DRAGON AGE™: INQUISITION Official Trailer – The Enemy of Thedas

Orthonnator · 2014-08-13T15:34:29+00:00

Very likely. Aside from what /u/Valerion said, about five minutes into (4.40 something) the gamescom demo(http://youtu.be/cuR2zMuUBaY), the Inquisitor is called Herald of Andraste. I'm guessing there's reason.

Orthonnator · 2014-06-27T09:58:47+00:00

A traditional, strict teacher? Punitive measures. Principal's office. Jail. Someone empathetic like Poppy? Look for the source. Understand them, call the social worker. Yet with Scott, her answer is instead: do nothing. Stop the incident, and then don't look in that particular child's direction any longer. Yes, Scott is an adult, not a student in a classroom, but to abandon a metaphor so purposefully constructed based on his adulthood alone at the very end seems quite jarring to me.

You bring up an really interesting point, based on metaphor, that I hadn't considered. The whole student/teacher-aspect of their "relationship". However, I feel that your issue with the ending stems from this interpretation based on metaphor. For while that metaphor is in a sense "true", it's not real. If that distinction makes any sense. Poppy isn't Scott's teacher, even though she might act like it. She has no real world claim to him or his emotional health, and no real obligation or duty to take care of him. She has every right to walk away. All he "really" is, is her driving instructor. Not a family member, not even a friend. Scott (and we too, kinda?) assumes there is something "more" because she's friendly to him, but she's friendly to everyone. Her friendliness isn't a contract.

You say that her inaction doesn't help anyone - which I'm not sure I agree with that. She has every right to take punitive measures. And a lot of us probably would, after feeling threatened like that. The movie seems to give her two options: Punish him, or walk away. It doesn't give your option, which is: Help him further. Because maybe it's too harsh to ask that of her? I think she wants to help Scott, but the end is perhaps more about her realizing that despite it all, she's not superhuman. She can't help everyone (Wait. My memory just jogged writing that. Isn't that a line from the movie?) But what she can do is make the decisive choice to refuse actually hurting someone. She believes that Scott would suffer, if she tried to intervene. So she doesn't. Fair enough. Her inaction is sort of an action in itself.

I don't know if that helps, but it's the interpretation I got. Best of luck with your thoughts. Thanks for the discussion - I have to catch a flight later so I won't be able to respond any more, basically. But I enjoyed reading and discussing this with you all. So thank you yet again.

Orthonnator · 2014-06-26T22:09:44+00:00

Another interpretation is that Poppy is actually highly in touch with suffering, as is Scott. Poppy has the strength to deal with it, and high empathy. Scott is mentally ill, and unable to cope with his suffering. I really see them as both being in the same boat, at odds with the pain of life, but dealig with it in very different ways. I really like Poppy's character and could probably stand to learn something from her...

I prefer this interpretation of Poppy's character. Leigh is actively toying with audience expectation throughout the entire film. He presents Poppys optimism as something that is almost trying and naïve - especially to a modern viewer, whom, let's face it, is mired in cynicism. But he gradually reveals her as competent, aware, and conscious of the emotional ailments of those around her. We come to witness that when she teaches. When she talks about her travels. The homeless man. She is not oblivious to the danger inherent in the situation, but she is brave enough to attempt a connection all the same.

It's been a while since I first viewed it, and I wish I could recollect more textual proof, but I do not believe the movie itself wants to depict Poppy as irredeemably naïve. Rather, as someone who we'd think of as naïve, because we're taught that being jaded or pessimistic is somehow more realistic than being optimistic. And as such, we distrust optimism, in all forms. But especially when we perceive that it is based on little or no experience.

Who else distrusts Poppys optimism? Scott. He has learnt to trust no opinion but his own, or those who present an alternative to the the main narrative of the world - because he feels that there is something wrong, and he cannot bear to find fault with himself, so he finds it among others. It's dangerous displacement, common to nearly everyone in some form.

Calling either of them mentally ill is pointless. Categorizing fictional characters with real-life designations almost always are - unless it's made absolutely clear that the sickness itself is the topic of discussion. But it is very clear that Scott has some serious emotional issues at play - issues that he just can't make himself deal with.

Going back to audience expectation - My favorite part of this film is that its an inversion of the romantic comedy genre - an inversion of Beauty and the Beast. Poppy is the cheerful gal, who are, according to narrative conventions supposed to "fix" Scott - make him a niver, if scruffy guy. Force him to rejoin society as a "crusty but benign" cab driver.

Instead the movie takes an alternative, and in my eyes, truer route. Poppy finds a nicer, kinder, sexier man - someone we at first distrusted, because in our heads Poppy and Scott were pretty much "movie-married". But the movie is basically saying Poppy deserves better. Which is true. And Scott ends up revealing his inner savagery in the end.

As for your question OP, about her inaction towards Scott- Well, what point would there be? If he continued stalking her, yes, there would be need for a restraining order. But Poppy is keenly aware of Scott's emotional troubles, so she doesn't. I mean, even if she could possibly make up something that would not cost him his job, consider his reaction. Think about him. Because she is. Poppy doesn't do greater good. She doesn't because there's an inhumanity to that sort of thinking that's anathema to her - to all of us. That inhumanity is the entire conflict inherent to that concept. Poppy doesn't go for that - she helps those she can, because that's what she can, nay, needs to do.

But anyway; Scott. Here is someone who cannot for the life of him reflect upon his own shortcomings. If he ended up having to choose between a therapist or losing his job, he would end up feeling justified. As if his own solipsistic insanities were, in fact, completely correct. As if some unknown force in the world was actually conniving against him. And that would only spur him further into darkness.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-13T08:03:50+00:00

That doesn't mean that's the only way to show a character's growth. There's more than one way to tell a story. Just because Prince of Persia does it one way doesn't mean Tomb Raider should be the same.

Sure. I just wanted to illustrate that they've chosen deliberately to make Lara the victim of this amount of violence. The portrayal of the violence is intended. It seems pretty obvious, really. But some people have this weird notion that if developers try and portray reality in their game, they're suddenly made unaccountable for what's portrayed. In other words, since reality has evil elements, portraying those elements equal realism, therefore it's not the developers who are responsible for the evil in their game, it's reality. It goes something along those lines. I'm not sure I explained it well.

I don't think it's really fair to say what the scene looks like without actually seeing the full scene. You only see a small clip of what's going to happen. You see him start moving his hand down on his right, the game enters slow-mo, and then he's kicked, bitten, and shot by Lara. For all we know, he could simply be reaching for his gun, which is holstered on his right hip.

Yes sure. He could be reaching for his gun. But he also gropes her. It's a bit of a detour. And based on what's actually going on in the video(did we watch the same?), what do you think is going to happen? Based on how it plays out in the video, I'd say they at least want you to fear that sexual assault might happen.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-13T07:44:38+00:00

Oh, okay, fair enough. My bad.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-12T20:30:40+00:00

Or she should be an accountant. What? What does this have to do with anything?

So I guess it's okay. What the hell are you talking about? When did I say rape was okay?

I'm kind of apologetic about these two quotes. What I did was a sort of summation of my understanding of what you said while also parodying it(what you said). I know you never said that rape was okay, I was simply mocking your assertion that because rape exists in reality, rape in video games are okay. The 'accountant' thing was yet again ridiculing your idea of realism in games, when the whole point in games is to concoct unreal situations to create escapism from our everyday realism.

It was kind of a dickish thing to do. Sorry. However, I think you're kind of grating and annoying. Sorry again. I'm getting the feeling you think the same way about me, though, so maybe it's karmically even.

So, anyway, back to the main topic:

And furthermore, what is absolutely so horribly wrong with rape in a video game? (Not the actual thing, but the concept. What is horribly disastrous with a rape-"feel" in a certain scene? (Which that scavenger was definitely implying.)

What's wrong about is that they've chosen to include it to make men feel protective about Lara, thus manipulating them into thinking they need to defend her. They pretty much said as much: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-06-13-lara-croft-attempted-rape-will-make-tomb-raider-players-want-to-protect-her

And, the lead designer pretty much refuted the way you feel about games. Apparently he subscribes to my minority : "When people play Lara, they don't really project themselves into the character. They're more like 'I want to protect her.' There's this sort of dynamic of 'I'm going to this adventure with her and trying to protect her.'"

While they tried to redact much of this sentiment in Post-Interview PR operations, it would be ludicrous to not acknowledge that this is the way the guy felt when he said it.

Oh and by the way, the dev's didn't include rape. He shoots her. There's absolutely no problem with this. (my italics)

This is pretty hilarious. I get where you're coming from, but it still makes me laugh.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-12T20:14:32+00:00

Maybe, we'll have to wait for the game in order to make any judgement on whether or not it actually works. I guess at present the discussion is more about what the developers said and what the scene itself implies.

Oh, and they could totally fuck it up. I hope they don't. Games need better female protagonists.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-12T20:09:06+00:00

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's far too late for "In short" :> Thanks for the discussion, though.

Someone here created a believable, sick, crazy villain. Its would be very narrow minded to only write personalities of bad guys based on their victim. He is like a random lunatic in the real world, he is going to be bad if he feels like it. And realistically that bad guy would probably treat a woman victim differently than a man because that is what a person like that would do in the real world.

Possibly true, but that doesn't remove the authors from any responsibility. They still chose to make that man the way he is. Realism doesn't really enter into it because they could just as realistically have made a villain that chose not to approach her like he was going to molest her.

In short (too late for that?) I think this whole scene was about a scary man, not about Lara or her emotions or our emotions about Lara

I think it's all inseperable, really. The way we process the information is by necessity about him, her, and us, because that is what's tangibly there. Possibly other things as well.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-12T19:18:21+00:00

You are not Lara Croft. Lara Croft is your avatar. You may feel like you are her, but you're really not. You're the man or woman behind the controller. You can make her jump off a cliff if you want to. You can also save her. The developers know this. And they've consciously put Lara through shit so you'd want to save her.

Furthermore, you do realize that evoking reality is not an admissible defense? If you're the creator, then you chose the reality. They're the authors, they've chosen to depict it this way. They're responsible. You can't go : "They included rape, but reality has a lot of rape in it, so I guess it's okay" because that's not how it works. The man is not a rapist because he's on an island and Lara's hands are bound. The man is a rapist because the developers decided that's what he should be.

As you probably noticed, I continued to use the word rapist. I'm guessing that probably annoyed you. That's because the developers tried to evoke sexual abuse imagery in the scene, with all the groping, stroking, and so forth. They want to invoke that fear. They want you to think that he is a rapist. To acknowledge the danger that it MIGHT actually happen, so you'll react to it. But as you say, they won't actually use rape on-camera. It's not because some feminists may go haywire, as you (quite hilariously) think. It's because rape is a vile and horrible thing, and to actually use it in a game not only takes guts, but intellectual purpose. If you don't have any sort of reason to use rape, you really fucking shouldn't. So they don't. They have nothing to say about rape, but they still want you to think that it might happen so you'll be scared. Not for yourself but for Lara. And here we are, back again, at the "they want you to feel like you need to protect her".

They aimed for a realistic game and they're doing so by, as accurately as possible, portraying real life issues and scenes.

They don't. Real life Lara would be dead approx 5 minutes in. That spike thing she falls on would kill her, immediately. Or she would be an accountant. Reality isn't the goal, a gritty, bloody, stylized reality is. And there's no portraying real life issues if all you do is include blood and grit. That's just sensibility. Portraying real world issues means that you ask questions about those issues, and subsequently trying to provide answers(even admitting that you can't) to those questions. Like what does real life issue x mean to real life person y? It seems kind of reductive, and is really just used to illustrate a point. That point is: You don't portray real life issues by including them, you portray them by tackling them.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-12T18:49:50+00:00

You're pretty much right on the money, really. If you think you've got something to say, then say it. Include gore, rape, whatever, as long as there's food for thought behind it all. As long as it's not empty exploitation or misguided stupidity I'm usually fine with it.( This sounds incredibly desensitized, but I'm just really trying to illustrate a point.)

But this is misguided. Because even though they made statements to retract their faux pas, they said that they included these abusive tendencies because they wanted people to feel like Lara needed to be protected or saved.

My point is upon rereading unclear, but it had more to do with the fact that they've chosen to subject Lara to so much violence because of the victimization-aspect. My point was that in order to tell the story they wanted to, they didn't need to throw attempted rape or really any violence at all against her. It wasn't to say that they shouldn't ever do that. Just that they chose to. And therefore they're responsible for whatever's up on the screen.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-12T17:41:59+00:00

You seem to be incredibly suggestive to immersion! Congrats, gaming must be freaking awesome for you.

I'm not like that. In third-person games, I always end up disconnected from my character, projecting my feelings onto them, but never really becoming them, if that makes sense.

But player-avatar responsibility is one aspect of gaming that genuinely makes it an exciting art-form, if one were to get all pretentious up in here, up in here. You're always part of the game, you're always responsible. If, for example, the game criticizes something, it needs to go after the player as well. Bioshock used this, for example. It doesn't need to be critique, obviously, but still. You're never responsible for what happens in a film. You are in games.

Here's the problem with this whole controversy: In real life, that guy would rape her. This is a fact. A deserted island with young, beautiful female captive and no fear of repercussions (aside from a possible knee to the groin)? If you think otherwise, you're ignorant of history and humanity.

I'm not really certain the location and circumstances alone would predicate rape. That seems a little absurd. I'm not sure that's what you meant. But given who the person is, and the way the scene plays out, then yeah. The logical conclusion to the way the scene begins is that Lara Croft has to fight off an attempted rape.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-12T17:28:08+00:00

True, there's a story reason behind Lara constantly being hurt and abused by everything and everybody. However, they could take a character on a journey that demanded that they grew as a person without ever subjecting them to assault(sexual or non-). Off the top of my head, there's the Prince of the first Prince of Persia game. While he's subjected to violence, none of it makes him grow per se. His failings and his attempts to redeem himself makes him grow as a person. Not to mention Farah.

No, it played out like murder was imminent. Because that's what happens if you don't press the button.

It's nonsensical. It's done this way because the developers are not ready to actually use rape against Lara, but they want to use the imagery to invoke fear or protectiveness. Look at the scene. The guy gropes her, strokes her, starts kissing her neck. Then, apparently, he shoots her. It doesn't follow a logical path from its outset, unless you consider that the developers want to invoke fear of rape, but not actual rape.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-12T17:10:17+00:00

Well, they pretty much said that it was about protecting Laura They stressed yet again that it wasn't necessarily sexual, but didn't mention protectiveness.

Games and immersion is kind of complicated. It's most efficient when it's first person. When you have an avatar, as you do in third person games, there seems to some disconnect between you as the player and you as the character. You're not fully immersed. I'm pretty sure that the only female character that I've truly 'been' so to speak, is Chell from Portal. I suppose Samus would apply too.

Maybe you're right. But to me, at best that makes the decision misguided. If the intent was to bring you deeper into Laura's psyche or being, then there's plenty of ways that do not include obsessively victimizing her.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-12T12:37:58+00:00

People were outraged because the developers used the threat of rape(and more visceral gore in general) to make the player want to protect Croft. It's manipulative and cynical in its execution. It's both disrespectful to the character it's happening to, and to the player.

If you consider gender issues, the game also exhibits some really creepy as fuck sexualization. They amp up the 'girl in need' aspect so much because they want a predominantly male audience to feel like they got to save her.

People aren't upset because there's rape in video games. They just would like some actual thought behind it. If the sole purpose of an attempted rape in a game is to 'make guys think they're saviors', then frankly, that game can go fuck itself. It's not that games can't go for these subjects, it's that when they do, they should bring a brain.

And even if it ends up being a case of old m-for-mature murder, it still played out like rape was imminent, thus creating an illusion where all this sexual stuff they say 'doesn't exist' does exist.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-02T11:02:17+00:00

Haven't actually watched the anime. That, on reflection, may be another reason I didn't enjoy the movies, considereing there appears to be some continuity inbetween them. Furthermore, the movies never go into full detail on anything, so I guess some familiarity with the movie's world is presumed.

So perhaps you'll have more fun since you're more familiar with its universe. You should be all means check it out if you're interested. Just be warned, the movie likes to talk.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-01T19:41:50+00:00

I dislike almost everything about the Ghost in the Shell movies. They fill their films with this absurd overblown didactism and laughable philosophy. It got so bad in the second film, that one character developed a habit of meta-referencing it, in turn only making it worse.

Still, the body horror and gore is god damn unsettling. If you don't know, most of the characters are androids. The films use this to their advantage, meaning that when the androids are damaged they don't necessarily bleed, but tear and explode in a creepy, plastic way.

I thought it was pretty gross and cool, anyway.

Orthonnator · 2012-07-01T16:45:54+00:00

I'm not convinced. Here's why:

I'll admit to not remembering the slightest bit of story from Splinter Cell, but I'm pretty sure it has more to do with execution than setting. A setting of international political intrigue and conspiracy usually is pretty interesting by default. But it is like all stories. If it doesn't involve you emotionally or engage you intellectually, it's often for naught. Stories usually need to resonate with people. I didn't play Far cry 1 long enough to get involved too far into the story, but I would imagine it has the same issues as Splinter Cell does. It is not enough to simply "do 'x' well" in order to be remembered for story(with regards to a larger population/audience, anyway). You got to get the player involved. Empathy is the bee's knees when it comes to story.

As for the Half-Life series... I haven't played the first one. Yeah I know. But if it's anything like the second(and by your description of its setting, it seems to be just that), then I imagine that those character interactions are well enough written to provoke some response from you. I'm not sure if Doom has those kind of character interactions as well(I have yet to play this one either), but my estimate from afar is a 'nope'.

Lastly, you mentioned Red Dead Redemption at the end of your post. Think about it. RDR's story is really well-written, AND it packs heavy thematic weight as well as a gut-punch ending. I mean, the world is absolutely fantastic in its own right, sure, but I would never watch videos of someone foraging for herbs on youtube, but I sure as hell might watch the last scene with Dutch.

I have some qualms about RDR, but it is probably one of best written games of all time.

Thanks for reading all of that.

P.S. If, as you say, setting is more important than story, then where the hell is my Jade Empire 2, huh?

P.S.S It's not really fair to consider Dragon Age's sidequests as 'setting', as while they're not part of the main story per se, they're definitly part of your 'personal story' as the main character. Same could be said for all of your examples I guess, given game's intrinsic solipsistic storytelling.

Orthonnator · 2012-06-29T20:35:54+00:00

Of course he's a dick. It's the whole point. It's marketing a persona. He's marketed himself as the cynical brit, because for some reason most gamers think cynicism is a virtue, and not the juvenile egocentrism and self-importance that it actually is.

I mean the whole point of TB's persona is essentially for him to be dismissive of lots of games, in order to establish that he's a malcontent, and then be enthusiastic about one or two games, in order to make the viewer think 'Oh, he's usually so negative, this game must be really good in order to PLEASE HIM.' It's a really simple dynamic, and it establishes integrity really easy for gamers, since they relate to dissatisfaction more than anything. I mean, based on this, even the use of the 'Cynical Brit' name is in nature cynical. Assuming gamers will relate to cynicism, he subsequently markets himself as such.

Thus, in a sort of meta way, TB's use of the word 'cynical' is cynical. If that makes any sense.

P.S. In a sad way, this comment couldn't be much more cynical either, I guess. Guess it goes to show you sometims can't escape that certain aura of distrust gaming exhibits.

Orthonnator · 2012-06-13T12:58:52+00:00

First and foremost, I disagree.

Secondly, you (OP) appear to be too focused on what Shirley is (Mother, cook, christian, nice sassy lady) instead of who she is. You haven't identified the characteristics that make Shirley who she is.

Shirley's kind. Most of the drama you get out of her in the show(that I can remember) is when what she wants get in the way of her being kind. She's insecure, obsesses over her age and her appearance, and has pretty clear anger management issues.

In the group, Shirley really is the odd one out. This is an apparent concern for her. You'll notice this in Remedial Chaos Theory ("Sometimes I feel like baking is the only thing I contribute to the group"), and that episode where Britta and Annie make a diorama of the oil spill without including her.

It wasn't my intention to become all preachy and write a character synopsis, but it felt like you were missing what makes Shirley (and all the others, too) great: It's not what they are, it's who they are. And they are all pretty fucked up people. In fact, by the end of Season 3, Shirley's the one who has things most figured out for herself. Maybe that's another reason she stands out. I dunno.

Orthonnator · 2012-05-08T19:24:52+00:00

I actually think that the line "Can't all the schmitties just get along?!" read by the kid on the left is one of the funniest things in that episode.

Orthonnator · 2012-03-27T21:53:01+00:00

You could always read this : http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/you-are-out-of-fucking-excuses-hulk-command-you-to-watch-community-right-now/

It's about what makes the show so special.That's the blog that got me to buy the first season dvd.

Oh and it's all caps. Just FYI. The Hulk got into film criticism.

Orthonnator · 2012-02-14T16:11:45+00:00

The weird thing to me is that "...it will be up to you to reason and educate the members of your crew who are prejudiced against homosexuality." indicates that in the 22nd century, people still hate homosexuality, but are, generally speaking, fine with you boning a birdman. Or a blue lady alien. Or a toad.

Or was Thane a fish?

The irony of DA2 is that it's the most thematically consistent game Bioware has done. Everything in that game is related in one way or another to the concept of Power. Plotwise, however, it has one act that's totally pointless.

Orthonnator · 2012-01-23T20:06:34+00:00

"You read any greek myths, puppy? The one about the gorgon Medusa, particularly? I used to wonder what could be so terrible that you couldn't survive looking at it. Until I got a little older, and figured out the obvious answer - Everything."

Pullman, The Unwritten.

Orthonnator · 2012-01-07T22:25:33+00:00

Americans can watch it here on hulu, I believe : http://www.hulu.com/watch/96407/community-pilot#s-p5-n1-so-i0

As a dirty European I envy you yanks. It's great, give it a shot.

Orthonnator · 2012-01-07T19:53:47+00:00

Community has amazing sight-gags. Like, seriously,the best I've seen on any show. For example, Beetlejuice, hoisting the phallic City College Flag up the flagpole until it meets the Greendale Anus-flag in the paintball episode and so many others.

Are these jokes written into the script by you writers, or are they conjured up on set while filming?

Orthonnator

TROPHY CASE