Then it is a good thing that that is not at all what I'm asking for.
- 1
Please no political rubbish
- Thread starter WorldViper
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Please make a good and quality political "rubbish"!
The game with name Tyrany and a main character as a high-ranking official should be all about that.
Also I hope that the main Tyrant would not be some cartonish evil and be a deep personality.
The game with name Tyrany and a main character as a high-ranking official should be all about that.
Also I hope that the main Tyrant would not be some cartonish evil and be a deep personality.
not a null point, as it was really just an example of universally accepted evil. point is that in order to avoid any sort of political viewpoints you have to have really extreme evils. really extreme evils tend to get games put on no sell lists in countries, not to mention the complaints. as the evil becomes less evil more political, social, or religious granularity exists on the evil, where more and more consider it not evil. eventually you end up with something considered controversial.
they could create a universe in which people consider selflessness to be evil, but most people would be confused and it would miss the point. they could create whatever they want, but the act of creating tends to have one's beliefs create nuances. by going for universal evils, then they can bypass the issue of any sort of social, political, or religious biasing.
the modern AAA shooter tends to emulate american soldiers, and thus if they did rape and pillage they would need a justification as doing so tends to get one kicked out of the military or worse (some countries that emulate american soldiers for their soldiers only kick out the soldiers that do such offenses, but most follow america's lead with discipline of serious offenses).
Try reading the game fiction that's already out. That should be enough to quash any doubts about the quality of the writing or the maturity and nuance with which Obsidian are approaching their subject matter.
- 1
Well, in the most recent Bioware title (Inquisition) as far as I could tell there were 3 things that causes people to accuse them of pandering:
-Dorian's sidequest
These two posts summed up the issue nicely:
As far as I can tell, the Tevinters' attitude on homosexuality seems to be pretty much in line with that of ancient Rome. Historically, in ancient Rome homosexual relations between men (AFAIK they didn't care about between women) were fine if and only if the passive partner was a slave- for a citizen to be the passive partner was an immense shame (apparently, the only insult that really got to Caesar was the accusation that he'd been *ahem* 'used' by the king of Bithynia while in exile as a young man). In the Roman army, homosexual conduct between soldiers was a capital offence (there's an account of Gaius Marius pardoning a legionnaire who killed an officer for making advances on him). So, while it's perfectly fine for Dorian to engage in any manner of 'conduct' with slaves or social inferiors, an open relationship with a social equal would be unconscionable. Hence, his problem with his father. Also, he's refusing to carry out a familial obligation by providing an heir- a significant breach of duty for a noble in an aristocratic society.
This one is slightly more anachronistic. The things that seem to have annoyed people about Krem are a) Iron Bull's acceptance of transgender people is completely out of character with the strict gender roles of the Qunari and b) the player character's default dialogue is remarkably accepting of the idea for a person in a pre-industrial society.
The thing that bugged me about these two is that in the previous two games the only dark-skinned people were Duncan and Isabela both of whom are Rivaini or had Rivaini parentage. OK, so Rivainis are dark-skinned. Fine... except Duncan and Isabela both have Moorish/southern Mediterranean features (which makes sense since Rivain is basically totally-not-Al-Andalus/North Africa) but Giselle and Vivienne have very pronounced sub-Saharan African features. Maghrebi Arabs/Berbers and West/Central Africans are two very different groups of people.
Also, while civilian life was a completely different story, for much of history rape (and rampant looting) has been standard operating procedure in warfare, especially post-siege (as Cersei points out on Game of Thrones during the Battle of Blackwater Bay).
-Dorian
-Krem
-Mother Giselle and Vivienne
Yes, on that I admitted later on that I might have remembered hazily the plot and, in general, it wasn't really something that I considered a major dissonance. Not implausible, but it just appeared like an arbitrary deviation, considering that, according to the lorebooks found in game, the attitude of Ferelden is "weird, but whatever" and the attitude of Orlais is "a charming character perk".. I'm pretty sure that there are way more desire demons running about their business in Tevinter on a daily basis, yet that's the one culture with the most prudish attitude on the matter?
Though not connected to the point, for what I remember, the classics attitude on lesbianism was actually much less lenient, I've seen it in some texts compared to bestiality, as it was considered a purely sensorial activity, without spiritual kinship.
Though not connected to the point, for what I remember, the classics attitude on lesbianism was actually much less lenient, I've seen it in some texts compared to bestiality, as it was considered a purely sensorial activity, without spiritual kinship.
On this I agree. There was also the fact that, in Origins, Sten had specifically taken a completely opposite stance on that very same issue (the whole "You can't be a man. Trying to be a man will only lead you to frustration.", which have been further solidified by the general stance of the Arishok). Although, like Iron Bull as a whole, it is likely that Bioware was generally starting to soften the Qunari culture to make it more palatable as an option when the inevitable time comes in a future game to destroy Tevinter. Since I fully expect that choice to be Qunari vs Tevinter rebels, with Tevinter Magisters left as designated villains.
I have to say I haven't really thought about this other point. I don't know about that, there might just not be enough lore regarding the universe's world to determine if it can be considered plausible or not. Orlais is a central hub of civilization, so it is possible for minorities of other ethnic groups to find themselves there.
I see more as an issue the fact that Vivienne, as a mage, can so easily and without question become the new Divine.
I see more as an issue the fact that Vivienne, as a mage, can so easily and without question become the new Divine.
Yes, if I remember correctly Cromwell's army was one of the first trying to rein it in, later it became less accepted with the french revolutionary armies, and then even less with the development of modern draw. Since in previous times the armies were not paid by a centralized State, it was in the interest of their leader to let them have spoils of all sorts in the occupied territory, so that it could be considered as part of their payment.
Last edited:
The other point that bugged me was the PC's reaction. Dorian's attitude is somewhat out of place for an aristocrat raised in a society where breeding and family loyalty are critical (and Vivienne says as much- 'marriage is the business of alliances and inheritance'. The Human Noble, for example, really ought to have the option to point out that Dorian's refusal to set aside his personal feelings for the sake of his family is extremely selfish- since, although we do not see it that way, that's much closer to what someone raised in a feudal society would probably think. As far as I can tell from the lore, the Tevinters aren't prudish by any means- they simply expect members of the noble class to adhere to a very rigid idea of perfection in public, regardless of what happens behind closed doors.
Well, from the most recent Inquisition DLC I think Solas has the villain job.
But I agree about the notion that Bioware were trying to 'soften' the Qunari (although Trespasser might have changed that), and I think that's a mistake. They should have kept the Qunari as the dogmatic , unyielding society that they were, and if a Tevinter/Qunari choice comes up it should be made 'warts and all'.
But I agree about the notion that Bioware were trying to 'soften' the Qunari (although Trespasser might have changed that), and I think that's a mistake. They should have kept the Qunari as the dogmatic , unyielding society that they were, and if a Tevinter/Qunari choice comes up it should be made 'warts and all'.
If you want to bring down Kyros, then you should have to follow Lelouch vi Britannia's advice:
"As for me, I commit evil to destroy the greater evil!" (stated as a response to the semi-rhetorical question of what to do about evil that cannot be fought by just means)
Yes, that is also true, the idea that marriage and procreation are a duty for an aristocratic ruler in these settings is often ignored or just mentioned. It ignores the fact that, in that circumstance, not marrying means dooming your realm to a succession war upon your death.
Ah, alright. I haven't felt compelled to buy the last DLC so I wouldn't know about that. Yes, but that is the problem that was discussed a few pages ago (or perhaps it was on the discussion regarding Evil): Bioware tends to always make his choices as equivalently gray as possible, which, in later titles, is really starting to stagnate the value of choice itself.
We shall see. For example, I doubt that, if there's a Qunari/Tevinter-based game, we'll be offered, as one of the possible origins, to be the scion of a Tevinter Magister and unrepentantly be in favour of slavery.
We shall see. For example, I doubt that, if there's a Qunari/Tevinter-based game, we'll be offered, as one of the possible origins, to be the scion of a Tevinter Magister and unrepentantly be in favour of slavery.
Yes, of course; even on this point, we shall see, what has been revealed up to this point gives the impression of an overly authoritarian government, but not much more that I was able to read of.
Why are you guys talking about BioWare as if it still existed? BioWare is dead. It is now EA with the BioWare name. Using Dragon Age Inquisition as an example of BioWare writing like KotOR makes no sense. Not all publishers eat up studios the way EA does. Look at how superb the new Doom game is.
We should consider anything post-DA:O to be an entirely different studio, when it comes to almost everything, including political agendas in the writing of games.
There was a LOT of things that could be considered political in BioWare games, they just knew how to handle it well. BiowarEA has no clue how to write well because EA doesn't feel like spending the money on hiring good writers or retaining them, so you get crap illusions like the ones mentioned above.
We should consider anything post-DA:O to be an entirely different studio, when it comes to almost everything, including political agendas in the writing of games.
There was a LOT of things that could be considered political in BioWare games, they just knew how to handle it well. BiowarEA has no clue how to write well because EA doesn't feel like spending the money on hiring good writers or retaining them, so you get crap illusions like the ones mentioned above.
Without considering the fact that EA's influence is more visible in things like microtransaction, rushed games and the like, the example were taken mostly regarding recent games in general and their current trends.
Also considering how little most people know about the realities of videogame publishing, people might not realize that the horrific decline in BW's writing (A, B, or C!) is due mostly to EA having milked that cash cow dry as fast as humanly possible. Being aware of these factors, it's incredibly obvious to me, but I'm forced to continually remind myself of these things.
For those who don't know, crap like microtransactions and adding MP to Mass Effect are indeed much more noticeable.
On reason, mind you, that I'm fine w/ PDS's flaws. They publish a ton of DLC, but none of it is required. It's not like EA games that have built-in irrelevancy that basically REQUIRE you to buy the DLC if you want to keep playing.
Political themes are fine, but they are best when they are balanced and/or unusual. Pandering to everyone or to no-one.
Changing the owners of a studio does not alter who the writers are. EA didn't sack the writing staff when they bought Bioware, and generally the publisher has no control over the game design anyway. While you can blame a rushed game on the publisher (since they control the money) they don't have any input in writing
I think that a concept that a lot of Fantasy/SF writers need to be more familiarized with is values dissonance; people living in a society radically different from 21st century Earth should not have morals that align with modern liberalism (Bioware are particularly prone to forgetting this). A good example of this is the WH40K Ciaphas Cain novels- even though the series is generally more lighthearted than 40K usually is, Cain is still an Imperial Commissar and has appropriate viewpoints (even if he's less fanatical than most). For example, he has no problem with idly noticing the delivery of convicts to his Scola Progenium (military academy) for interrogation, execution and live-fire exercises. The morality of a character should be largely a question of the values of their society- which may not align with ours.
Yes, that was the main point discussed; it's not about not handling certain issues or not handling any issues, it's about the way one inserts them in a story.
Well, that depends, I wouldn't go that far. In the case of EA and Bioware yes, EA is an apathetic giant that only cares about releasing as many and as profitable games as possible in as little time as possible, so those are the ways by which it negatively affects the products. That's not the case for everyone. Let us remember that Ubisoft up to very little while ago had the questionable stance of "female protagonist options are not profitable", obviously that is something that limits the writers when creating a story.
All the same, companies are interested in good PR because it increases their sales, so, in recent years, they very well can force the writers, the same way a movie producer can cut and mangle a product to make it more profitable. If mainstream media and analysts say that people want "diversity" in games, a company can say to its writers that they have quotas of indipendent women, black men, homosexual, trans, etc. to meet, even when a story or a setting do not warrant for any or all such categories.
That is, by the way, a point that was not taken into account in the previous discussion: the presence of a certain issue might not even be pandering from the writer, but a feature enforced from above by the company, which doesn't even care about that certain issue, and just wants it in because it thinks it will make the game sell more.
Now, again, I do not think that is the case for Bioware, but this discussion is not specifically about Bioware.
Yes, of course. The fact that a character, even the protagonist, depending on the setting, might have default values that are against the modern ones is not a problem in itself. The writer still has subtle ways to present his real stance on the matter. One can have a slaver character in a slavery-friendly society and still present an anti-slavery narration.
Just because both the world and the protagonists are against liberal values does not mean that the book is, if we follow that logic 1984 is a pro-totalitarian work, because the protagonist loves the Big Brother in the end.
Last edited:
This is true, but it only works if a writer has enough subtlety to not hit the reader over the head with an anvil. You can have characters who go against the 'normal' values of their society, but the reactions of others should reflect that this is abnormal.
In my opinion, 'diversity' is a rather vague concept. Does it mean diversity of attitudes? Attributes? Social positions?
In general use, whether or not a game is 'diverse' seems to be sometimes regarded as whether or not real-life demographics are respected- even if the setting in question logically should have different demographic circumstances (e.g. medieval Europe is going to have a somewhat different population composition to the 21st century US).
Heterogeneity in a population is something that only arises under the correct circumstances and is temporary unless maintained- it is not self-sustaining (because of miscegenation). Some basic parameters that would logically affect how a human population is comprised are:
-Climate; human skin colour isn't random- it is an adaptation to environmental conditions (specifically, amount of sunlight: generally, closer to the equator=more sunlight=darker skin tones). Unless they are recent migrants, a given group of people in a particular fantasy environment should probably have similar features to groups in similar climates on Earth. If you want to have diverse populations and have it make sense, then you need people from a variety of environments (fantasy writers seem to have remarkable difficulty using environments that are not 'Medieval Not-England').
-Urbanization, Imperialism and trade; in general, urban populations are more mixed than rural ones. Usually, places most likely to draw a wide mixture of different groups are large imperial capitals (empires often draw- or drag- conquered populations to the capital) and major trade centers. Conversely, people in isolated or remote regions will probably be pretty homogeneous.
Is this Obsidian team the same as the Obsidian who made Fallout: New Vegas? Anyway, an interesting idea.
edit: yes, which makes this very interesting indeed.
edit: yes, which makes this very interesting indeed.
- Status