Dragon Age: Inquisition

[lobotomy42]

 

Here's the thing though: she is not a real person, so "because she wants to be" is not a real reason.  I get that they gave her motivation and backstory and she's a modern (medieval) independent woman in control of her sexuality, but the reality - like, in the real world, reality - is that she is a video game character.  And as a video game character, in a game played mostly by men, many of whom will never finish the game or pay much attention to her backstory, she is a scantily-clad woman who has big boobs and talks about having sex A LOT.

So? None of the characters are real, and if your suggestion is that we should cater MORE to the mostly men that will not pay attention to her backstory nor even finish the game....

 

 

"None of the characters are real" is exactly my point.  It's why the "this exploitative character is ok because he/she WANTS TO BE EXPLOITED" defense makes no sense.

 

My suggestion is that pandering is pandering, no matter how you rationalize it. 

 

Let me put this another way.  In fiction, especially fantasy fiction, you can rationalize anything however you want.  For example, here's a story: "Once upon a time I was weak BUT NOW I'M REALLY POWERFUL AND EVERYONE LOVES ME."  This story sucks - it's just the most dumbed-down form of a power fantasy.  But let's say I add some backstory to my character, make him (me) work a little bit to become Superman, and then throw in a compelling villain.  Now I have a well-written, fleshed out, deep, dark, gritty power fantasy! By your reasoning, this story is now awesome.  By my reasoning, this story still sucks, because, fundamentally, out of all the stories in the world I could have chosen to write, I still *chose* to write a power fantasy about myself. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Here's the thing though: she is not a real person, so "because she wants to be" is not a real reason.  I get that they gave her motivation and backstory and she's a modern (medieval) independent woman in control of her sexuality, but the reality - like, in the real world, reality - is that she is a video game character.  And as a video game character, in a game played mostly by men, many of whom will never finish the game or pay much attention to her backstory, she is a scantily-clad woman who has big boobs and talks about having sex A LOT.

So? None of the characters are real, and if your suggestion is that we should cater MORE to the mostly men that will not pay attention to her backstory nor even finish the game....

 

 

"None of the characters are real" is exactly my point.  It's why the "this exploitative character is ok because he/she WANTS TO BE EXPLOITED" defense makes no sense.

 

My suggestion is that pandering is pandering, no matter how you rationalize it. 

 

Let me put this another way.  In fiction, especially fantasy fiction, you can rationalize anything however you want.  For example, here's a story: "Once upon a time I was weak BUT NOW I'M REALLY POWERFUL AND EVERYONE LOVES ME."  This story sucks - it's just the most dumbed-down form of a power fantasy.  But let's say I add some backstory to my character, make him (me) work a little bit to become Superman, and then throw in a compelling villain.  Now I have a well-written, fleshed out, deep, dark, gritty power fantasy! By your reasoning, this story is now awesome.  By my reasoning, this story still sucks, because, fundamentally, out of all the stories in the world I could have chosen to write, I still *chose* to write a power fantasy about myself. 

 

 

I am confused by your point so maybe you can explain it to? Can you answer the following

• who is Bioware pandering to? If as you say most people don't care then it can't be for most people as they wouldn't care about characters and there stories. But for me I did care about Isabela and her story and motives. So I'm glad Bioware included that. If Isabela looked like she did and had no background something would have been missing
• who exactly in DA are you claiming what's to be exploited? I don't get this

I would appreciate an honest answer as I want to debate this with you

[Amentep]

 

She is a sexual being *because she wants to be* as opposed to "she has sex with the player character because that's what her reason for existing in the game is."

 

Here's the thing though: she is not a real person, so "because she wants to be" is not a real reason.  I get that they gave her motivation and backstory and she's a modern (medieval) independent woman in control of her sexuality, but the reality - like, in the real world, reality - is that she is a video game character.  And as a video game character, in a game played mostly by men, many of whom will never finish the game or pay much attention to her backstory, she is a scantily-clad woman who has big boobs and talks about having sex A LOT.  I am not saying such a character should not exist or cannot exist, and I am not saying there was not an honest attempt to write her intelligently.  But, fundamentally, you can't get around the fact that her function in the game is more sexual object for the player than sexual being.

 

I'd disagree since the player doesn't have to have sex with her and can very easily lose her through the game (or, for that matter, not have her in the group at all, IIRC).

 

I'd also argue that her function in the game - like Sten or Zavren in the first or Fenris in the second - is to have a party combat role while at the same time fleshing out part of the Thedas world culture that we've not actually seen yet (Rivani). Like Zavren, she comes from a background and/or a culture that promotes casual sex.

 

She reads to the player as "the one with the boobs who likes sex."

 

Would it have been better if she'd been "the flat chested, homely one who liked sex"? Or if she'd been the "one with boobs who hates sex?". Or if it had been a "masculine man who liked sex" instead of a woman (or elf-man Zeveran)?

 

Any character can be reduced to a simplistic (and silly sounding) sentence.

 

Bioware is trying to have their cake and eat it too with this character by subverting expectations - but those expectations are never actually subverted.  She basically still *is* that superficial character the player imagined. You can tell the player "Well, but it's HER wanting sex, not you" but this is meaningless in a game where you essentially control the outcome.  All of the potential romantic partners in any Bioware game "want" the player to the same degree as any other - that is, to the degree the player selects the "heart" dialogue choice.

So you admit that you see a "flaw" in the romance that actually applies to ALL of Bioware's romances (which is actually a problem I agree with - the sublimating of an NPC's character in order to have the Player get a 'positive' romantic outcome) but you only consider it a problem with Isabel because she's the only one who "wants" sex?

Edited August 7, 2013 by Amentep

[Tale]

It seems that someone disinterested in power fantasies should probably shy away from RPGs. This isn't straight fantasy fiction, this is a game genre built around growing in strength. With the fact that it's a game meaning that you do that to overcome obstacles. Get stronger, win.

 

Macbeth may be great fiction, but it would be a terrible RPG.

[lobotomy42]

 

Would it have been better if she'd been "the flat chested, homely one who liked sex"? Or if she'd been the "one with boobs who hates sex?". Or if it had been a "masculine man who liked sex" instead of a woman (or elf-man Zeveran)?

 

Since none of those are as common cultural stereotypes -- yes.

 

 

Bioware is trying to have their cake and eat it too with this character by subverting expectations - but those expectations are never actually subverted.  She basically still *is* that superficial character the player imagined. You can tell the player "Well, but it's HER wanting sex, not you" but this is meaningless in a game where you essentially control the outcome.  All of the potential romantic partners in any Bioware game "want" the player to the same degree as any other - that is, to the degree the player selects the "heart" dialogue choice.

So you admit that you see a "flaw" in the romance that actually applies to ALL of Bioware's romances (which is actually a problem I agree with - the sublimating of an NPC's character in order to have the Player get a 'positive' romantic outcome) but you only consider it a problem with Isabel because she's the only one who "wants" sex?

 

 

It is not a flaw in the romance model, per se, it's a flaw in the argument used to justify a problematic character.  It's not her wanting sex that is the problem, it is the overall effect of her visual design, personality, presentation, immediate sexual availability to the player and the romance model COMBINED that is the problem.  All of those factors are designed, and each probably could have been fine in its own right, but when put together in the way that they are -- do you seriously think there is a reason for her presence other than selling games?

 

 

It seems that someone disinterested in power fantasies should probably shy away from RPGs. This isn't straight fantasy fiction, this is a game genre built around growing in strength. With the fact that it's a game meaning that you do that to overcome obstacles. Get stronger, win.

 

It was an analogy.

[Tale]

It was an analogy.

Bah, stinking analogies. *shakes fist*

[Spider]

It is not a flaw in the romance model, per se, it's a flaw in the argument used to justify a problematic character.  It's not her wanting sex that is the problem, it is the overall effect of her visual design, personality, presentation, immediate sexual availability to the player and the romance model COMBINED that is the problem.  All of those factors are designed, and each probably could have been fine in its own right, but when put together in the way that they are -- do you seriously think there is a reason for her presence other than selling games?

 

I think you need to be more specific at the end here. Of course she's in DA:I to sell games, everything in that game is there to sell games. I do agree with your overall sentiment though, and find Isabella problematic for much of the same reasons.

 

Now I believe those who claim that the writer's intent was to create a strong female character that was very sexual by her own choice. But I do think that the sum of all the parts make isabella feel more like eyecandy than anything else. Changing her appearance so the didn't have breasts the size of melons would probably have helped a lot for me, because as a character she had her interesting moments. Personally her sexuality was the least interesting part of her character though, but how she refused to go along with my plans and stole that damn book and took off was pretty sweet (although frustrating at the time).

 

So ironically, a character I like better by not having talked to her much in the game...

[Amentep]

 

Would it have been better if she'd been "the flat chested, homely one who liked sex"? Or if she'd been the "one with boobs who hates sex?". Or if it had been a "masculine man who liked sex" instead of a woman (or elf-man Zeveran)?

 

Since none of those are as common cultural stereotypes -- yes.

 

Dunno where you come from but the "horny man" and the "beautiful chaste girl" are fairly common cultural stereotypes.

 

But it seems like your problem is solely derived off of your personal perception of stereotypes. So as you said, YMMV.

 

It is not a flaw in the romance model, per se, it's a flaw in the argument used to justify a problematic character.  It's not her wanting sex that is the problem, it is the overall effect of her visual design, personality, presentation, immediate sexual availability to the player and the romance model COMBINED that is the problem.  All of those factors are designed, and each probably could have been fine in its own right, but when put together in the way that they are -- do you seriously think there is a reason for her presence other than selling games?

Is she any more "sexually available" than Morrigan or Zevran? Or...well any of the romanceable NPCs if you give them enough gifts? They're all pretty much designed to be sexable if that's what the PC wants.

[Nonek]

Personally i'd have been fine with Isabella (Varric too) if she'd have worn armour into the endless monotonous battles that spring up in Kirkwall, worn appropriate clothing for the climate that ensures she won't die of hypothermia (you can be sexy while fully clothed,) stopped talking about sex in every conversation (sounded like an eager virgin who'd never been touched,) was motivated enough to pursue her own "urgent" objectives, didn't sit around for ten years in the same spot despite those "urgent" objectives, didn't come and go at the orders of another person, if I could kill her etcetera, etcetera. Basically if she acted like anything but the blatant fan service caricature which she was.

 

Edit: I'm not against power fantasies and empowerment in my escapism, I just prefer them to be not so hamfistedly and clumsily blatant, subtlety and nuance are not a writers enemy.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Nonek

[Amentep]

I'll agree about the armor bit. The sex talk I'm neutral on.

 

I think the parts about her not pursuing her own objectives or being killable are kind of defined by the story narrative being spread over time and the whole Qunari bit relying on their pursuit of the stolen book which would fall apart if she left (and possibly if you killed her). Which is really a problem(?) of a highly structured story with little elasticity to respond to the player's action (thus limiting their options) and not a problem with Isabela as a character, per se...

[Keyrock]

Personally i'd have been fine with Isabella (Varric too) if she'd have worn armour into the endless monotonous battles that spring up in Kirkwall, worn appropriate clothing for the climate that ensures she won't die of hypothermia (you can be sexy while fully clothed,) stopped talking about sex in every conversation (sounded like an eager virgin who'd never been touched,) was motivated enough to pursue her own "urgent" objectives, didn't sit around for ten years in the same spot despite those "urgent" objectives, didn't come and go at the orders of another person, if I could kill her etcetera, etcetera. Basically if she acted like anything but the blatant fan service caricature which she was.

 

Edit: I'm not against power fantasies and empowerment in my escapism, I just prefer them to be not so hamfistedly and clumsily blatant, subtlety and nuance are not a writers enemy.

Subtlety and nuance are not exactly BioWare's forte, not these days, anyway. 

[Nonek]

I'll agree about the armor bit. The sex talk I'm neutral on.

 

I think the parts about her not pursuing her own objectives or being killable are kind of defined by the story narrative being spread over time and the whole Qunari bit relying on their pursuit of the stolen book which would fall apart if she left (and possibly if you killed her). Which is really a problem(?) of a highly structured story with little elasticity to respond to the player's action (thus limiting their options) and not a problem with Isabela as a character, per se...

 

To me that is a problem with her character however, as it makes her feel even more of an unbelievable caricture than the innappropriate attire and lack of armour do, realistic and believable motivations are important to establish a characters personality and backstory, when all of this is just thrown away for the sake of the illogical BUT THOU MUST plot, then I fail to see why I should particularly care about that character. Much like with Avelines incompetence as a guardswoman and dereliction of duty despite the Qunari presence.

 

If there were problems with the narrative then make a better one, or go back and release an enhanced edition, if a small company in Poland can do so then a big firm like Bioware should be able to easily. After all making Dragon Age 3 a better game doesn't do much for those dissatisfied with DA2.

[BruceVC]

Personally i'd have been fine with Isabella (Varric too) if she'd have worn armour into the endless monotonous battles that spring up in Kirkwall, worn appropriate clothing for the climate that ensures she won't die of hypothermia (you can be sexy while fully clothed,) stopped talking about sex in every conversation (sounded like an eager virgin who'd never been touched,) was motivated enough to pursue her own "urgent" objectives, didn't sit around for ten years in the same spot despite those "urgent" objectives, didn't come and go at the orders of another person, if I could kill her etcetera, etcetera. Basically if she acted like anything but the blatant fan service caricature which she was.

 

Edit: I'm not against power fantasies and empowerment in my escapism, I just prefer them to be not so hamfistedly and clumsily blatant, subtlety and nuance are not a writers enemy.

 

Interesting but I have never heard a single complaint or issue in the various discussions on RPG and the armour or rather lack or armour when it comes to the various males characters and what they wear in a game? Why does this Isabella attire become such a big point of contention? How many people complained about what Conan wears for example?

 

I think people feel threatened when a women is overtly sexual but are fine with a man doing it, it attacks there preconceived idea of the balance of sexual power and the role a women is suppose to have. I don't expect anyone to admit it but this is where some of the criticism around Isabella is coming from IMO. And this isn't necessarily directed at you  Nonek but your post summarizes the general complaint from most

Edited August 7, 2013 by BruceVC

[Nonek]

No my complaint extends to Varrics dress code as well, his sturdy buff coat needs to be done up not left open like an idiot. As for Conan the legendary Cimmerian usually dressed in appropriate harness for the region and circumstances he was encountering, such as the heavy mail he wears throughout Queen of the Black Coast and the full plate harness he dons when leading troops in Hour of the Dragon.

 

My analysis is not based on gender but rather verisimillitude, i'm not a fan of style over substance.

 

Edit: And i'll state for the third time that a woman does not need to be half dressed to be overtly sexual, especially if her choice of clothing would mean she'd freeze to death and die for the sake of appearing sexy, to think any woman would be so idiotic as to do so is a massive disservice to women if not downright insultive.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

No my complaint extends to Varrics dress code as well, his sturdy buff coat needs to be done up not left open like an idiot. As for Conan the legendary Cimmerian usually dressed in appropriate harness for the region and circumstances he was encountering, such as the heavy mail he wears throughout Queen of the Black Coast and the full plate harness he dons when leading troops in Hour of the Dragon.

 

My analysis is not based on gender but rather verisimillitude, i'm not a fan of style over substance.

 

Okay, thanks for responding but my point was more towards other people. But to be honest when it comes to criticism of DA2 Varric very seldom comes up from people and the vitriol is normally directed at Isabella

[Volourn]

DWARVES! DWARVES! DWARVES!

It's already better than ME, DA2, Twitcher, PST, ES series, and FO series combined!

No Morrigan is companion? **** OFF!

No reused areas? I;m sure that's exaggeration sicne pretty much all games reuse resources, but as long as it isn't DA2 level, I'm good with it.

Non regen heath! YAY!

DWARVES! DWARVES! DWARVES!

[HoonDing]

It looks like Morrigan is member of Orlais court.

[Amentep]

 

I'll agree about the armor bit. The sex talk I'm neutral on.

 

I think the parts about her not pursuing her own objectives or being killable are kind of defined by the story narrative being spread over time and the whole Qunari bit relying on their pursuit of the stolen book which would fall apart if she left (and possibly if you killed her). Which is really a problem(?) of a highly structured story with little elasticity to respond to the player's action (thus limiting their options) and not a problem with Isabela as a character, per se...

 

To me that is a problem with her character however, as it makes her feel even more of an unbelievable caricture than the innappropriate attire and lack of armour do, realistic and believable motivations are important to establish a characters personality and backstory, when all of this is just thrown away for the sake of the illogical BUT THOU MUST plot, then I fail to see why I should particularly care about that character. Much like with Avelines incompetence as a guardswoman and dereliction of duty despite the Qunari presence.

 

If there were problems with the narrative then make a better one, or go back and release an enhanced edition, if a small company in Poland can do so then a big firm like Bioware should be able to easily. After all making Dragon Age 3 a better game doesn't do much for those dissatisfied with DA2.

 

I'm not disputing that the narrative could have been better; all I'm saying is if Isabel had been dressed as a nun and never talked about Sex but had the same interrelation to the story, she'd still have sat with thin motivation for year in Kirkwall to allow for the story to play out as planned.

 

To me this is a problem with the story; they shouldn't have made it so that any of the characters were essential, yet Anders and Isabel are but also with very little rationale behind either, IMO.

[Tale]

It looks like Morrigan is member of Orlais court.

I'd love that, but I doubt it. I haven't seen any supporting hints and Bioware is not hesitant to completely retcon epilogues.

[Amentep]

 

It looks like Morrigan is member of Orlais court.

I'd love that, but I doubt it. I haven't seen any supporting hints and Bioware is not hesitant to completely retcon epilogues.

 

Which epilogue are they retconning? The one where she "dissapears into the wilderness and is never seen again" that was retconned with the "Witch Hunt" DLC?

[Tale]

 

 

It looks like Morrigan is member of Orlais court.

I'd love that, but I doubt it. I haven't seen any supporting hints and Bioware is not hesitant to completely retcon epilogues.

 

Which epilogue are they retconning? The one where she "dissapears into the wilderness and is never seen again" that was retconned with the "Witch Hunt" DLC?

 

Morrigan leaves the party the night before the final battle when the Warden refuses her offer. She is later seen traveling through the Frostback Mountains alone. Several years later, tales out of Orlais said that a strange dark-haired mage had insinuated herself into the empress's court .(Male PC must not engage in romance with Morrigan for this to trigger).

Two other epilogues also mention the Frostback Mountains, including pregnant ones. So she pretty much always ends up heading to Orlais. Joining the court is only mentioned without romance and DR.

[Amentep]

Still not seeing the retcon.

[alanschu]

 

 

This sounds awfully close to the endless waves of trash combat both DA:O and DA2 suffered from. I hope DA:I will move away from this formula.

Attrition can work, but you need more variety of enemies to make it interesting. In DA games, the enemy types are so few and bland similar to each other that the whole attrition idea becomes just a chore.

 

The idea is more that there's less justification for endless waves of trash combat, and that encounters will (hopefully anyways) be smaller in scale rather than requiring large numbers of foes simply because that's the only way they cause a threat to the player character.

[Tale]

Still not seeing the retcon.

Neither am I. That's why I'm surprised.

 

Nearly everyone else was, the ones that weren't vague and static, anyway.

[alanschu]

"None of the characters are real" is exactly my point.  It's why the "this exploitative character is ok because he/she WANTS TO BE EXPLOITED" defense makes no sense.

 

My suggestion is that pandering is pandering, no matter how you rationalize it.

Your suggestion seemed to be more "cater to the people that don't delve deeply into the character background and so forth, because it'll just be wasted on them and undermines the effort."

 

Isabella doesn't want to be exploited, so I am not sure the comparison works.

 

Let me put this another way.  In fiction, especially fantasy fiction, you can rationalize anything however you want.  For example, here's a story: "Once upon a time I was weak BUT NOW I'M REALLY POWERFUL AND EVERYONE LOVES ME."  This story sucks - it's just the most dumbed-down form of a power fantasy.  But let's say I add some backstory to my character, make him (me) work a little bit to become Superman, and then throw in a compelling villain.  Now I have a well-written, fleshed out, deep, dark, gritty power fantasy! By your reasoning, this story is now awesome.  By my reasoning, this story still sucks, because, fundamentally, out of all the stories in the world I could have chosen to write, I still *chose* to write a power fantasy about myself.

Then we have to agree to disagree here. Whether or not a story is awesome depends in large part on how it is executed. While I wouldn't say your second story is necessarily "awesome" it is certainly better than your first story.

 

 

By your account, however, that a character enjoys having sex is fundamentally incapable of being interesting because the fact is, he/she enjoys having sex and the execution of how that is portrayed is irrelevant. It still sucks in your mind.

 

 

So you admit that you see a "flaw" in the romance that actually applies to ALL of Bioware's romances (which is actually a problem I agree with - the sublimating of an NPC's character in order to have the Player get a 'positive' romantic outcome) but you only consider it a problem with Isabel because she's the only one who "wants" sex?

I agree that this is a greater issue than Isabella's specifics.

Edited August 7, 2013 by alanschu