So, here's my response to people that get their panties in a wad over content they don't like in the entertainment that they enjoy:
Tough titties and get over it, Francis. No one is forcing an agenda down your throat. If it pisses you off that the writer's vision is outside of your sheltered comfort zone, then move along.
There are no rules that say: "fantasy world has to be like x." The only reason you think this way, is because you want it to be that way. Nothing more, nothing less.
This doesn't mean anything. Realism, when it comes to character writing, is creating the characters in the vision that the writer intends. It is whatever it is intended to be. Here is the subtext of what you are actually saying: "I don't want to see gays in my video games."
Tough titties and get over it, Francis. No one is forcing an agenda down your throat. If it pisses you off that the writer's vision is outside of your sheltered comfort zone, then move along.
This doesn't mean anything. Realism, when it comes to character writing, is creating the characters in the vision that the writer intends. It is whatever it is intended to be. Here is the subtext of what you are actually saying: "I don't want to see gays in my video games."
The vision that the writer intents =/= realism. Unless the mannequins of Twilight are all realistic now.
"Contrived" is a good word.
But I still reserve the right to call Thedas a contrived politically correct setting, which was undoubtedly intended to appeal to the widest audience possible :hmm:
Tell me this: what constitutes realism in the world of Thedas, and why are you more qualified to determine this than those who created the vision?
Consequently, why is the equally fantastical world of the Witcher "more realistic" than Dragon Age?
Good dramatic storytelling, in my view, gives an accurate depiction of human psychology if humans were placed in the circumstances of the story. You want to say that human psychology is different in Thedas than in real life? That's a cop-out. It's still either lazy or agenda-driven.
You want to say that the cultural norms of humans in a fantasy world, let alone the norms of various other species, as well as shared cultures in a world shared by various species, is exactly what you think it should be? As it is, here, on earth?
that's a cop-out.
Look--I don't want to saddle up to naked Cullen with a male toon, either. So you know what? I don't go for the gay romances. You know what else? I don't make an issue of something that I never even experience, because it isn't a g*d d*mn issue unless you decide it's an issue to you.
If you don't want a gay romance in the game, then don't do one.
Tell me this: what constitutes realism in the world of Thedas, and why are you more qualified to determine this than those who created the vision?
Consequently, why is the equally fantastical world of the Witcher "more realistic" than Dragon Age?
The Witcher is grounded in reality. You don't have elves skipping in the woods around magical trees, you have elves brutally massacred and riven by racism. You don't have dwarves merrily drinking in caves, they have become merchants who are still heavily persecuted. Both those races if you played the first (and bits of the second) become the fantasy equivalent of terrorists running around murdering humans with you in the middle as the Scoia'tel.
You then have more period accurate cities and locations too, its not just dragons and magic, its slums and brothels. You have poverty and hate. Murder and jealously. And no, its not cliched grimdark fantasy, this is a mirror of real life.
Dragon age is more generic and standard, and its OK, but the Witcher blows it away.
EDIT: I do agree with Red Hawke that DA is politically correct and doesn't rock the boat by being all inclusive.
Why does a game have to be "realistic"? By definition, it is not real life. The writers can make it whatever they want, and the player can select whatever type of game world he most enjoys playing. Personally the world of the Witcher games does not appeal to me. Obviously, it does to others, and that is fine with me, but I don't think that makes it any "better" than a less "realistic" game. Ultimately it is still just a game.
Why does a game have to be "realistic"? By definition, it is not real life. The writers can make it whatever they want, and the player can select whatever type of game world he most enjoys playing. Personally the world of the Witcher games does not appeal to me. Obviously, it does to others, and that is fine with me, but I don't think that makes it any "better" than a less "realistic" game. Ultimately it is still just a game.
So, here's my response to people that get their panties in a wad over content they don't like in the entertainment that they enjoy:
Tough titties and get over it, Francis. No one is forcing an agenda down your throat. If it pisses you off that the writer's vision is outside of your sheltered comfort zone, then move along.
There are no rules that say: "fantasy world has to be like x." The only reason you think this way, is because you want it to be that way. Nothing more, nothing less.
This doesn't mean anything. Realism, when it comes to character writing, is creating the characters in the vision that the writer intends. It is whatever it is intended to be. Here is the subtext of what you are actually saying: "I don't want to see gays in my video games."
That's a good summary of why I vastly prefer the Witcher games to the Dragon Age series. The Witcher series take itself very SERIOUSLY, and that's why I like it. The World itself is dark and brutal, and the characters are all too lifelike in their intent and behavior.
Serious question because I have just started playing the first Witcher game. Does the Witcher really take itself seriously? I mean, the dialogue in the first couple of hours is like watching a B movie. I sort of thought that's what the developers were going for honestly. A sort of SyFy channel take on RPGs. Maybe it gets better as the game progresses, but it's hard to get through the opening parts to find out.
Haha, I felt the exact same way. I also thought it looked very bland.
KT
You already said that,as I stated I prefer Witcher series and so do many others,DA:I in many ways is one of the worst of three.
I find Witcher storyline more involving and I'm one of those guys that does not play it for 5 to 25 mins only or gives up on chapter 1 etc but plays it right until the end.
Regardless I expect great things from Witcher 3 including storyline,I find Witchers in general interesting characters being monster hunters with long life spans and special abilities etc,throw in the political aspects and how Witchers are supposed to be neutral,however you have the choice of deciding what is right or wrong and not being neutral,with Geralt having a mage girl friend and also history of friends from elves ,dwarfs,humans etc...
Btw I thought main storyline on DA:I was short and not that great, I won't spoil the ending.
Each to his own. If you like the witcher better, I can understand that. Admittedly, the first game, I played maybe a couple of hours and quit. The combat just drove me nuts.
I did try really hard to like the second game and put maybe 10 or 20 hours into it, but still couldn't get into it.
I agree with DA:I though. I though the story was much better developed in DA:O than DA:I. I played through DA:O three times I think, but DA:I may be one and done.
In some ways, I feel that DA:I artificially limited the use of your entire party. There just isn't enough 'good' materials in the game to craft amazing gear for everyone. You can pick-up stuff too, but that's really hit-or-miss. DPS doesn't mean everything, but for completionists like me, its tough using sub-top-tier gear in end-game.
It's creating a world that is in line with the "politically correct" view advocated by LGBT activists. Whether or not it's the story the writer wants to tell, that's the end result. That's what I mean by "LGBT agenda", it's creating a world that presents LGBT as normal and socially accepted, rather than where homosexuality is treated with apprehension at best and hatred at worst like it was in our world at a similar point in history.
"What I find most interesting is that, despite the lack of open discussion on matters of human sexuality, there is commonality to be found on the subject in all Andrastian lands. Typically, ones sexual habits are considered natural and separate from matters of procreation, and only among the nobility, where procreation involves issues of inheritance and the union of powerful families, is it considered of vital importance. Yet, even there, a noble who has done their duty to the family might be allowed to pursue their own sexual interests without raising eyebrows. The view on indulging lusts with a member of the same gender varies from land to land. In Orlais, it is considered a quirk of character and nothing more. In Ferelden, it is a matter of scandal if done indiscreetly but otherwise nothing noteworthy. In Tevinter, it is considered selfish and deviant behavior among nobles, but actively encouraged with favored slaves. Nowhere is it forbidden, and sex of any kind is only considered worthy of judgement when taken to awful excess or performed in the public eye.
-From In Pursuit of Knowledge: The Travels of a Chantry Scholar by Brother Genitivi"
If that's not underscored with the insinuation "THIS IS WHAT OUR WORLD SHOULD BE LIKE", I don't know what is. Note that Tevinter nobility are generally seen as corrupt and oppressive, so of course they would be homophobic.