Dragon Age The Veilguard Criticism Thread (formerly Skepticism Thread) [Spoilers]

Heres the thing, in what context is the lore presented in the Dragon Age series?

If you notice, the codex and bits and pieces we do get, outside of in-game events, are all second-hand sources from scholars, bards, historians, chantry writers, and the like. It is not eye-witness accounts, or in most cases, first-hand knowledge. 

One of the things I really like about this, and the bit that makes the historian in me satisfied, is the interpretations of stories, historical events, myths and legends, and narrative in the codex. They are from sources, letters, books, people with specific points of view that change and warp and shape the narrative, and most importantly, not concrete, because history is actually like that. 

Historical training allows you to discern the truth from this, because almost all historical sources, save for the real academic ones that are trying to prove a thesis, are biased based on the framing of their sources. For example, typically the Fall of Rome is attributed to the year 476 C.E as if it is a factual date that is true, but of the Romans 'fall'  has always been 476 C.E because a British historian in the 1800's said so due to the rise of Christianity and letting barbarians in. The reason he became the expert is because he had the most popular, if controversial, theory at the time. 

Yet, historians have put out various reasons and dates for the fall of rome, which you can easily argue other theories and logic through multiple context. Economic strife, failing to uphold their war economy with an eroding and corrupt ruling class, rise of barbarians causing chaos along with inflation, and waning influence due to their split 100 years earlier, even the Church itself would effectively become autonomous, and split in two, as it began to decline...in the West at least. 

The thing is, one interpretation is not always subjected to being 'gospel' which is the massive problem I have with game lore. People take it too seriously, when the interpretation of events is not only more realistic, but actually does give wiggle room to expand, prove or disprove what is said. When the lore of Dragon is 90% framed to be from a scholar's perspective, it is, by definition, designed to be challenged with new information as time goes on.

Simply put, the lore as it is presented, is not objective fact, but interpretation of fact. As it should be. 

This is going into hagiography, but most interpretations of Jesus over the years were as an infallible individual mostly because his purpose in biblical tradition is to be infallible to serve as a parable for teaching purposes. He commits no sins, but instead sacrificed himself to redeem the sins of man, thus shining a light onto the failings of mankind and how they can be redeemed through forgiveness. That kind of messiah talk that Jewish mystery cult leaders wanted to promote against the zealot movement at the time in the 50's C.E. 

As to the rest, the thing that again is a bit contradictory here is the X factor of judgement regardless of authorial intent, since it is subjective because its an interactive medium. 

Take Sera. She is a difficult character to like because she is basically a petulant teenager who thinks the world is simply black and white. Yet, the question of interacting with Sera is on multiple levels, taking the criteria you mentioned before with the Voice acting, kit and function mechanically, script, and how she fits into the game and such.

To that end, you have a rogue character with tempest powers, kitted for archery. A unique perspective for role-playing with nobles, elves, and common folk being the primary themes, You have a character who is mostly comic relief, with solid voice work that makes her a annoying without being grating, id argue, and a design that is recognizable. And after you kind of strip away the annoying baggage of her chaotic side, she is much more personable and introspective than she lets on, but just simply hides it. 

Plus, we should also factor in that players can interact with Sera in multiple ways, since everyone plays these games differently. Kind of like the bartle test, some would focus on her build since she can basically DPS through most of the game with Tempest active, others as a quirky romance, others still as a person to kick out of their inquisition (which is also a solution to the question you ask). 

Would the fact that Sera, by metrics of her design as a character across all fronts, not warrant validity because of the uniqueness of what constitutes player engagement? In other words, isn't she a success because she satisfies that desire to interact with the medium regardless of how she is received as a character? 

Is DnD lore written in universe or out of it?

I've heard a lot of complaints toward Sera, disregarding my own and not being grating wasn't one of them. People didn't stand her. There are meme compilations with her content ... she's an unfortunate, very unfortunate, example of a lot of work being put in, for something massively rejected. While the idea behind is not bad, the execution, in this instance, is. She largely satisfies no desire to interact and most certainly doesn't interest the players to see how she interacts with the world of DA. In spite of intentions, in spite of meticulous design, in spite of hard work and effort, the character, in such a case, fails. So no, I would not call Sera a success.

---

---

---

---

---

---

I'd argue Anders is more complex than Sera given how much of an impact he has on Thedas. People still argue his actions today.

...what?

---

---

Well... being impactful isn't the same thing as having a complex character/personality.

I would also point out that a big part of Anders' complexity is his becoming an abomination and not all Anders.

Not to mention the hilarity of allowing him to pee on stuff as an actual game mechanic.