#given how dreadful bioware/ea has gotten

[lesbiansforboromir]

Alright, I saw too many posts about DA4 and the pressure valve on dragon age opinions burst so I'm breaking my silence about mage discourse.

One day someone at bioware, can't remember who, made the worst possible PR decision and openly declared mages as an allegory for mental illness. It has all been downhill from there. Quite literally I could not be less interested in treating mages and mental illness as even tangentally related. Within the canon of DA, mages are people who literally have demons speaking to them, can literally become possessed by demons, and who are literally dangerous in extremely real and unavoidable ways even without the demon stuff. Lobotomies not only exist, but also work, the 'tranquil' are no longer plagued by the demons, nor do they have the powers of fireball anymore. It's like they called the 1300's and asked a witch hunter to write this.

And I am absolutely certain this framing is extremely cathartic for some people to relate too. Themactically speaking, turning all the dials up on a social issue for a fantasy world will always resonate with many of the victims of that issue. There is something impactful about taking all the insane stereotypes society has created around your lived experience, deciding they're real in an imaginary world and then playing out scenarios where you deal with them. God only knows gay people love vampires and werewolves.

But in that case it also has to be understood that others will not like it, or find it cathartic at all. The sticking point for me is probably the fact that mages are immensely powerful, something I find so egregiously unrelatable that any possible power fantasy it might be tempting me into just evaporates. And then of course there is Tevinter, which if we're following the allegorical logic is a state ruled by the mentally ill whom have 'embraced their demons' and so are now ruling an empire built on the enslavement of the 'pure' and 'untainted undemonic' population. Which I feel like, if we're weighing the mage narrative on the merit of it's being a cathartic themactic framing, is stretching the concept quite thin.

So I've always experienced mage based narratives as entirely seperate from their irl allegories at least emotionally, even if cognitively I do understand the parallels. And when you look at it like that, so sorry, it actually is a grey moral issue. If there were people in real life who could, without any additional equipment or technology, just create a fire/lightning storm from thin air, that on it's own would be a problem society would have to grapple with solving. You could not just let people with such power live under the same rules as everyone else. Like Wynne as a child nearly burned a barn down and scarred another child. These are not hypothetical issues within the canon.

And somewhat unrelated side tangent but I've seen people say, without an ounce of irony, 'magic doesn't kill people, people kill people' as an argument against the need for magic control. Which is just a fascinating framing all by itself, given the only difference between guns and DA magic is that one is an external tool and the other is built into select people. AND given that witholding gun licenses from the so called 'mentally disturbed' is an often advocated for policy... it's just kind of ironic is all!

Anyway the POINT is this is kind of frustrating to me because technically the mages COULD be a fun little play pretend thought morality experiment. This IS a difficult problem to solve, DA rightly engages with the fact that any institution created to control a subsection of people will create an environment of horrific abuse and dehumanisation. And that is only doubled with the introduction of religious control. When presented neutrally this is a 'do you sacrifice the few for the sake of the many' quandary with a lot of interesting caviates. IS it for the sake of the many? Would the actual number of people harmed by mages really exceed the number of mages themselves? Are we not just sacrificing the peace and freedom of many people for a hypothetical? But IS it a hypothetical since the slaver empire ruled by mages exists? But the hypothetical in the other direction isn't a hypothetical either, since the mage rebellion also exists and arguably did greater harm than free mages might have otherwise! But is that true? What about all the years worth of people in history hypothetically saved from harm by the strict control over mages? Isn't pushing for a more ethical circle a better plan than total abolishion? But is an ethical circle even possible given the cultural position mages hold? But in that case are free mages really going to be able to lead peaceful lives anyway? Doesn't the circle also protect them? But that is a situation the circle created and enforced right? Or is it? Since, once again, Demons definitely exist and mages have become possessed by them for centuries, and other mages have used their powers to dominate and abuse others in the past!

Theoretically, two people with exactly the same humanitarian purposes could argue the opposite ends of this debate in good faith, which is a fantasy. Because in the real world no one is born with a body inherrently able to cause more harm than the majority of other bodies. In fact, the opposite is true, people are born with more vulnerable bodies than the majority and are oppressed for it, their vulnerability taken advantage of by the dominant states in order to further those state's agendas in some way or other. Oppression does not have a 'good reason' to exist that originates from the oppressed class, those supposed reasons are fabricated after the fact to justify oppression in the minds of the general populace whom hold themselves to moral standards that a State does not. So, inherrently, the mages in DA are a fantasy idea and should be thought of as such.

But, amongst many DA fans, this is not the case. We've all seen people argue without irony that NOT taking a moral stance on the side of the mages and against the circles reflects badly upon your actual IRL moral compass. And it's not just that you cannot be pro-templar, even being neutral about it or finding the pro-mage characters or the mage narrative uninteresting is treated as an immoral action. People will ask things like 'who would even side with Meredith?' or 'does anyone even save the templars in DAI?' as if the choices you make narratively in a game have to be a moral judgement! Which we all know is nothing new in terms of fandom discourse, but within the mage/templar discussion it is so pervasive and so volatile that it makes it worth noting.

And like, obviously 'people get too serious about fiction on the internet' is such a non-issue that it's barely worth talking about. But I do find it interesting nonetheless as it's been a major part of my experience of being in the DA fandom, which now spans longer than a decade of my life (screams).

People have told me that I shouldn't treat this narrative theme as debatable because they relate to mage struggles as an autistic. And at the time I was pretty young and didn't really have a response to that other than a vague but powerful sense of discomfort. Nowadays, when I'm pretty sure I'm also autistic, I realise I was made deeply uncomfortable by the idea that there was anything relatable for me within the mage narrative. I do not have magic powers and I can't blow people up with my mind, I can't even get out of bed most days. Most people feel like mages to me just for being able to work a job or take care of themselves without help. And narratives of oppression that surround people with inherrent powers that far exceed anyone else just do not resonate! Which ultimately is just a reinforcement of the concept that the way people engage with fiction is not equivalent to actual real social issues, and really should not be treated as such.

[darkspellmaster]

Thoughts on E3 2018 -EA

I’m going to start this out by saying right now that I’m basing my review of Nintendo on what they showed in the Treehouse as well as the main direct. So the score is going to be based on what we know by the end of day three of the treehouse, and the same for the other groups if they had additional presentations after their main show.

So let’s start with EA….Oh EA….

Starting out with the Host Andrea Rene, who I feel got stuck in a rock and a hard place with this weak presser, as she’s known for being a better host for her other appearances. Honestly, I somewhat had to honestly cringe on her segment with Respawn’s developer Vince Zampella due to the weird comment about getting to hold a light saber. Like I don’t know if she was trying to be funny, sarcastic, or sexy here? I was confused with it. Again, I don’t blame her for the conference, but I didn’t feel like she was a good fit for this given the response. Then again, I don’t think that anyone could have made that Conference work.

As for the games shown, I have a few thoughts.

Battlefield V looks nice, presentation wise, but given that it’s mostly a cinematic trailer, we didn’t really get to see a lot of in game footage. What we did learn though from Dice was that the environments are now destructive, and you can dive roll out windows (which might be interesting if you’re into that) as well as having movable artillery (which didn’t happen in the last game) which could be useful if you’re into that. Also they reiterated the lack of Loot Boxes and premium passes, yet didn’t mention anything about a deal with microtransactions. On top of this they’re bringing back a Battle Royal to the game.

There’s not much I can say on this other then what has been said already, although the fact that it’s pretty much what DICE has been doing in regard to the main series anyway. Given that leveling up has some ties to currency, I’m wondering if in lieu of loot boxes they’re just going to microtransaction this game. What has me a bit worried about the Single player aspect of the game is that there’s hints that it’s going to be tied into the live service which makes me think that it’s going to be limited play offline, and for someone that prefers playing mostly off line…

Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order had no trailer at all. Just Respawn’s Vince Zampella explaining what it is. I’m not even sure if they were planning to have it be something to be presented (why even mention it if it’s not ready to be?) but it was a really odd vibe with that moment. The game itself doesn’t seem to have a lot going on. What we know was that it’s taking place between Episodes III and IV, and deals with a padawaan that escaped from Anakin’s moment of being nutty and you can use lightsabers. However, unless this is Kaan’s story we’re kind of running into the whole “Luke not being the last Jedi” story thus nullifying the line that Yoda said somewhat. Unless he or she never takes the Jedi oath.  I mean, sounds cool, but we don’t even know what sort of type of game it is. We do know it will be out during the Holiday season 2019. So that’s a plus, but I would think that we’d at least have gotten a quick moment of something to see.

Star Wars Battlefront II made me roll my eyes a bit, as it was repeated trailer footage over and over, which personally annoys me, but I guess was the only thing they had to show. So we saw the new Solo Content, Yay –I guess? And learned we’re getting an expansion for the Clone Wars with Obi Wan, Grievous, Dooku and Anakin showing up for that. No surprise that EA had the Director of the game saying that they made some mistakes over EA actually apologizing for their horrible practices. Yeah, no EA, you don’t get a pass for any of the BS you pulled this past year.

Unravel 2 by  Coldwood Interactive  came out the day of the conference, which was a nice change of pace. I will say this much the creative team was nervous, but showed a great deal of love for Yarny and his new companion. The fact that this is local co-op is a plus, and seems to be a fun game. Already I’m loving the blue Yarny and it looks like it’s going to be a strong story. The one thing that was rather sad about this game is that it’s not coming to the Switch and –apparently according to the development team via Twitter –they don’t have the resources to do that, even though this game and the previous one would have been a good choice for the Switch. The fact that the team said it wishes they could do it makes me wonder if EA is sending any money the way of the Originals teams that they have. If not, they should start considering porting games like this to the switch because I can tell you it will sell even more over on that console then the Xbox and PS4.

Sea of Solitude is yet another Indie that I would say saved the EA presser from falling into a F grade and leaves it at an E. The creative director from Jo –Mei games, the creators of this game from Germany, Cornelia Geppert, was extremely cute and excited to be on stage. Her infectious excitement made people applaud even more when they put the trailer on the screen. The thing that caught my attention about this game is that it covers the idea of depression and loneliness in a very strong and very direct way. The designs of the monsters and the story about a human becoming a bird like creature, which I think has ties to German folklore is really cool and again, I wish this was coming to the switch, although we don’t know at this point if it will or won’t. If EA was smart it would allow for it.

And then EA decided to screw up the love that was being given to them via the indies by pulling out…a mobile game of Command and Conquer.

Command and Conquer: Rivals…I have words about this. The original game series was a Real Time strategy game that had a lot of complexity to the creation of the game play and the set up to maintain and manage your resources while taking out the opposing team. The last game of this nature from the Command and conquer franchise came out in 2013, on PC, and then Victory was shuttered. Which leads us to the new game. Command and Conquer Rivals is mobile and while the team does boast some former members that worked on Command and Conquer a lot of the game play relies on the idea of tapping the smart phone screen. There’s no camera movement so you’re in a static place and can’t see what’s around you to figure out what you need to do. Given the reaction to Rivals so far, it seems like people are not too happy with the situation. This game, apparently, is trying to get in with the Clans like games. Which makes me wonder if we’re going to see a lot of money grabs from EA on it.

Something slightly worse was the whole shoutcast that was put up by EA, and that I wound up skipping because it seemed way too staged. The fact that it’s also a one vs. one deal makes me think that they’re going after the Pokemon go crowd as well.

The final piece from EA was the Bioware game that I’ve been dreading…

Anthem, is…in a word…Sad. I don’t mean it’s sad in the sense that it’s physically depressing to see as it has the same sleek Bioware style, that’s not the issue. I expected nothing less from Bioware and the team behind this game. My issue for the sad comes from the fact that it’s a Game as a Service, or GAAS. Which means it’s on line all the time, and that means if you have crappy internet connections you may as well skip this game. While they mentioned that the game will have no loot boxes, there was nothing about no microtransactions, and, given the nature of the game and the whole “We have content for years to come” it makes me think that this is going to end up catering only to people who like to play Destiny. The fact that normally fans of Bioware tend to like RPGs, and thus more single player affairs over multiplayer affairs makes me think that EA is trying to use Bioware to grab at the GAAS players. Now, on the one hand, it’s true that there are a lot of players that like GAAS games, and I’m not saying that they’re bad. The issue becomes, again, if you don’t have the net for it, and given the FCC crap that just went through it makes me wonder how badly this whole thing will work out. Also if you don’t like Always online games you may as well pass on this because that’s all this is going to be.  How do you manage to make Iron Man fighting Monsters seem dull. Great Job guys at doing that. 

We also saw notices about Fifa 19, and it’s practically become a monopoly given that Konami and another studio lost their license of the Championship and another tournament from Soccer. Not much changed  other than some sort of mini game, and then we had Madden and NBA, and I think that was it. I didn’t pay much mind to a lot of it because after seeing the indie presentation it felt like EA had lost touch with what makes for a good presentation….

So over all I would give EA an E, the indie area of their presser was nice and gave some bit of hope, but the over all presentation of mostly Online games and sports games, felt like EA has forgone making actual games and is now pretty much a version of Blizzard Activison.