.

[Heimdall]

Egyptians never have slaves and it was the Ottoman Turks who enslaving Africans first the British came last. Africans have indentured servitude which means if you did something wrong (not like murder or nothing cause we never have crime and a penal system) you spend your time by doing service to a family and a community. There is never any historical evidence of Africans owning slaves.

...Wow.

Okay, to start Ancient Egypt very much had slaves, mostly acquired through prisoners of war. Second, indentured servitude is a form of slavery. In fact, some of the earliest African slaves carried across the Atlantic by Europeans were recorded as "servants indentured for a period of 99 years", because the Europeans themselves were fairly new to this idea of lifelong chattel slavery and were struggling to find a vocabulary for it in the early years. Funny thing, white indentured servants and black slaves were actually seen as part of the same social class in the early settlements of north america. Some freed black men actually married white women that had been indentured servants (the racial fear of miscegenation emerged later). Not all of those indentures were for life in the early years either: Anthony Johnson

Capturing and enslaving rivals in war was a longstanding practice by the time Europeans arrived in west Africa, certainly it was a kinder servitude than the many sold across the sea faced thereafter and they were often able to fully join the rival group that captured them, but it was slavery nonetheless. Virtually every civilization that has every existed on the face of the earth has practiced some form of slavery at some point.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

...Wow.
Okay, to start Ancient Egypt very much had slaves, mostly acquired through prisoners of war. Second, indentured servitude is a form of slavery. In fact, some of the earliest African slaves carried across the Atlantic by Europeans were recorded as "servants indentured for a period of 99 years", because the Europeans themselves were fairly new to this idea of lifelong chattel slavery and were struggling to find a vocabulary for it in the early years. Funny thing, white indentured servants and black slaves were actually seen as part of the same social class in the early settlements of north america. Some freed black men actually married white women that had been indentured servants (the racial fear of miscegenation emerged later). Not all of those indentures were for life in the early years either: Anthony Johnson
Capturing and enslaving rivals in war was a longstanding practice by the time Europeans arrived in west Africa, certainly it was a kinder servitude than the many sold across the sea faced thereafter and they were often able to fully join the rival group that captured them, but it was slavery nonetheless. Virtually every civilization that has every existed on the face of the earth has practiced some form of slavery at some point.

http://hoax-alert.le...-black-man.html

They whitewashing slavery in Africa and in America. Europeans are the only ones who commited crimes against humanity by enslaving Africans against their will, and have the nerve of changing history about Africans are "indentured servants" in colonial times. That's got to be the dumbest **** I've ever heard.

[Heimdall]

http://hoax-alert.le...-black-man.html

They whitewashing slavery in Africa and in America. Europeans are the only ones who commited crimes against humanity by enslaving Africans against their will, and have the nerve of changing history about Africans are "indentured servants" in colonial times. That's got to be the dumbest **** I've ever heard.

Oh please, I'm not whitewashing anything. I'm just more knowledgeable about the nuances of history than you are. You may prefer a more simplistic narrative that supports your anti-western sentiment, but that doesn't make it true. For the record, I never claimed that Anthony Johnson was he first slaveholder in America or some such nonsense. He was, however, an African that was enslaved in a war within Africa, sold to an Arab slave trader, then sold to Europeans and made an indentured servant, being freed after a period of years and becoming a prominent landowner in the 1600s. Which, yes, meant that he employed other indentured Africans. The age of African indentured servitude was brief, it ended during Johnson's lifetime, but it did happen. The chattel slavery of the Atlantic slave trade and the racism that Europeans used to justify it developed over time, not all at once. This doesn't lessen how bad it was.

Anyway, very few Africans were actually forced into slavery by Europeans directly. European slavetraders hated venturing into Africa, where they tended to die to disease in droves. Instead, they established several ports off the coast and purchased slaves from Africans slavers, sometimes prisoners of war, sometimes from a village raided specifically for the purpose of being sold to the Europeans. This caused extreme social disruption within African kingdoms as more and more slaving outlaws arose to profit from the demand of the Atlantic Slave Trade.

And even while all this was going on, there was another overland slave trade siphoning off west and Central African slaves into the Muslim world. None of this makes what happened any less reprehensible, but what you describe isn't accurate.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

http://nkjemisin.com...h-race-matters/