Dragon Age: The Veilguard foolishly inserts modern politics into a game that could have addressed these issues within the framework of the game's lore.
I know this might start war in the comments so please chill people, I don’t want to get 20 reports from this single post.
If you read the article you’ll see that the author takes issue not with the inclusion itself, but the hamfisted way in which it is included. Pandering can be fine, but when it’s just checking boxes in a cringy, lazy way it’s not, and worse it becomes fodder for the gamergate type to rage about.
I understand that, but my point is that there is no shortage of shoehorned comic relief characters, or awkwardly placed fanservice, etc. Critique the actual fault at play, bad writing, rather than letting the gamergate right-wing nutsos have the benefit of having the conversation on their terms. Make the headline “DA:tV falls short in the writing department, here are some examples” and include the flimsy way the character is written as the valid critique. Games are going to pander to us, that is what I was saying; when we place special emphasis on this particular type of pandering all we’re doing is letting the right define the conversations we’re having.
That seems to be what is being done here. Everything that I have seen on this has done what you asked, said what they where critiquing then giving a clip from the game as an example. If people can not be critical of media for any reason, we have an issue.
You’re right; I have been unclear. Allow me to try to clarify.
My issue is specifically with the headline here using the word “political.” This implies, whether by design or accident, that this inclusion in the game is BioWare specifically making a political stance to push some sort of politically-motivated agenda.
This is, 100%,notthe case.
BioWare is a subsidiary of EA; the only agenda they care about is making money. This is not making some kind of political statement; this is pandering to ensure free media coverage and to attempt to appeal to what they see as a currently valuable demographic. Fucking blast them to hell for that, blast them to hell for their poor writing—whatever. But calling this political is doing exactly what I stated before: allowing the conversation to happen on the terms of gamergate/right-wingers who insist that anything in the entire fucking world that doesn’t specifically cater to their own individual interests is somehow inherently “political.”
Complaining about “the way it’s included” has been a trick to try to gatekeep minorities that dates back from to the origin of time.
For those people always pretend it’s ok to include X except in “that particular context” or “in that particular way” and unsurprisingly enough it’s never the right context or the right way. Unless of course the context is out of their way.
I’ve seen the same boring argument repeated for every single minorities over the last 50 years.
Did you read the article? I found it pretty convincing, as an example “non-binary” is not a word I expect to be said in a fantasy setting. The author also mentions a fantasy book where it’s done much more naturally.
Did you write a guidebook of acceptable words and concepts in fantasy ? I ask because if you’re so bothered by the introduction of new words into fantasy literature I’m assuming you don’t read anything with any words invented after the release of the Epic of Gilgamesh sometime in 1155 BC.
I’m not bothered at all lol, I would have already forgotten about it if you weren’t so bothered yourself :) But yeah, IMO it would have been better if they had used a less “modern” word. You did notice that fantasy characters usually don’t speak like they’re from the 21st century, right?
Sith are a fictional sect of religious space wizards from a space opera. While they may have inspiration from religious sects of reality, they are very much not real. So, whether or not they deal in absolutes has absolutely no consequences to reality outside of the Star Wars fandom.
If you read the article you’ll see that the author takes issue not with the inclusion itself, but the hamfisted way in which it is included. Pandering can be fine, but when it’s just checking boxes in a cringy, lazy way it’s not, and worse it becomes fodder for the gamergate type to rage about.
I understand that, but my point is that there is no shortage of shoehorned comic relief characters, or awkwardly placed fanservice, etc. Critique the actual fault at play, bad writing, rather than letting the gamergate right-wing nutsos have the benefit of having the conversation on their terms. Make the headline “DA:tV falls short in the writing department, here are some examples” and include the flimsy way the character is written as the valid critique. Games are going to pander to us, that is what I was saying; when we place special emphasis on this particular type of pandering all we’re doing is letting the right define the conversations we’re having.
That seems to be what is being done here. Everything that I have seen on this has done what you asked, said what they where critiquing then giving a clip from the game as an example. If people can not be critical of media for any reason, we have an issue.
You’re right; I have been unclear. Allow me to try to clarify.
My issue is specifically with the headline here using the word “political.” This implies, whether by design or accident, that this inclusion in the game is BioWare specifically making a political stance to push some sort of politically-motivated agenda.
This is, 100%, not the case.
BioWare is a subsidiary of EA; the only agenda they care about is making money. This is not making some kind of political statement; this is pandering to ensure free media coverage and to attempt to appeal to what they see as a currently valuable demographic. Fucking blast them to hell for that, blast them to hell for their poor writing—whatever. But calling this political is doing exactly what I stated before: allowing the conversation to happen on the terms of gamergate/right-wingers who insist that anything in the entire fucking world that doesn’t specifically cater to their own individual interests is somehow inherently “political.”
edit: typos
Complaining about “the way it’s included” has been a trick to try to gatekeep minorities that dates back from to the origin of time.
For those people always pretend it’s ok to include X except in “that particular context” or “in that particular way” and unsurprisingly enough it’s never the right context or the right way. Unless of course the context is out of their way.
I’ve seen the same boring argument repeated for every single minorities over the last 50 years.
Did you read the article? I found it pretty convincing, as an example “non-binary” is not a word I expect to be said in a fantasy setting. The author also mentions a fantasy book where it’s done much more naturally.
Did you write a guidebook of acceptable words and concepts in fantasy ? I ask because if you’re so bothered by the introduction of new words into fantasy literature I’m assuming you don’t read anything with any words invented after the release of the Epic of Gilgamesh sometime in 1155 BC.
It’s a violently stupid argument.
I’m not bothered at all lol, I would have already forgotten about it if you weren’t so bothered yourself :) But yeah, IMO it would have been better if they had used a less “modern” word. You did notice that fantasy characters usually don’t speak like they’re from the 21st century, right?
So you admit that they sometime do ? Kinda kills your whole point. 🤷
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Sith are a fictional sect of religious space wizards from a space opera. While they may have inspiration from religious sects of reality, they are very much not real. So, whether or not they deal in absolutes has absolutely no consequences to reality outside of the Star Wars fandom.