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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
- Status
Not really, representing an issue in an artistic way is what gives value to the work, regardless of the issue represented. To just make a political statement does not equal art, while thought-provoking art is such regardless of the political stance of the reader.
Pushing a blatant narrative wrapped around a barely endearing narrative embellishment is not art, it is propaganda. As such, it is the very opposite of thought-provoking: experiencing it stagnates the minds of those who are in agreement with its narrative and alienates the minds of those that are against it.
Of course, but some are leaning towards that way on certain aspects; in any case, my post above was mainly against the theoric statement from Afaslizo. It is not the difference of ideological stances that causes a work to be good or bad, or to be accepted or refused by a certain demographic. Retaking the example above, if that statement was true, only christian luddists would like Lord of the Rings, which of course it is not the case.
That is very narrow way of seeing it, and quite clearly wrong. Especially in a game, where there are many plots, if an author feels compelled to give special treatment to a certain issue, then that issue will be treated in a pandering way, while others will be treated more objectively. This is even more the case when there are more than one writer working on said game.
Your very statement two posts above is in contradiction with this one: "none of the mentioned games are pure propaganda games." No pure propaganda games, but games with some issues treated in a propagandistic way.
That is not exactly what was established. Of course they are allowed to have whatever message the creator wishes, it is the way the message is presented to make something art, the message itself is only tangentially relevant. It is a very nuanced issue. One can have a game that is artistic, provides an overall interesting setting and a compelling story, and has some issues treated in an interesting way, with the exception of one or two of these issues, which have been forced in just to push a narrative.
This does not make the whole game propaganda (especially if the issues in question are not directly related to the main plot), on that I agree with you, but they devalue the game nonetheless.
This not because some issues should not be treated in the first place, but because the way in which they are treated is pandering, thus boring or annoying the spectator. This is particularly true in rpgs, since a pushed narrative can be very easily identifiable by a sudden lack of choices (or meaningful choices) for the player.
On the contrary, it is making the choices meaningless, it only gives the illusion of more choices. It makes the choice of the player character's gender ininfluential and cheapens the depth of the companions, it makes them empty shells that have no agency and genuine personality. It is the same argument as those who say "we're creating more words, therefore we're increasing freedom of speech."
If I find myself with two dialogue wheels, the options of the first one are:
-Yes.
-No.
and the options of the second one are:
-Yes.
-I think so.
-I guess...
-Hmpf, fine.
Which one is giving me more choices?
But the game is forcing the npc to be in love with the character, regardless of their respective gender. It is a nullification of part of a character's personality, it takes away their uniqueness and makes them tools at the service of the player, rather than companions of the protagonist.
If we compare the setup of DA2 with the one for DA:I the point becomes clear: Solas is not going to fall in love with a character that is not female and elven, Cassandra is not going to fall in love with a character that is not male, and so forth. The choice that I make at the very start of the game influences my experience in the game, characters react differently to different kinds characters.
That is not the same, because if you choose to play as femshep, Williams doesn't spontaneously turn gay just to fall in love with your character. The fact that Liara instead can be romanced by both genders is not a problem, because that is part of what she is (same could be said of Isabella in DA2): it is not an arbitrary rewriting of the laws of the universe to force a particular situation, it is what can naturally happen in the context of a specific setting regarding two or more specific characters.
Not always, only if you're female.
And no, they are not, it was officially stated that the characters are Hawkesexual by the developers (except Isabella).
I never said it was "malice" in this case, I agree it is the result of poor writing (which, by the way, is my main qualm in this discussion). The fact that it was caused by lack of founding/time is also clear by the official statement (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-25-dragon-age-ii-writer-defends-romances). The lead writer did not make the characters switch sexual orientation depending on the gender of the player character because of a political agenda, though he did try to justify the cheap writing dismissing his critics by implying they were homophobes.
Yet, I wasn't the one to use Dragon Age 2 romances as an example of my previous point. You brought them up to go against it. But the example becomes invalid if the choice of making everyone Hawkesexual is due to economic reasons rather than ideological ones.
As for why it is still a cheap solution, let me turn it using a less sensitive subject:
Player Character starts as a Warrior.
He meets Companion X.
Companion X is a Mage. He's soft-spoken, grew into a school of magic, has a nimble body and a cautious and rational attitude.
Player Character starts as a Mage.
He meets Companion X.
Companion X is a Warrior. Yet, he's soft-spoken, grew into a school of magic, has a nimble body and a cautious and rational attitude.
Why is he a Warrior this time? Well, obviously, the party would be unbalanced if he were a Mage. One cannot simply change an important part of a character's life and leave everything else, as if doing so would not deeply influence his attitude and background.
In any case, as said above, the example of DA2 is just derailing the topic at this point, since it was clearly and admittedly caused not by political views but by economic necessities.
That depends, in the past Obsidian did allow the player to go into truly evil or truly good paths.
Right, because the perception of what constitutes rape did not change at all during the course of history...
Yes, but all of these points, even including the oversimplifications and questionable statemens, still do not deny my point.
Well, first of all the ideals of "biblical kings" already implies quite the backwards stance on this particular subject, what does the Bible tell us about the place of a woman in society, in her marriage, and the "punishment" of a rapist? That is regardless of course of the applications, interpretations, presumption and de facto state of western nobility at the time. Furthermore it doesn't take at all into account the behavior of the other, lower social classes.
Secondly, you talk about Machiavelli, but seem to imply that he had some sort of global impact on the behavior of all social classes, which is patently false, considering how the contemporary and future critics of his political work bashed him time and again. This is without going into the fact that the Prince is a purely political work that, first of all does not tackle social issues, and second of all was written as a manual to facilitate the unification of Italy, with no pretense to change society. Lastly, though this is something that is often ignored by the critics of the time (and modern) as well, Machiavelli himself, in the work, condemns cruel acts as well (again, for pragmatic reasons, since his work was not about ethics, it was about pure politics). Finally, his work has nothing to do with the subject in question.
Thirdly, you talk about the Crusades, which, again, really have nothing to do with the issue in question, not mentioning that the spiritual drive progressively waned as we move forward in time (the knights of the Fourth Crusade surely cared about what the Pope thought of them...), not mentioning that the First Crusade itself was also imbued with other political factors (dealing with the Normans, relationship with the Eastern Empire, etc.) and so forth.
Even if we forsake all nuance and correct representation of the context and take into account your examples as they are, that still doesn't deny my point: the perception of what constitutes rape today is different from what it was in previous times of history. Because in your first statment you seemed to imply that medieval people had our same perception on the matter, which is hutterly ridiculous.
Finally, like the issue of romance in DA2, this has nothing at all to do with the topic, the argument that "if the setting is fantasy, then anything can be made up" has been already discussed in detail before. An iron age-level society of humans can follow different paths from the historical one, with both natural and supernatural factors making it diverge, but, as long as it remains a society of humans, what is the norm for iron age humans must be taken into account, and any divergence from the norm must be justified in the context of the setting, in order to create a realistic environment.
That is not the point, I would urge you to re-read our previous discussion on the matter.
Character X lives in a fictional medieval setting.
Character X has spikey purple hair.
Do other characters have them? No.
Do other characters find it weird? No.
Do other characters even talk about it? No, he just has spikey purple hair.
Did I forget to mention that the author of Character X, in real life, is a member of a Spikey Purple Hair Activists group?
I do not care that Character X has spikey purple hair, or that an author wants to create a story with a character with spikey purple hair, they are free to do so, and the introduction of a character with spikey purple hair in itself does not automatically make a work better or worse. I care about how said character is forced with no explanation in a place where he doesn't belong to and treated by the rest of the characters and setting as if it was something normal.
Last edited:
That depends on the setting one is talking about.
Citation needed.
Wrong on both accounts.
First of all, clarification for a certain feature does not necessarely require a political statement or a social cause, it could be ascribed to other biological, geographical or metaphysical factors. The forced unexplained issue itself might not be a social one, as exemplified by my last hypothetic scenario.
Secondly, in videogames, especially rpgs (amongst other genres), exploring the setting through minor quests (which may or may not be related to the main plot) and through self-concluded interactions with npcs and the world itself is instrumental to create immersion.
Then it is a good thing that that is not at all what I'm asking for.
- 1
-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:
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.
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.
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:
- Status