171 réponses à ce sujet

[Khraum]

For me dark fantasy means:

No inhibitions on content: The game should be willing to explore anything (including torture, rape, incest or what some of the posts have raised) and to do so in a shocking way IF IT SUITS THE STORY. I'm not saying that it should do these thing for the sake of being sick, but that if it fits a much darker theme, the game should use it. 

Playing the game should give you strong emotions and a maybe sense of shock and personal torment, and deliberate try to push you to do certain things. Like for the city elf origins in DAO, your warden's feelings towards humans and some of the actions you want to take later in the game could have been much different if Vaugh had actually raped you.

No heroic/happy endings. All gains you make in your player's life should be followed with some loss. Finishing the game should not give you a sense of relief and being a hero, but some discomfort for the decisions you made,

Total moral ambiguity in decisions: There shouldn't be moral ambiguity in a few decisions like in DAO, but all choices should have good and bad consequences, and doing what seems good might in one instance might have a bad outcome the next.

Much darker characters, including companions. This includes some who are "really" evil and even psychologically disturbed.

[quicksilver_502]

perhaps a tad darker then DAO. the game had some dark setting elements and very mature, difficult things happening on the fringes but i kinda felt that sometimes it was a bit too high fantasy. awakenings was nice in that it made the darkspawn a tad more complex then " GRAAAAGH!!!!"

[WilliamShatner]

"Dark" is the most overused PR buzzword of the past decade.

[Behindyounow]

Basically, no possibility for quests to have a super fun happy ending, like the quest involving Connor.

[OriginsIsBest]

Lots and lots of creepy people like Flemeth...........

[finnugold]

One major key of "dark fantasy", in my opinion, is the moral ambiguity of enemies. You have to feel like the people you're fighting could possibly be good or have motives beyond what you're able to see.



Darkspawn were basically the antithesis of this. Except, maybe, in Awakening.

[pChar]

I pretty much agree with the OP, perhaps not as dark as OP described (like psychologically disturbed companions, that just feels like a horror game to me).
and

Behindyounow wrote...

Basically, no possibility for quests to have a super fun happy ending, like the quest involving Connor.

[OriginsIsBest]

Awakening wasn't dark...it was a joke. The only thing that got close to dark, was the barnoness or whatever.

[Saibh]

I hate the word "dark". Usually it just means misery, sex, and swearing. I prefer "mature" over "dark", which is what I originally assumed the name to mean, but after seeing it used over and over, there's rarely anything "mature" about self-proclaimed "dark" titles.

[errant_knight]

Khraum wrote...

For me dark fantasy means:

No inhibitions on content: The game should be willing to explore anything (including torture, rape, incest or what some of the posts have raised) and to do so in a shocking way IF IT SUITS THE STORY. I'm not saying that it should do these thing for the sake of being sick, but that if it fits a much darker theme, the game should use it. 

Playing the game should give you strong emotions and a maybe sense of shock and personal torment, and deliberate try to push you to do certain things. Like for the city elf origins in DAO, your warden's feelings towards humans and some of the actions you want to take later in the game could have been much different if Vaugh had actually raped you.

No heroic/happy endings. All gains you make in your player's life should be followed with some loss. Finishing the game should not give you a sense of relief and being a hero, but some discomfort for the decisions you made,

Total moral ambiguity in decisions: There shouldn't be moral ambiguity in a few decisions like in DAO, but all choices should have good and bad consequences, and doing what seems good might in one instance might have a bad outcome the next.

Much darker characters, including companions. This includes some who are "really" evil and even psychologically disturbed.

Well, I can see that some folks would like that, but if Bioware started to go that dark, I wouldn't play it. I play for entertainment, not to be grimmed out. DA:O was about right for me. Unexpected downsides, difficult choices, some adult content, but not so bleak, hopeless and cynical that I wouldn't want to spend any time in that world.

Awakening was more on the bleak, hopeless, and cynical side, which decreased my enjoyment a lot. I've only played it once as opposed to the eight or nine times for DA:O.

[Saibh]

No heroic/happy endings. All gains you make in your player's life should be followed with some loss. Finishing the game should not give you a sense of relief and being a hero, but some discomfort for the decisions you made,

Now, how would that go? "The game should be miserable to make you miserable. You should enjoy it as little as possible, and gain no sense of achievement from it. Rather than a sad ending being the result of decisions made earlier, either a chain of poor choices or deliberate sacrifice, it should be because we, the writers, gain everlasting immortality from your despair."

Total moral ambiguity in decisions: There shouldn't be moral ambiguity in a few decisions like in DAO, but all choices should have good and bad consequences, and doing what seems good might in one instance might have a bad outcome the next.

The problem with good choices resulting in bad consequences is that "good" characters rarely get any sort of reward outside of people praising you for being such a great guy. You have to turn down gifts, money, personal satisfaction, all for the greater good. For a decision that was "good" to turn "bad"? That just adds insult to injury and often seems pointless. Usually these things are the type that comes out of left field. Rather than it being the inevitable result of a well-meaning individual's misjudgments, it's just a cruel twist that leaves you feeling resentful.

If the game was really as morally ambiguous as you want, people would just turn around and find a good reason to do what they previously deemed the "bad" decision to get the outcome they want. Rather than it being from reasoning and deliberately deliberating, you metagame. There are no good endings? Well, then the game becomes moot by itself. Nothing you did changed anything, and what the hell's the point in playing?

I didn't see DAO's choices as being morally ambiguous because there was no right choice, for the most part--I saw it as every choice had good or bad reasons, not outcomes. Good people could do a "bad" thing for good reasons, and vice versa. You could be plain good or plain bad. DAO handled it well because there were some ambiguous choices--like Loghain, or the DR. There were some unforeseen consequences, like anything that happens in Orzammar.

Modifié par Saibh, 13 septembre 2010 - 08:44 .

[Epantiras]

DA: O was a good start, but the "moral ambiguity" part was lessened by the presence of a "compromise" option (like asking help of the Mage Circle to solve the situation in Redcliffe). It also lacked long-term consequences.

Elves are slaves (not tolkienesque hippies) and that's interesting, however the elf main character is no longer discriminated against as soon as he/she becomes a warden. Same thing about playing as a mage: nobody is afraid you'll shapechange them into a toad as soon as you leave Ostagar.

Something that DA: O lacked and, surprise! Mass Effect 2 had, was the sense of "impeding doom": you can do all the quests at your own leisure and if you spam your companions with gifts they'll never betray you or die a "permanent" death.

[sw33t nothings]

Pretty much agree totally with what Saibh said above me. But I also have something to add

I'd like to state for the record, that I felt that DA:O was a dark fantasy. Rape, drug abuse, murders, slavery, oppression and assassinations, corruption and morally grey choices were everywhere. You don't have incest, vampires, constant depression or give everyone eyeliner and emo haricuts for something to be dark.

In fact, where's the light and hope, it makes the 'dark' and 'mature' parts hit harder in contrast.

*quick edit for clarity and typos.

Modifié par sw33t nothings, 13 septembre 2010 - 08:15 .

[Saibh]

Epantiras wrote...

DA: O was a good start, but the "moral ambiguity" part was lessened by the presence of a "compromise" option (like asking help of the Mage Circle to solve the situation in Redcliffe). It also lacked long-term consequences.
Elves are slaves (not tolkienesque hippies) and that's interesting, however the elf main character is no longer discriminated against as soon as he/she becomes a warden. Same thing about playing as a mage: nobody is afraid you'll shapechange them into a toad as soon as you leave Ostagar.
Something that DA: O lacked and, surprise! Mass Effect 2 had, was the sense of "impeding doom": you can do all the quests at your own leisure and if you spam your companions with gifts they'll never betray you or die a "permanent" death.

For me, the fact that I should not, under any circumstances, get Legion in the dead Reaper before completing anything else was leaked to me before I knew anything else spoilery about the game. So I had plenty of time to go about my business--I never felt rushed by either game. More like "Ooh, Space Hamster! Am I /EXPLOSIONS/ allowed to feed him?"

[Maverick827]

The genre "dark fantasy" is loaded with Gothic undertones which include a sense of horror. I don't really think Dragon Age, despite its own labeling, has any horror elements. Perhaps the Darkspawn were supposed to be terrible creatures intended to inspire fear into the player, but I never really viewed them like that. They were all just funny-looking mooks to me.

What I believe Dragon Age intended to be was a realistic fantasy, which might appear on the surface to be a bit of an oxymoron. A realistic fantasy plot would, as much as possible, attempt to echo real-world situations in which characters with real-world motivations participate. A realistic fantasy would never have a Stupid Evil dark wizard antagonist, for instance, who is this close to destroying the entire universe with the Artifact of Doom.

[ImoenBaby]

My definition of dark fantasy? As a genre, I'd say dark fantasy tends towards moral ambiguity, tragedy, and unflinching depictions of evil in a swords & castles setting.

Dark fantasy is also sometimes a marketing category, which can be very restrictive. Darkness in itself is not particularly interesting, and if that were all DA was offering, I think I'd move on. Monochromatic palettes don't interest me.   

[captain.subtle]

Dark, Yes. Fantasy Yes.



You forgot. HEROIC.

[Pritos]

Do you really want something Darker than the Broodmothers?

[Saibh]

captain.subtle wrote...

Dark, Yes. Fantasy Yes.

You forgot. HEROIC.

Now, you said that a lot better than my whole diatribe. 

[StonewallBirdy001]

I think a "dark" fantasy has the ability to have some dreary elements, but it isn't just evilness plaguing the world. (Example: "I'm going to burn down this entire town because I stepped in dog crap!") I think that in a "dark" fantasy there should be opportunities to bring light into the situation. (Example: "Even though I stepped in dog crap, I'm just going to clean my shoe and watch my step next time!") The entire "dark" fantasy world should be all dread and frowns. Some good should be brought to the world as well.

[lv12medic]

Dark Fantasy has been thrown around so much as a catch phrase that it has little meaning to me anymore. I guess it means any fantasy world that doesn't have Tinkerbell happy-dance sing-alongs in it.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Have to agree with Saibh, most of the youngsters these days just associate "dark" with sex and profanity. Also, those who said "no happy ending" , you made me laugh.

[mr will jc]

Anyone that read berserk understands true dark fantasy.

Betrayal, gore, rape, injustice, violence, love, hate and "sadistic" villains.

Modifié par mr will jc, 13 septembre 2010 - 08:37 .

[Maverick827]

mr will jc wrote...

Anyone that read berserk understands true dark fantasy.

Betrayal, gore, rape, injustice, violence, love, hate and a **** load super cool villains.

Based upon your second sentence, I'm going to have to disagree with your first.

[errant_knight]

Saibh wrote...

No heroic/happy endings. All gains you make in your player's life should be followed with some loss. Finishing the game should not give you a sense of relief and being a hero, but some discomfort for the decisions you made,

Now, how would that go? "The game should be miserable to make you miserable. You should enjoy it as little as possible, and gain no sense of achievement from it. Rather than a sad ending being the result of decisions made earlier, either a chain of poor choices or deliberate sacrifice, it should be because we, the writers, gain everlasting immortality from your despair."

Total moral ambiguity in decisions: There shouldn't be moral ambiguity in a few decisions like in DAO, but all choices should have good and bad consequences, and doing what seems good might in one instance might have a bad outcome the next.

The problem with good choices resulting in bad consequences is that "good" characters rarely get any sort of reward outside of people praising you for being such a great guy. You have to turn down gifts, money, personal satisfaction, all for the greater good. For a decision that was "good" to turn "bad"? That just adds insult to injury and often seems pointless. Usually these things are the type that comes out of left field. Rather than it being the inevitable result of a well-meaning individual's misjudgments, it's just a cruel twist that leaves you feeling resentful.

If the game was really as morally ambiguous as you want, people would just turn around and find a good reason to do what they previously deemed the "bad" decision to get the outcome they want. Rather than it being from reasoning and deliberately, you metagame. There are no good endings? Well, then the game becomes moot by itself. Nothing you did changed anything, and what the hell's the point in playing?

I didn't see DAO's choices as being morally ambiguous because there was no right choice, for the most part--I saw it as every choice had good or bad reasons, not outcomes. Good people could do a "bad" thing for good reasons, and vice versa. You could be plain good or plain bad. DAO handled it well because there were some ambiguous choices--like Loghain, or the DR. There were some unforeseen consequences, like anything that happens in Orzammar.

I couldn't agree more.