168 réponses à ce sujet

[vertigomez]

There might be cultural trappings written around it, but that's just fluff. What I care more about are archetypes. The basic rogue archetype for dwarves could have been human (same with mercs and Qunari). And it shut me out of that archetype by tying it to a race. I know you're trying to engender some peace by saying "to each their own", but I'll always be a bit resentful about it. I have a crappy game because of this. While one group gets to enjoy themselves. 
 
If it had been much more dwarven specific and unique, I wouldn't complain. As it is, it's just robbing people of options.

If the rogueish criminal type had been tied to a human origin, there would still be people who are resentful about it (because they lost their favorite race). The only difference is that this time around it affects you.

[straykat]

If the rogueish criminal type had been tied to a human origin, there would still be people who are resentful about it (because they lost their favorite race). The only difference is that this time around it affects you.

 

That could have been more open across all races. Not just one or the other.

 

Although I suspect all three were human once. Apparently they planned their original inquisitor like Hawke, but he/she was a rogue. But that's another story.

[Xilizhra]

Okay? Non-humans are still a minority. There are never going to be as many elves or qunari or dwarves in a companion roster as there are humans. Not thrilled about it, but that's statistics for you.

That the exact same argument is used for people who want more straight than gay romance options is something that I suspect we both should find unsettling.

 

 

Ermmhmmnn... >_____>

Erm?

[straykat]

That the exact same argument is used for people who want more straight than gay romance options is something that I suspect we both should find unsettling.

 

 

Erm?

 

Unsettling though it may be, ME2 is their last great game imo

[vertigomez]

That the exact same argument is used for people who want more straight than gay romance options is something that I suspect we both should find unsettling.

Elves are not real. Gay people are.
 

Erm?

I don't think Solas is a hackneyed antagonist.

That could have been more open across all races. Not just one or the other.
 
Although I suspect all three were human once. Apparently they planned their original inquisitor like Hawke, but he/she was a rogue. But that's another story.

I'd be fine with more flexible backgrounds. I just don't want to sacrifice multiple races to get there.

[straykat]

Elves are not real. Gay people are.
 

I don't think Solas is a hackneyed antagonist.


I'd be fine with more flexible backgrounds. I just don't want to sacrifice multiple races to get there.

 

I'll take focused characters (and set my expectations accordingly) or something very open ended (TES, D&D, etc), but this kind of caused me grief. It's like the worst of both worlds imo.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Unsettling though it may be, ME2 is their last great game imo

I like the ME series and I'm optimistic about Andromeda, but generally have never been able to get as invested in ME games. It's not just the gay thing, in ME3 I liked both m/m LIs more than the options in Inquisition, but I still just didn't attach to the characters or setting as much as even my least favorite DA game. I don't know what it is, even. It's not the setting. I like sci-fi stuff. I love AI theme plots, like the Geth. Their characters just always seem more bland and undeveloped, to me. I can't put my finger on it.

[Xilizhra]

Elves are not real. Gay people are.

Aside from the fact that elves are derived from real people, the same argument against it--that regular population statistics never really apply when forming the party--still applies.

 

 

I don't think Solas is a hackneyed antagonist.

He's a good character, but I really hate the thought of him being an antagonist.

[vertigomez]

Aside from the fact that elves are derived from real people, the same argument against it--that regular population statistics never really apply when forming the party--still applies.

If we venture to northern Thedas and everyone is lily white or heterosexual, I'll have a complaint. But two elven companions with vastly different perspectives doesn't offend me more than there only being one dwarf and one qunari.
 

He's a good character, but I really hate the thought of him being an antagonist.

No offense, but until he decides not to kill everyone or we get more insight into his specific goals, there's no way for him not to be an antagonist. We don't have enough information right now. It's all, if your people must die...

[straykat]

I like the ME series and I'm optimistic about Andromeda, but generally have never been able to get as invested in ME games. It's not just the gay thing, in ME3 I liked both m/m LIs more than the options in Inquisition, but I still just didn't attach to the characters or setting as much as even my least favorite DA game. I don't know what it is, even. It's not the setting. I like sci-fi stuff. I love AI theme plots, like the Geth. Their characters just always seem more bland and undeveloped, to me. I can't put my finger on it.

 

Heh.. I don't know what to say. I wouldn't try to change you... at least you're giving it a chance

 

I'm not exactly excited about Andromeda though. I thought I had closure... now I gotta think about it again.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

No offense, but until he decides not to kill everyone or we get more insight into his specific goals, there's no way for him not to be an antagonist. We don't have enough information right now. It's all, if your people must die...

I feel like that last conversation with Solas is all hyperbole to hype up the next game, honestly. It's too contradictory to make sense if taken literally. He says there was a time before the veil, but bringing down the veil will KILL EVERYONE OMG. He will do anything to save the elven people... but what he's going to do is going to kill all of them. It's nonsense. I think they just wanted to get people stirred up without actually telling them anything. We'll have to wait until the plot picks up again to get any real idea what he's planning and how hard "evil" he is.  

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I don't think it's that confusing or contradictory. There's no reason to doubt his word that destroying the Veil would be destructive and we see repeatedly that Ancient Elves don't see modern elves as their own people.

[straykat]

I forgot to mention I haven't even played Trespasser

 

Just getting that out of the way.... a bit late.

 

But I think I get the gist of it. The first time I ever talked to Solas, I might've got the gist. His whole "spirits" schtick annoyed me right away. I'm surprised he still had so many fans.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I don't think it's that confusing or contradictory. There's no reason to doubt his word that destroying the Veil would be destructive and we see repeatedly that Ancient Elves don't see modern elves as their own people.

What is different about people then vs now that not having a veil will kill them? How is Solas saving the elven people if they are all dead, along with literally everyone else? I don't see how it makes sense, or how any of this makes sense for anything we knew about him previously. Unless there's some additional secret, like ancient elves he can awaken by dropping the veil, it doesn't make sense. His narrative is that he wants to undo what he sees as having broken the world, because he thinks that will fix it. An empty, dead world wouldn't be "fixed". There has to be something else. 

[LobselVith8]

If we venture to northern Thedas and everyone is lily white or heterosexual, I'll have a complaint. But two elven companions with vastly different perspectives doesn't offend me more than there only being one dwarf and one qunari.

 

I don't think having two elven companions who treat your culture and religion like crap is much of a trade-off, though. Not to say I think the dwarven or qunari fared much better, though. It is unfortunate, for example, that the only time Cadash can mention the Stone is in a conversation to Josephine, but that was sort of the case with all the non-human options. It's a fairly human-centric narrative.

 

No offense, but until he decides not to kill everyone or we get more insight into his specific goals, there's no way for him not to be an antagonist. We don't have enough information right now. It's all, if your people must die...

 

Clearly, he's in an antagonist position as Fen'Harel, but it may be possible to persuade Solas to stand down rather than outright kill him (similar to getting Loghain to concede defeat without having to execute him).

[Jedi Master of Orion]

What is different about people then vs now that not having a veil will kill them? How is Solas saving the elven people if they are all dead, along with literally everyone else? I don't see how it makes sense, or how any of this makes sense for anything we knew about him previously. Unless there's some additional secret, like ancient elves he can awaken by dropping the veil, it doesn't make sense. His narrative is that he wants to undo what he sees as having broken the world, because he thinks that will fix it. An empty, dead world wouldn't be "fixed". There has to be something else. 

 

I don't think it's the not having a Veil that will kill people, but the act of taking it down will result in a catastrophic event or chain of events that will destroy everyone but the few that Solas wants to save. He doesn't explain exactly how, but doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't believe it when he tells us everyone will die. Ancient Elves are different from modern elves. The ancient ones will survive, the modern ones will perish. Again he doesn't explain exactly why or how, but that doesn't really mean we should ignore everything he said entirely. 

[straykat]

I don't see why a duster would mention the Stone to begin with. They're cursed, by their own culture's standards, and rejected by the ancestors. 

 

Unless they're someone like Sigrun, who seems to think she needs to redeem herself or something. Legion of the Dead kind of have that thing about them, but dusters in general wouldn't.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I don't think it's the not having a Veil that will kill people, but the act of taking it down will result in a catastrophic event or chain of events that will destroy everyone but the few that Solas wants to save. He doesn't explain exactly how, but doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't believe it when he tells us everyone will die. Ancient Elves are different from modern elves. The ancient ones will survive, the modern ones will perish. Again he doesn't explain exactly why or how, but that doesn't really mean we should ignore everything he said entirely. 

I'm willing to accept that is maybe true, but also that it is maybe not. I'm not saying that all modern people won't die, if he knows about a sustainable population of ancient elves around somewhere that wouldn't be effected by this, but that's one of those "extra things we don't know about yet" that would be needed to explain this. Basically, I'm willing to believe there are circumstances that might explain why literally everyone will die, but I'm also not willing to accept that's the only possible interpretation of what was said. 

 

But it doesn't seem like ancient elves really were different from modern elves, except that there wasn't a veil. Solas said the veil made ancient elves mortal. It seems like they were exactly the same, they're just made weaker from being cut off by the veil. I don't believe it's implied they've literally evolved into something else. If the ancient elves were going to survive, I assume they're probably already locked away in the Fade or somewhere else. 

[LobselVith8]

I don't see why a duster would mention the Stone to begin with. They're cursed and rejected by the ancestors, by their own culture's standards. 

 

Unless they're someone like Sigrun, who seems to think she needs to redeem herself or something. Legion of the Dead kind of have that thing about them, but dusters in general wouldn't.

 

I don't think it's that unusual. It is the religion of the dwarves. I'm not saying it's impossible for a dwarf to be atheist or anything like that, but I think that it deserved more than one optional mention for players who did want to play their dwarven protagonist being connected to their people's faith.

[straykat]

I don't think it's that unusual. It is the religion of the dwarves. I'm not saying it's impossible for a dwarf to be atheist or anything like that, but I think that it deserved more than one optional mention for players who did want to play their dwarven protagonist being connected to their people's faith.

 

Personally, I think it was the wrong game to talk about everything under the sun, but I suppose that's another story. 

 

As for Dusters, it was always kind of heartbreaking to me. I can't think of a worse, more dejected feeling in respect to your parent culture. edit: Anything that talks about "genetically" inheriting a curse is shockingly bad to me. Like the way Zathrian treats the werewolves too.

[KaiserShep]

Coexistence? Do you mean submission and assimilation? That's the most positive thing the Chantry ever stood for.

 

 

The only option beyond coexistence is annihilation, either for the elves or the humans. Is that really preferable? 

[LobselVith8]

The only option beyond coexistence is annihilation, either for the elves or the humans. Is that really preferable? 

 

I think Xil's point is that it seems elven subjugation is technically what amounts to co-existence. You only need to read about the hostility shown if an elf becomes Bann of the Denerim Alienage or the issues that arise if the Dalish try to settle the Hinterlands to get an idea of that.

[straykat]

They just retconned the Hinterlands.. there were no issues given for that.... I thought?

[LobselVith8]

Personally, I think it was the wrong game to talk about everything under the sun, but I suppose that's another story. 

 

I'd say that if you're going to have multiple races you can't simply treat them like reskinned Andrastian humans. I agree that you can't cover everything, but it does feel odd when the dialogue and the scenes are framed as though you're human when you're obviously not.

 

They just retconned the Hinterlands.. there were no issues given for that.... I thought?

 

There was a vague "it didn't work out" from King Alistair in Kirkwall and no actual explanation given by anyone. Laidlaw simply said on twitter that the Dalish didn't settle the Hinterlands, and that was it. It's honestly the kind of thing I'm surprised didn't come up with the Exalted Council considering that Redcliffe seems to have taken control of the Hinterlands, and the Dalish Boon is part of Bioware's 'default canon' state.

 

Although I meant more about the Epilogue slide showing that there were still tensions; admittedly with Lanaya it reads she is able to keep the peace between the elves in the Hinterlands and their human neighbors outside the Hinterlands (and that she became a respected figure at court), but there were still issues.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I think that the main thing with characters like Ameridan (like we were talking about back then) being the poster child for "co-existence" is that it is more of an example of assimilation. Co-existence means both sides accept that the other has a right to their own beliefs, and accepts the other side into their own sphere, as well. What we're seeing is a lot more of just the majority learning to tolerate the existence of the minority as long as they pander to their own beliefs, with the minority often adopting the majority culture just to get even the smallest amount of recognition. And.. even then it gets written out of history? It's not really much of a picture of "co-existence".