Hearing what it was like to write, shoot, and animate ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ definitely explains why the romances and intimate moments feel so real.
This is the same mary sue site that said aunti ekel design is anti Semitic.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but yes. It is. Not intentionally so, I’m sure, but using a large hook nose in a bad character does spring from an antisemitic stereotype. I’m sure Larian didn’t do it on purpose, because “big-nose baddie” is kind of ingrained in western cultural at this point, but those are the roots of it.
Understanding the Antisemitic History of the “Hooked Nose” Stereotype - Media Diversity Institute
No its not the roots of it at all ugly character traits are not exclusive to anti antisemitic stereotypes.
Looking at aunt ekel and thinking ah jewish stereotype isnt the normal reaction thats a self report. Grievence mythology is cancer
…Did you even read what I linked to? I’m honestly curious.
It did give me a good laugh with how uninformed its article is. And well given the source im not surprised that its perspective is extremely limited with that authors world view
Ok, I can see continuing this conversation will go nowhere for either of us, so you have a nice day.
Where did you want it to go? . Do you think that author was correct in thinking aunti eckel was designed to be anti semetic?
I don’t think it was designed by Larian intentionally to be antisemetic, no. Which I said in my first comment. It’s that the trope they used of the “hook-nosed witch” (and that steals babies!) has antisemitic roots. It’s just it’s so engrained in western culture most folks don’t realize at all where the image came from. I don’t at all think Larian did it maliciously or consciously.
And as for where I expected the conversation to go, well, I don’t engage in conversations where someone is being aggressive or completely dismissive of another point of view. It’s a waste of time and I don’t fight with angry randos on the internet. I have better things to do.
On a side note, aside from our other ongoing discussion:
I’m a believer that at some point, we need to let go of the origin of things and embrace their current meaning. Language evolves. So do other cultural aspects. Just because something was once offensive doesn’t mean it has to be that way forever. And I say this as a PoC.
Maybe in the west, but we do it in Asia, and we couldn’t care less about Jews.
Because there’s never any influence in art styles and tropes between Asia and Europe, right?
Unless you’re claiming that hooked noses and other ugly physical characteristics were never used before the Nazis, which I very much doubt, what basis do you have for claiming that ALL such portrayals today are antisemitic? The world does not revolve under Israel. It is possible for other cultures to have aspects that, believe it or not, do not relate directly to western culture.
They were used before the Nazis; what are you talking about? This type of imagery goes back to the Middle Ages, well before Nazi Germany. For example, the stereotypical pointed witch hat? It’s based on the “judenhut,” which Jewish people were required to wear in the 1200s (see image).
And ffs, I’m not saying they are always antisemitic, I am saying they have their ROOTS in antisemitism. I know nuances is often lost on the internet, but please look at the words I am actually using, not what you think I’m saying.
…and why are you bringing Israel into this? Wtf?
At this point I’m not clear what you’re trying to say. You’re contradicting the article which you linked to yourself. The article states that these imagery only started being associated with the Jews during the Nazi era. You claim otherwise.
I am saying they have their ROOTS in antisemitism
How can caricature, which has been around for millenia, have its roots in antisemitism? Especially in the context of Eastern cultures which couldn’t give a shit about Jews and the Holocaust. One century, we were all making fun of each other, but the next century we were copying the Nazis?
Why on earth are you focusing so much on the Nazis, especially after I pointed out how some of the imagery used for witches and hags goes back to the 1200s?
Antisemitic caricatures were applied to witches (in fact, “witch’s sabbaths” used to be called “witch’s synagogues”), and that imagery was solidified with the printing press and normalized in Europe as what a “witch” looked like. Then, the modern era, that same imagery was used in Disney films (ie, the witch disguise the wicked queen used when she gave Snow White the poisoned apple) and other kinds of media, because that’s just what a “witch” looks like. The image of a “wicked witch” spread around the world, including Asia (because how common is a large hooked nose over here anyway, and yes, I say “here” because I’ve lived in Asia for 20 dang years now). People use that image of a “wicked witch” with, in general, no idea where it original came from. That’s why I say it has its roots in antisemitism but isn’t necessarily used with antisemitic intention or ever knowledge of where the imagery comes from.
I personally don’t think the mechanics work that well or are very well thought out. This mainly due to 4 factors which, all together, just make the romances seem really forced, as well as annoying and unbearable sometimes. With maybe 1 exception that I know of out of the 9 companions:
-
All companions are bisexual
-
All companions are attracted to the player
-
When attracted to the player they will all actively make a move on the player, instead of waiting for the player to chose to hit on one of them
-
The dialogue trees are way too heavy on romance, to the point that sometimes the only friendly options seem way too intimate and even flirty.
Just 2 of those would be fine, maybe 3, but 4 really pushes it.
Part of what I mean by friendly options seeming way too intimate, is that instead of the game giving you friendly and obviously romantic options, it often seems to compress all of that into just one option (or just one way that the character acts) which skirts the line between friendly and flirty so as to try and retain plausible deniability (“I’m not interested in that character”) while still giving you a way to role-play the romance (“That was clearly flirting/an intimate romantic moment”).
Don’t even get me started on Gale. His affinity was over 80 before Act I was over, and at one point I had four dialogue options out of which only one didn’t seem flirty (the one I chose). Then, after he said we were friends, I had three choices “I want to be more than friends / We’re not friends / That depends, what do you like about me?”. Out of those, the third one is the one I went with, but even that seems a bit flirty to me. Then later he says he needs to talk to me “urgently”, so my character goes to him, sits quite close to him in a way I would consider intimate and more than friendly, and he then professes his love for me.
Other than Gale: Shadowheart was quite easy to romance; Lae’zel said she liked my sweat or something; Wyll I’ve definitely had more-than-friendly conversations with; Astarion, simply due to his personality, has been hitting on the entire time despite me barely using him*. Halsin I don’t use, Minthara is FUBAR, and I think Jaheira cannot be romanced. Karlach might be the only one I’ve used that hasn’t hit on me yet.
*And I wouldn’t even mind Astarian’s personality if it wasn’t for everything else.
Just 2 of those would be fine, maybe 3, but 4 really pushes it.
Yeah. Like, I get that having a little harem of named followers all lusting after the MC slightly is … the sort of RP fantasy that some people want. I appreciate that Larian put that option in the game - and the ol’ “horny bard” trope absolutely comes from very real players wanting to be sexually attractive and competent in their escapist fantasy game. I get that. It’s just not my vibe.
As someone who doesn’t play games for romantic fantasy fulfillment - my biggest gripe with BG3 is that it feels like characters I like hanging out with have no concept of “we are friends” without suggesting romance is a logical next step, and are at incel levels of checking if maybe I’ve reconsidered and we can bang now?
Which also makes the fact that a lot of companion conversations feel like a minefield of “oops actually romance” dialogue options even more frustrating. I’m having a blast RPing an older dude who had a nice settled life prior to the Leech and just wants to get back home and put his feet up, but I’ve chosen a few response options I thought were just snarky or jokes and … oh wait, we’re being romantic now. Goddamn it, F8.
Halsin will literally confess his love for you after you ask him about his romantic life once. It’s ridiculous. And it is way too easy otherwise to have maxed out affinity with everyone in your camp, everyone loves the player being a good-two-shoes. Seriously have no idea where these articles come from that praise the companion mechanics in any way.
I would like it more nuanced like in Bioware games (ME, DA, SWTOR): some companions are bisexual, some are homo only, some are hetero only.
I don’t mind some being straightforward and persistent but I would also like some being shy and not initiate romance if it isn’t you who hit on them.
It would make for more “realistic” personalities, in my opinion.
The only problem is, people complained vehemently over BioWare having characters with any sexuality that’s not player-sexual, and immediately mod out those gender limitations on romancing. Just look at the mods to make Dorian and Suvi straight, and to make Jack and Tali bi.
Is that why Larian made everyone bisex? Those kind of complaints don’t make any sense IMO, it’s fine to have mods tho.
Probably. Personally, I love characters having their own sexuality. It gives me a reason to play have more than once with different genders.
And honestly, it’s actually very creepy to mod Dorian straight/bi in Dragon Age Inquisition, if you know his backstory.
-
Most didn’t work for me. Many felt forced. Complete 2 quests for this companion and suddenly they love you and want to fuck at the soonest opportunity
Err how many quests do you make someone go on before you’ll sleep with them? Because for me, two very dangerous quests involving swords and magic would be plenty.
Tbh, I’d fuck someone for going on ONE quest for me. Doesn’t even have to be dangerous, could just be something like, Can you swing by the shop on the way over? Thank you 🥵
spoiler
Lae’zel, at least, seemed to just want to fuck, not fall in love.
Yeah, but then you find out Gith lay eggs, which raises weird questions. Idk, maybe their closest analog is a platypus, which would make them far more adorable if they werent trying to separate your head from your neck so often.
The companies are the worse part of the game for me. I end up using a lot of the hiring in my game
