Living in a game of your choice.

[Jfswift]

Well, since there's a game based on shadowrun coming out soon send there. I know quite a bit about that place.

 

[Polarity27]

If I can pick where I live and what I do, I'd live in WoW. I'd be an amateur anthropologist/writer living in Goldshire, studying and reporting on what goes on in the tavern on Moon Guard server circa late BC/early Wrath. Don't know if anyone else remembers it, but that place was BANANAS. Weirdest ERPers you ever saw, and half of 'em were trolls-- best part, it was really hard to tell which were which. I'm usually up on odd kinks, but I discovered what "futa" was from that place.

Plus, Goldshire's a safe enough place as far as Azeroth goes.

 

[SadisticFire]

I would like to live in the Fallout 3 universe, cause it would be nice to be able to go "Yep, the world is fucked up" without any going "B-but!". Also cause it would be fun just wondering around, pulling off 180 headshots.

 

[bug_of_war]

I'm happy to have a civil debating partner actually I am not trying to be whatever the female equivalent of a dick is either.

You consider insisting that their Maker won't come back to his creation until his chant is heard from all corners of the world, until all embrace their doctrine in other words, "not over zealous" do you? I would say that almost defines the concept. Individuals who don't worship Andraste may get along alright - going along to get along in some cases - but the Chasind spring to mind as a whole group of people who don't worship Andraste and missionaries are going to them as barbarians; similarly the people of Rivani are considered semi-godless for declining to embrace the Chantry's teachings that would require them to do away with wise women / hedge mages amongst them. Qunari are considered a heretical threat by some and at least a serious impediment to the spread of the Chant by others. One benevolent leader of a Chantry does not a tolerant institution make - remember, the Grand Divine (or whatever she's called) told Leliana to tell the Grand Cleric to get out of town because if things blew up she was sending in a force to be reckoned with (and if you're siding with mages you end the game on the run from these). I don't doubt their general intentions are good towards a general portion of the population (the ones who are sided with them largely), but they are a large and powerful organized religion with an army - one doesn't have an army on call if one is not going to use them if it comes to that.

Personally I found the Qunari to be more the zealots than the Chantry as at least the chantry was willing to bend it's rules/belief system slightly. I kind of view the Chanty as christianity now days and the Qun Christianity during the 12th century. While I agree that the Chantry have shown signs of being major dickbags I still feel that most of the in-game experiences I've hadwith them have been generally peaceful compared to the Qunari whom basically outright say they will conquer the whole world or die trying.

I didn't say TES had no slavery, only that an entire race wasn't enslaved to another. There are slaves and slavery may be determined on a racial basis, but the whole of a people have not come entirely under another people since the Mythic Age (and that's semi-debatable as to be included - since the history is a tiny bit on the sketchy side that far back).

While technically it's not slavery, the Aldmeri Dominion kind of force their views apon all races of Tamriel. Hell, the Bosmer nearly got their whole land wiped out because of the Altmer and Cyrodil was basically destroyed. We also have the Bretons in Skyrim being treated poorly by the Nords, along with the Dunmer whom just recently had most of their land destroyed. The Orcs have always been treated as below humans and elves (Orsimer literally meaning pariah folk), the Khajit are always associated with con artist and are basically TES version of gypsies. Really all the races kinda dislike each other for one reason or another and the only difference is that some are more openly racist than others (looking your way Nords/Altmer).

There's a contrast between men and women - pretty standard stuff there. Again, no massively offensive or overt sexism catches my eye in either game (women can inherit in both games, can be leaders in both games, are not denied entry into professions based on sex in either game that I can recall, and so on). Men and women seem - however occasionally contrasted and in some individual cases possibly in unequal situations - on the whole and in general treated equally, which is about as best you can ask from a video game currently. (and no, I don't want to go into a feminist / not slant - not what this is about overall and I think we both agree that if there is sexism it's not significant enough to say, not want to live in that world at all).

Yeah, I'm not to fussed about sexism in game when there's context, and I think we can both agree that both games are set in an (fantasy) era where sexism is expected to occur. The only thing I can think of in Skyrim (the game) that shows some sexism is the mission where you publicly shame a woman for sleeping with many men, but the overall reaction by the NPCs last for about 5 minutes and then everyone is back to, "Have you tried this? Skooma? I took an arrow to the knee! Maybe I'm Dragonborn?"

So yeah, I wouldn't say either game is more progressive than the other, but I was curious as to why you thought one was better than the other.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I'm happy to have a civil debating partner actually I am not trying to be whatever the female equivalent of a dick is either.

You consider insisting that their Maker won't come back to his creation until his chant is heard from all corners of the world, until all embrace their doctrine in other words, "not over zealous" do you? I would say that almost defines the concept. Individuals who don't worship Andraste may get along alright - going along to get along in some cases - but the Chasind spring to mind as a whole group of people who don't worship Andraste and missionaries are going to them as barbarians; similarly the people of Rivani are considered semi-godless for declining to embrace the Chantry's teachings that would require them to do away with wise women / hedge mages amongst them. Qunari are considered a heretical threat by some and at least a serious impediment to the spread of the Chant by others. One benevolent leader of a Chantry does not a tolerant institution make - remember, the Grand Divine (or whatever she's called) told Leliana to tell the Grand Cleric to get out of town because if things blew up she was sending in a force to be reckoned with (and if you're siding with mages you end the game on the run from these). I don't doubt their general intentions are good towards a general portion of the population (the ones who are sided with them largely), but they are a large and powerful organized religion with an army - one doesn't have an army on call if one is not going to use them if it comes to that.

Personally I found the Qunari to be more the zealots than the Chantry as at least the chantry was willing to bend it's rules/belief system slightly. I kind of view the Chanty as christianity now days and the Qun Christianity during the 12th century. While I agree that the Chantry have shown signs of being major dickbags I still feel that most of the in-game experiences I've hadwith them have been generally peaceful compared to the Qunari whom basically outright say they will conquer the whole world or die trying.

I didn't say TES had no slavery, only that an entire race wasn't enslaved to another. There are slaves and slavery may be determined on a racial basis, but the whole of a people have not come entirely under another people since the Mythic Age (and that's semi-debatable as to be included - since the history is a tiny bit on the sketchy side that far back).

While technically it's not slavery, the Aldmeri Dominion kind of force their views apon all races of Tamriel. Hell, the Bosmer nearly got their whole land wiped out because of the Altmer and Cyrodil was basically destroyed. We also have the Bretons in Skyrim being treated poorly by the Nords, along with the Dunmer whom just recently had most of their land destroyed. The Orcs have always been treated as below humans and elves (Orsimer literally meaning pariah folk), the Khajit are always associated with con artist and are basically TES version of gypsies. Really all the races kinda dislike each other for one reason or another and the only difference is that some are more openly racist than others (looking your way Nords/Altmer).

There's a contrast between men and women - pretty standard stuff there. Again, no massively offensive or overt sexism catches my eye in either game (women can inherit in both games, can be leaders in both games, are not denied entry into professions based on sex in either game that I can recall, and so on). Men and women seem - however occasionally contrasted and in some individual cases possibly in unequal situations - on the whole and in general treated equally, which is about as best you can ask from a video game currently. (and no, I don't want to go into a feminist / not slant - not what this is about overall and I think we both agree that if there is sexism it's not significant enough to say, not want to live in that world at all).

Yeah, I'm not to fussed about sexism in game when there's context, and I think we can both agree that both games are set in an (fantasy) era where sexism is expected to occur. The only thing I can think of in Skyrim (the game) that shows some sexism is the mission where you publicly shame a woman for sleeping with many men, but the overall reaction by the NPCs last for about 5 minutes and then everyone is back to, "Have you tried this? Skooma? I took an arrow to the knee! Maybe I'm Dragonborn?"

So yeah, I wouldn't say either game is more progressive than the other, but I was curious as to why you thought one was better than the other.

I am terrible at the split-quote thing, so you'll have to do with block text I'm afraid.

Yes, the Qunari are zealots in their own right, but I don't think that actually diminishes the zealotry of the Chantry just by surpassing it. I wouldn't want to be converted by either of them, let's say (although I've played many a char who was devoted to Andraste, for immersion's sake). Again, I don't think The Chantry is willing to bend rules so much as certain adherents of it are willing to - the individual is almost always more able to be flexible than the organization they belong to. Talis wasn't as hardcore a Qunari, for example, but that doesn't make the Qun less demanding of eventual world-wide conversion, forcibly if need be.

A political body trying (and not succeeding very well, as the shrines to Talos all over Skyrim and the various rebellions that no doubt brew against them attest to) to dominate policy isn't at all close to enslavement. Actual, physical, we own you, we own your children, we own your spouse (if we let you have a spouse) slavery that Elves endure in Tevinter and endured in the past of the Dragon Age mythos is an entirely different animal. Other races looking down their noses at other races is not at all the same thing as one race enslaving another bodily for generations. Apples and Oranges. Granted, the TES stuff you've mentioned is far from idyllic and nasty in itself, but it pales in comparison.

One quest does not to me make a case for sexism. I get the idea that because it's a woman you're shaming (if you even do that quest, which you really don't have to and it's easily easily missed - or glitches so you can't get the quest at all if you pick up a mark of dibella before you get the quest, at least on PS3, btw) rather than a man being shamed for sleeping around it's supposedly sexist, supporting an old idea that it's ok for men to be sexually liberal and women should show restraint. BUT! The very idea that it's only because you're shaming a woman instead of a man making it the sexist thing is... well a little sexist in itself. I'm not going to do the mobius strip with this one, but if it was a man getting called out for being around town, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. Dibella is a goddess of women and beauty though, so it's a woman. You don't see male worshipers of Dibella I think ever. Rather like you wouldn't have seen any men in the temple of Vesta or many if any in the temple of Aphrodite. Either way - one quest does not a sexist world make. One woman (who is thoroughly nasty, by the by, and very hard flinty - almost masculine you might say) getting called out by another woman she's obviously taken advantage of... meh can't really represent the ideas of a whole world in 1 person, especially 1 you-have-to-interact-with-her-a-maximum-of-two-times NPC. Let's just say, compared to all the other things one might point to in other places and bring out the label-gun, it doesn't register on my scales as significant. Not when there are female Jarls ruling in their own right and female mercenaries traveling the roads and female thieves out stealing coin and female assassins trying to slit peoples' throats and clearly no one thinks anything of it.

 

[WalrusPowers]

The Simpsons: Hit and Run

Turned that around pretty easily, didn't I?

 

[Full]

I hate to be generic, but Dishonored or Deus Ex, probably. I mean sure, in Dunwall the women are treated like crap and everyone is dead, but there's just something about that place that's unique feeling, even though it's really not at all. Also, WHALES!

I'd live in Deus Ex so I can have an excuse to blow my arms off so I can get sick wrist knives and robot glasses.

 

[bug_of_war]

I am terrible at the split-quote thing, so you'll have to do with block text I'm afraid.

Yes, the Qunari are zealots in their own right, but I don't think that actually diminishes the zealotry of the Chantry just by surpassing it. I wouldn't want to be converted by either of them, let's say (although I've played many a char who was devoted to Andraste, for immersion's sake). Again, I don't think The Chantry is willing to bend rules so much as certain adherents of it are willing to - the individual is almost always more able to be flexible than the organization they belong to. Talis wasn't as hardcore a Qunari, for example, but that doesn't make the Qun less demanding of eventual world-wide conversion, forcibly if need be.

A political body trying (and not succeeding very well, as the shrines to Talos all over Skyrim and the various rebellions that no doubt brew against them attest to) to dominate policy isn't at all close to enslavement. Actual, physical, we own you, we own your children, we own your spouse (if we let you have a spouse) slavery that Elves endure in Tevinter and endured in the past of the Dragon Age mythos is an entirely different animal. Other races looking down their noses at other races is not at all the same thing as one race enslaving another bodily for generations. Apples and Oranges. Granted, the TES stuff you've mentioned is far from idyllic and nasty in itself, but it pales in comparison.

One quest does not to me make a case for sexism. I get the idea that because it's a woman you're shaming (if you even do that quest, which you really don't have to and it's easily easily missed - or glitches so you can't get the quest at all if you pick up a mark of dibella before you get the quest, at least on PS3, btw) rather than a man being shamed for sleeping around it's supposedly sexist, supporting an old idea that it's ok for men to be sexually liberal and women should show restraint. BUT! The very idea that it's only because you're shaming a woman instead of a man making it the sexist thing is... well a little sexist in itself. I'm not going to do the mobius strip with this one, but if it was a man getting called out for being around town, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. Dibella is a goddess of women and beauty though, so it's a woman. You don't see male worshipers of Dibella I think ever. Rather like you wouldn't have seen any men in the temple of Vesta or many if any in the temple of Aphrodite. Either way - one quest does not a sexist world make. One woman (who is thoroughly nasty, by the by, and very hard flinty - almost masculine you might say) getting called out by another woman she's obviously taken advantage of... meh can't really represent the ideas of a whole world in 1 person, especially 1 you-have-to-interact-with-her-a-maximum-of-two-times NPC. Let's just say, compared to all the other things one might point to in other places and bring out the label-gun, it doesn't register on my scales as significant. Not when there are female Jarls ruling in their own right and female mercenaries traveling the roads and female thieves out stealing coin and female assassins trying to slit peoples' throats and clearly no one thinks anything of it.

That's cool, I don't mind doing block test, it just takes me a little longer.

I guess you're right about the idea that it may be les the organisation whom is flexible and more the individual, but I feel as though we have seen more characters in the Chantry who are flexible than the Qun. So I think that the Chantry is less demanding than the Qun, and whilst you've pointed out that it has been through individual flexibility that has made this more noticeabe I believe the Chantry is sort of the lesser evil in a sense that they don't look to conquer the whole world. So I agree with you tha they're not saints, but they're not devils either.

I totally agree with you that the slavery between DA and TES is on opposite spectrums, but I feel that the DA universe is slightly more generous than the TES universe. For example, when the Nedes first landed on Skyrim they shared the space peacefully with the Snow Elves. It wasn't until the Elves realised that humans breed like rabits that they started to feel threatened, and so they then went on into a genocidal slaughter and killed all the humans with Ysgrammor and his sonsas the exception. Also, it is widely speculated that the only reason the Aldmeri Dominion didn't wipe out the Imperials is because of the Imperials being the best diplomats ever. So while TES hasn't exactly gone into entire race slavery (Which technically seeing as how the Dalish in DA live free from the humans, DA has not had that either), they have had at least 2 known instances where in which the Elves have tried exterminating the Humans.

It's perfectly valid the point you just bought up about one mission doesn't paint the whole picture. However, there are many instances where in which genders are subtly treated as not opposites. With the Orc strongholds many of the Orc leaders have multiple wives, and the other male Orcs are forbiden to breed. So while it is not in your face sexism, and I wouldn't go out of my way to make a big deal about it (even thoug right now I am), it is there to show that some races aren't all equal. As you said, that is only one example and doesn't paint the hole picture, but here we have one race that have a clear distiction between what the males can do, and what the females can do. Thinking about it now though makes me sorta think that it's more social in-equality rather than sexism. So I guess TES is much more flexible than DA in the sense that the devs have 10 races that they can make distinct character traits present in as apposed to DA only having Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Kossith.

 

[Squilookle]

My answer is unchanged since the last half-dozen times this question has been asked.

Crimson Skies, thanks. You can keep your swords and your critters and you're magic dust. Duking it out in the clouds around my flying Zeppelin pirate base just can't be beat.

 

[Dethenger]

Dark Souls. God knows I've spent days in there anyways. Besides, I like the idea of spawning back at a bonfire upon death, because even though that opens me up to a world of painful deaths, I also get the opportunity to rise above and be a gigantic badass.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I am terrible at the split-quote thing, so you'll have to do with block text I'm afraid.

Yes, the Qunari are zealots in their own right, but I don't think that actually diminishes the zealotry of the Chantry just by surpassing it. I wouldn't want to be converted by either of them, let's say (although I've played many a char who was devoted to Andraste, for immersion's sake). Again, I don't think The Chantry is willing to bend rules so much as certain adherents of it are willing to - the individual is almost always more able to be flexible than the organization they belong to. Talis wasn't as hardcore a Qunari, for example, but that doesn't make the Qun less demanding of eventual world-wide conversion, forcibly if need be.

A political body trying (and not succeeding very well, as the shrines to Talos all over Skyrim and the various rebellions that no doubt brew against them attest to) to dominate policy isn't at all close to enslavement. Actual, physical, we own you, we own your children, we own your spouse (if we let you have a spouse) slavery that Elves endure in Tevinter and endured in the past of the Dragon Age mythos is an entirely different animal. Other races looking down their noses at other races is not at all the same thing as one race enslaving another bodily for generations. Apples and Oranges. Granted, the TES stuff you've mentioned is far from idyllic and nasty in itself, but it pales in comparison.

One quest does not to me make a case for sexism. I get the idea that because it's a woman you're shaming (if you even do that quest, which you really don't have to and it's easily easily missed - or glitches so you can't get the quest at all if you pick up a mark of dibella before you get the quest, at least on PS3, btw) rather than a man being shamed for sleeping around it's supposedly sexist, supporting an old idea that it's ok for men to be sexually liberal and women should show restraint. BUT! The very idea that it's only because you're shaming a woman instead of a man making it the sexist thing is... well a little sexist in itself. I'm not going to do the mobius strip with this one, but if it was a man getting called out for being around town, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. Dibella is a goddess of women and beauty though, so it's a woman. You don't see male worshipers of Dibella I think ever. Rather like you wouldn't have seen any men in the temple of Vesta or many if any in the temple of Aphrodite. Either way - one quest does not a sexist world make. One woman (who is thoroughly nasty, by the by, and very hard flinty - almost masculine you might say) getting called out by another woman she's obviously taken advantage of... meh can't really represent the ideas of a whole world in 1 person, especially 1 you-have-to-interact-with-her-a-maximum-of-two-times NPC. Let's just say, compared to all the other things one might point to in other places and bring out the label-gun, it doesn't register on my scales as significant. Not when there are female Jarls ruling in their own right and female mercenaries traveling the roads and female thieves out stealing coin and female assassins trying to slit peoples' throats and clearly no one thinks anything of it.

That's cool, I don't mind doing block test, it just takes me a little longer.

I guess you're right about the idea that it may be les the organisation whom is flexible and more the individual, but I feel as though we have seen more characters in the Chantry who are flexible than the Qun. So I think that the Chantry is less demanding than the Qun, and whilst you've pointed out that it has been through individual flexibility that has made this more noticeabe I believe the Chantry is sort of the lesser evil in a sense that they don't look to conquer the whole world. So I agree with you tha they're not saints, but they're not devils either.

I totally agree with you that the slavery between DA and TES is on opposite spectrums, but I feel that the DA universe is slightly more generous than the TES universe. For example, when the Nedes first landed on Skyrim they shared the space peacefully with the Snow Elves. It wasn't until the Elves realised that humans breed like rabits that they started to feel threatened, and so they then went on into a genocidal slaughter and killed all the humans with Ysgrammor and his sonsas the exception. Also, it is widely speculated that the only reason the Aldmeri Dominion didn't wipe out the Imperials is because of the Imperials being the best diplomats ever. So while TES hasn't exactly gone into entire race slavery (Which technically seeing as how the Dalish in DA live free from the humans, DA has not had that either), they have had at least 2 known instances where in which the Elves have tried exterminating the Humans.

It's perfectly valid the point you just bought up about one mission doesn't paint the whole picture. However, there are many instances where in which genders are subtly treated as not opposites. With the Orc strongholds many of the Orc leaders have multiple wives, and the other male Orcs are forbiden to breed. So while it is not in your face sexism, and I wouldn't go out of my way to make a big deal about it (even thoug right now I am), it is there to show that some races aren't all equal. As you said, that is only one example and doesn't paint the hole picture, but here we have one race that have a clear distiction between what the males can do, and what the females can do. Thinking about it now though makes me sorta think that it's more social in-equality rather than sexism. So I guess TES is much more flexible than DA in the sense that the devs have 10 races that they can make distinct character traits present in as apposed to DA only having Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Kossith.

True, the Chantry are not evil - they're just really into what they're about. In fairness, we don't meet too many Qunari that can give us an impression. Sten is a good impression overall, Talis has flexibility and understanding, the head guy who's name escapes me presently is obviously a hard-ass, but he's a high leader of a war party that's been robbed and basically marooned in human lands so... maybe that could be why.

The Elves were fully enslaved before the Dales, then the Exalted Marches, then the Dalish (hence the name) spring up as those who will not convert to the Chantry ways and keep their own gods out in the wilds. So no, at the point we play, not all Elves are enslaved just some of them and the rest are treated like crap either in cities or out in the wild where they aren't allowed near cities. But they were all enslaved at some point before Shartan teamed up with good old Andraste.

Orc men do rule and get multiple wives, but people are free to choose the stronghold way or leave and women are still warriors and work the forge. Selective breeding for the best strength is a part of patriarchal thinking, true, but as you rightly recall, the diversity of custom in TES allows for multiple angles on the issue.

 

[bug_of_war]

True, the Chantry are not evil - they're just really into what they're about. In fairness, we don't meet too many Qunari that can give us an impression. Sten is a good impression overall, Talis has flexibility and understanding, the head guy who's name escapes me presently is obviously a hard-ass, but he's a high leader of a war party that's been robbed and basically marooned in human lands so... maybe that could be why.

The Elves were fully enslaved before the Dales, then the Exalted Marches, then the Dalish (hence the name) spring up as those who will not convert to the Chantry ways and keep their own gods out in the wilds. So no, at the point we play, not all Elves are enslaved just some of them and the rest are treated like crap either in cities or out in the wild where they aren't allowed near cities. But they were all enslaved at some point before Shartan teamed up with good old Andraste.

Orc men do rule and get multiple wives, but people are free to choose the stronghold way or leave and women are still warriors and work the forge. Selective breeding for the best strength is a part of patriarchal thinking, true, but as you rightly recall, the diversity of custom in TES allows for multiple angles on the issue.

I think we've gotten a fair impression of both the Chantry and the Qun. Sten shows that the Qunari can be honour bound to a party that does not follow the Qun even though he openly dislikes it. He also relays much information to the player about his people once you get his companion mission. When asked regardless of his likeness rating he flat out tells the player that the Qunari will come to Ferelden and force teh Qun onto the people. Hell, at the end of the battle he tells you that he wont seek you out in battle when the time comes. As with DA2 I think we got a pretty good idea of what a majority of the Qunari are like, yes there was that one group of Qunari whom left the Qun and became mercanaries, but a majority of the Quanri we see are dedicated to the Qun. So...wow, I think I just realised that in a religous sense DA and TES are quite similar (Stormcloaks fighting so they can still worship Talos, Aldmeri Dominion fighting to get rid of Talos as a deity).

I was unaware that the Dales formed after enslavement. I still don't know what can be considered as worse though, genocide or enslavement. Is it worse that a race gets wiped out, or enslaved for x number of years? I dunno, this is one of those philosophical questions that I really have no grounds to speak on so I'll just leave it as saying they're both equally bad in their own ways. Apples and oranges...

Yeah, I don't think sexism is something that stands out in either universe, but it is present in neither a good or bad view. To clarify, I don't believe their are huge obviously sexist views in either game, but there are subtle tones that do not effect the world in a negative or positive manner, and are there for the player to view as bad or good. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the TES universe in regards to the sexist undertones, but I have heard some people complain about certain sections where in which one gender is unfairly treated in one aspect.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Pokemon. Lovely utopian world where I can ditch everything and everyone to go on a quest to make a living catching and collecting cute little monsters? Sign me up.

 

[generals3]

EVE online as a capsuleer, artificial immortality ftw. And let's not forget the fact i could suicide gank anyone who pisses me off.

 

[Doneeee]

I'd live in silent hill of course! I'd have cooky neighbors and the enjoyment of seeing outsiders stumble into town confused, plus the rent for a house there would probably be dirt cheap.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Now I'm a bit unclear on whether you do actually respawn or not, which could affect my decision, but I'll give it a try:

Pokemon is the world I would choose if death were an issue. Everything is fairly cheap, you can collect and train Pokemon, there's free healthcare, not to mention I would steamroll literally every gym (as would plenty of other people alive today) because of past experience, and also you can fight crime with relative ease, but none of the 'teams' have ever gone for genocide of the human race, only ever some sort of ideological goal or terraforming from what I know. The only thing that would really annoy me about the Pokemon universe is its painfullly simple world and characters, but if, as the Op says, it became more realistic, that could be alright.

Dark Souls. Really wouldn't be a very good fit for me, I don't have a purpose in life as is and would go hollow pretty quickly unless I joined a covenant or someone told me about the Bells. But I do like the world, there are free joy rides from a giant crow, you find awesome weapons just lying around, you do essentially live forever provided you have a reason to, once you get the Lordvessel you can teleport, with the world populated by other real people summoning for bosses would be easy, and WotG in real life? Sign me up.

Monster Hunter would also be an alright choice provided there is no gruesome death, assuming it's multiplayer all the time. Talking cats, swords bigger than you, getting rare materials would be a breeze when you have a physical corpse to work with rather than a few random carves, it's very easy to make money and there are these luscious beautiful environments everywhere. With no respawning however, it'd take forever to get a decent weapon taking only the quests you know you can handle, but then again with the option to work with other hunters, that wouldn't be so bad. I rank this above Dark Souls and Pokemon in preference of living.

Armored Core would be swell but the majority of people are oppressed mindless drones in danger of being sacrificed on the whim of a giant corporation or rebel force at any moment and do not actually have ACs. So nope.

Deus Ex: HR and Mass Effect would both be nice, but if you're anything other than a military biotic or an auged-up mercenary respectively, chances are you're just scraping by in the dystopic normal world. However, the mere chance of having telekinesis or cybernetic upgrades is enough for me to want to live in these worlds, not to mention the great aesthetics. Of course...Reapers and Hugh Darrow, but what can you do.

tl;dr: Monster Hunter>Dark Souls>Deus Ex: HR and Mass Effect> Pokemon.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

True, the Chantry are not evil - they're just really into what they're about. In fairness, we don't meet too many Qunari that can give us an impression. Sten is a good impression overall, Talis has flexibility and understanding, the head guy who's name escapes me presently is obviously a hard-ass, but he's a high leader of a war party that's been robbed and basically marooned in human lands so... maybe that could be why.

The Elves were fully enslaved before the Dales, then the Exalted Marches, then the Dalish (hence the name) spring up as those who will not convert to the Chantry ways and keep their own gods out in the wilds. So no, at the point we play, not all Elves are enslaved just some of them and the rest are treated like crap either in cities or out in the wild where they aren't allowed near cities. But they were all enslaved at some point before Shartan teamed up with good old Andraste.

Orc men do rule and get multiple wives, but people are free to choose the stronghold way or leave and women are still warriors and work the forge. Selective breeding for the best strength is a part of patriarchal thinking, true, but as you rightly recall, the diversity of custom in TES allows for multiple angles on the issue.

I think we've gotten a fair impression of both the Chantry and the Qun. Sten shows that the Qunari can be honour bound to a party that does not follow the Qun even though he openly dislikes it. He also relays much information to the player about his people once you get his companion mission. When asked regardless of his likeness rating he flat out tells the player that the Qunari will come to Ferelden and force teh Qun onto the people. Hell, at the end of the battle he tells you that he wont seek you out in battle when the time comes. As with DA2 I think we got a pretty good idea of what a majority of the Qunari are like, yes there was that one group of Qunari whom left the Qun and became mercanaries, but a majority of the Quanri we see are dedicated to the Qun. So...wow, I think I just realised that in a religous sense DA and TES are quite similar (Stormcloaks fighting so they can still worship Talos, Aldmeri Dominion fighting to get rid of Talos as a deity).

I was unaware that the Dales formed after enslavement. I still don't know what can be considered as worse though, genocide or enslavement. Is it worse that a race gets wiped out, or enslaved for x number of years? I dunno, this is one of those philosophical questions that I really have no grounds to speak on so I'll just leave it as saying they're both equally bad in their own ways. Apples and oranges...

Yeah, I don't think sexism is something that stands out in either universe, but it is present in neither a good or bad view. To clarify, I don't believe their are huge obviously sexist views in either game, but there are subtle tones that do not effect the world in a negative or positive manner, and are there for the player to view as bad or good. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the TES universe in regards to the sexist undertones, but I have heard some people complain about certain sections where in which one gender is unfairly treated in one aspect.

Agreed - the Chantry vs. Qun thing - I really hope that comes down the pike in another game later in the series because that will be a hell of a ride. I don't want them to rush it into the mage/Chantry conflict because things would just become a mess, too busy, wasted a bit - but I do hope they take us there someday.

The Elves (according to their lore) started immortal in Arlathan and meeting humans diminished their lifespans, so they avoided them, eventually the Tevinter Mages wanted something from them (probably a magic thing, it's not specified) and invaded, wiped out large numbers, enslaved them for I think they say 1,000 years - and thus stripped them of their immortality in that process. Then Andraste, Shartan, and the overthrow of the south holdings of Tevinter gave the Elves the Dales, where they were form an unspecified time, but worshipping the old gods rather than the new religion of the Chantry, Maker, and Andraste brought the wrath of the Chantry down on them in the Exalted Marches of the Dales and those elves that submitted to human ways moved to alienages in the cities and those who would not formed the Dalish clans. So we got enslavement and a form of genocide (loss of immortality) and then freedom, more genocide, and finally enslavement in some cases, second class citizenry in others, and outlaw status in others.

For all the people who are always talking about the precious plight of the poor put upon mages (and they have a case, no doubt - magic being dangerous doesn't seem quite enough justification to imprison people) hardly anyone seems to realize what a raw deal the elves have had and are still stuck with.

 

[bug_of_war]

Agreed - the Chantry vs. Qun thing - I really hope that comes down the pike in another game later in the series because that will be a hell of a ride. I don't want them to rush it into the mage/Chantry conflict because things would just become a mess, too busy, wasted a bit - but I do hope they take us there someday.

The Elves (according to their lore) started immortal in Arlathan and meeting humans diminished their lifespans, so they avoided them, eventually the Tevinter Mages wanted something from them (probably a magic thing, it's not specified) and invaded, wiped out large numbers, enslaved them for I think they say 1,000 years - and thus stripped them of their immortality in that process. Then Andraste, Shartan, and the overthrow of the south holdings of Tevinter gave the Elves the Dales, where they were form an unspecified time, but worshipping the old gods rather than the new religion of the Chantry, Maker, and Andraste brought the wrath of the Chantry down on them in the Exalted Marches of the Dales and those elves that submitted to human ways moved to alienages in the cities and those who would not formed the Dalish clans. So we got enslavement and a form of genocide (loss of immortality) and then freedom, more genocide, and finally enslavement in some cases, second class citizenry in others, and outlaw status in others.

For all the people who are always talking about the precious plight of the poor put upon mages (and they have a case, no doubt - magic being dangerous doesn't seem quite enough justification to imprison people) hardly anyone seems to realize what a raw deal the elves have had and are still stuck with.

It's a shame the 3rd game is focusing on the battle between the mages and templars, but I guess so long as the story is good and the characters are interesting I'll probably enjoy it about the same as the previous 2 games. I do think by DA3 we will probably see how much reach the Chantry has and the dominance they can use to aid one side or the other (or neither). But yeah, really felt like they could have pushed the Qunari vs everyone else a little bit more as they are quite a threat (well, mages and zealots are threats too, but...I dunno) and there was a decent amount of development in the first and second game which suggests the Qunari would invade soon (You'd think Hawke killing the Arishock would have caused the Qunari to use that as a valid reason to invade immedietly and thus stopping other nations from allying themselves with the Free Marches).

Wow...the Chantry were dicks. I suppose you could draw comparisons between the Aldmeri Dominion and the Chantry in the sense that (both the old and new dominion) sought to crush a certain species for the beliefs and just being different. I can't off the top of my head think of any examples, but there are many books in the games that detail the backstory and history of the TES universe, and I vaguely remember reading that the old Aldmeri Dominion tried to sack Cyrodil for something to do with the Imperials and their ideaology (not just on religion, but economic, social, etc). Also, I wouldn't exactly say that the Humans taking away the Elves supposed 'immortality' as genocide, as they were not intentionally trying to kill all the Elves, but inslave them (which yes is still a horrible thing to do, so bad humans, very bad humans). You can't blame the Humans entirely for taking away the Elves (again, supposed) immortality as the how could anyone know that mortality was a genetic sickness that could cross species and revert immortality. So yeah, I wouldn't exactly say that the supposed loss of immortality is genocide, but more an unforseen event that occurs when Elves hang out with Humans.

Yeah...I had little sympathy for the mages and generally found myself on neutral ground. I don't think they should be all be killed, but they do need to be kept in check. I generally saw what the templars were doing to the mages as what most countries did with animals that are considered pests, or have a disease that could potentially kill all their species/cross into another species. You have to keep something that has the potential to cause great harm in check, regardless of the probability/percentage of that something are not bad. The mages are a threat, Wynne set a boy on fire by accident because she was annoyed, that to me says dangerous, they're basically what happens when you give a child a gun. So yeah, while I don't side with either templars or mages, the mages are still dangerous, and more so than the mages in TES. At least in TES they need to train to gt better at their magic, DA mages instead have to train to learn control, so the way I see it, the prjudice in TES is worse than in DA. At least in DA there are multiple scenarios of people of all ages with powerful destructive force running through their veins that require supervision, in TES most mages spend years trying to master stronger spells.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Agreed - the Chantry vs. Qun thing - I really hope that comes down the pike in another game later in the series because that will be a hell of a ride. I don't want them to rush it into the mage/Chantry conflict because things would just become a mess, too busy, wasted a bit - but I do hope they take us there someday.

The Elves (according to their lore) started immortal in Arlathan and meeting humans diminished their lifespans, so they avoided them, eventually the Tevinter Mages wanted something from them (probably a magic thing, it's not specified) and invaded, wiped out large numbers, enslaved them for I think they say 1,000 years - and thus stripped them of their immortality in that process. Then Andraste, Shartan, and the overthrow of the south holdings of Tevinter gave the Elves the Dales, where they were form an unspecified time, but worshipping the old gods rather than the new religion of the Chantry, Maker, and Andraste brought the wrath of the Chantry down on them in the Exalted Marches of the Dales and those elves that submitted to human ways moved to alienages in the cities and those who would not formed the Dalish clans. So we got enslavement and a form of genocide (loss of immortality) and then freedom, more genocide, and finally enslavement in some cases, second class citizenry in others, and outlaw status in others.

For all the people who are always talking about the precious plight of the poor put upon mages (and they have a case, no doubt - magic being dangerous doesn't seem quite enough justification to imprison people) hardly anyone seems to realize what a raw deal the elves have had and are still stuck with.

It's a shame the 3rd game is focusing on the battle between the mages and templars, but I guess so long as the story is good and the characters are interesting I'll probably enjoy it about the same as the previous 2 games. I do think by DA3 we will probably see how much reach the Chantry has and the dominance they can use to aid one side or the other (or neither). But yeah, really felt like they could have pushed the Qunari vs everyone else a little bit more as they are quite a threat (well, mages and zealots are threats too, but...I dunno) and there was a decent amount of development in the first and second game which suggests the Qunari would invade soon (You'd think Hawke killing the Arishock would have caused the Qunari to use that as a valid reason to invade immedietly and thus stopping other nations from allying themselves with the Free Marches).

Wow...the Chantry were dicks. I suppose you could draw comparisons between the Aldmeri Dominion and the Chantry in the sense that (both the old and new dominion) sought to crush a certain species for the beliefs and just being different. I can't off the top of my head think of any examples, but there are many books in the games that detail the backstory and history of the TES universe, and I vaguely remember reading that the old Aldmeri Dominion tried to sack Cyrodil for something to do with the Imperials and their ideaology (not just on religion, but economic, social, etc). Also, I wouldn't exactly say that the Humans taking away the Elves supposed 'immortality' as genocide, as they were not intentionally trying to kill all the Elves, but inslave them (which yes is still a horrible thing to do, so bad humans, very bad humans). You can't blame the Humans entirely for taking away the Elves (again, supposed) immortality as the how could anyone know that mortality was a genetic sickness that could cross species and revert immortality. So yeah, I wouldn't exactly say that the supposed loss of immortality is genocide, but more an unforseen event that occurs when Elves hang out with Humans.

Yeah...I had little sympathy for the mages and generally found myself on neutral ground. I don't think they should be all be killed, but they do need to be kept in check. I generally saw what the templars were doing to the mages as what most countries did with animals that are considered pests, or have a disease that could potentially kill all their species/cross into another species. You have to keep something that has the potential to cause great harm in check, regardless of the probability/percentage of that something are not bad. The mages are a threat, Wynne set a boy on fire by accident because she was annoyed, that to me says dangerous, they're basically what happens when you give a child a gun. So yeah, while I don't side with either templars or mages, the mages are still dangerous, and more so than the mages in TES. At least in TES they need to train to gt better at their magic, DA mages instead have to train to learn control, so the way I see it, the prjudice in TES is worse than in DA. At least in DA there are multiple scenarios of people of all ages with powerful destructive force running through their veins that require supervision, in TES most mages spend years trying to master stronger spells.

Yeah... overall I think the loss of immortality thing was a little bit like the smallpox and other diseases that killed off natives in the New World when it got discovered - unintentional, but devastating and no one took appropriate steps to try to limit the damages - which makes it almost seem intentional, but it isn't actually. Something close to that.

 

[bug_of_war]

Yeah... overall I think the loss of immortality thing was a little bit like the smallpox and other diseases that killed off natives in the New World when it got discovered - unintentional, but devastating and no one took appropriate steps to try to limit the damages - which makes it almost seem intentional, but it isn't actually. Something close to that.

I dunno, how was anyone, ANYONE suppose to know that Humans cause Elves to loose their immortality, and at the same time how are they suppose to stop an infectious mortality? I mean, in the grand scheme of things I'd say mortality isn't such a bad thing. It gives reason to not be an idiot, breeding becomes more needed than EVER, and imagine having people in the 12th century still alive today...yeah forward thinking requires newer brains. So yeah, I have always been interested in finding out whether or not the Elves may have done something first to cause the Humans to be dicks. I'm kind of sick of Humans always being the dickbags in, well most genres to be honest, but especilly in RPGs. That's why I liked Mass Effect because while Humans were shown as over eager a majority of our society (bar Cerberus) was able to intergrate into the whole council races citadel comission buddies panel (and it only took them 30 or so years(which was spent fighting the Turians but both sides have moments where they were being the dick)). So yeah, personally I also wouldn't wanna live in the DA universe (I just find it boring with only one sort of unique race(Kossith(Qunari))), and while I accept that it is VERY debatable to which game universe contains more prejudice I (and I think most people agree with me here) like the idea of 10 unique intelligent races living together and how they interact.