148 réponses à ce sujet

[Maverick827]

JrayM16 wrote...

Almost every piece of acclaimed fiction in any medium is a metaphor or symbol for something. It's just that the best ones do it with alot more subtlety than stuff like DA:O's allegories to humans doing bad stuff.

Take Moby Dick for example. Most people who read it probably won't realize that it's a metaphor for what the author perceived as the uncontrollable expansion of capitalism. Or how the Godfather movies are metaphors for the disfunctional state of government during the mid-1900s. How about Citizen Kane's allegory to the way American culture often stunted youth and potential. I could go on.

The key is that those were specifically written for those reasons (if those all are, indeed, recognized interpretations and not more hokum).

[Nerevar-as]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

Humans are always evil. We might not be intentionally evil, but we still do evil stuff, like rape the planet we live on, push aside other animal species at our convenience and do other generally nasty things- to each other, no less!
Humans in Thedas are no different, so I see it. Most of the 'evil' they cause isn't intentional (the Tevinter mages didn't know they'd be unleashing the bubonic plague/Veronica virus when they tried to go to the Black City, slavery really isn't all that evil (it only is if you deliberately abuse your slaves for kicks) and not every human noble in Fereldan goes around raping elves. Some do. Most don't.

.

[fredward55]

Burdokva wrote...

Well, count me evil then, but Dragon Age is one the few fantasy settings that lets me vent my dislike for the elves. Even when I play a good guy, a sometimes find it hard to resist oppressing them. Just for fun, because I'm tired of the majority of fantasy settings (be they games, books, movies) always portraying elves as beautiful, wise, powerful... *insert blah*... compared to us, disgusting humans.

I do too I blame Eragon for that ever since I read the first 2 books I started having a haterd for elves

[Jestina]

fredward55 wrote...

Burdokva wrote...
Well, count me evil then, but Dragon Age is one the few fantasy settings that lets me vent my dislike for the elves. Even when I play a good guy, a sometimes find it hard to resist oppressing them. Just for fun, because I'm tired of the majority of fantasy settings (be they games, books, movies) always portraying elves as beautiful, wise, powerful... *insert blah*... compared to us, disgusting humans.

I do too I blame Eragon for that ever since I read the first 2 books I started having a haterd for elves

Maybe that has something to do with Elves being gods in mythology, or right below gods anyways. In Norse they are ruled by the god Freyr.

[AlanC9]

aaniadyen wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

Almost every piece of acclaimed fiction in any medium is a metaphor or symbol for something. It's just that the best ones do it with alot more subtlety than stuff like DA:O's allegories to humans doing bad stuff.

Take Moby Dick for example. Most people who read it probably won't realize that it's a metaphor for what the author perceived as the uncontrollable expansion of capitalism. Or how the Godfather movies are metaphors for the disfunctional state of government during the mid-1900s. How about Citizen Kane's allegory to the way American culture often stunted youth and potential. I could go on.

I could never help but feel as though they'd reach more people if they just said it instead of carefully writing a story that has nothing to do with it, but is supposed to symbolize it in some way.

Less people would read that book, and most of the ones who did would already agree with it.

[ShadyKat]

Humans....evil?

I disagree. IMO, humans are the saviors and heroes way too often in games like this.

[shootist70]

Maverick827 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

Anyway, as far as subtexts go, they're always there. Even when a creator is trying to keep any such content out they'll still let their cultural perspective show. It's just the way it goes.

Social commentary, by definition, is an active thing.  It is written with a specific intent to rebel against a certain social perception.  It is undeniable and requires no conjecture to prove its existence.

When you specifically look for social commentary and settle on an author's "cultural perspective" passively showing, then that is not social commentary.  That is merely the way in which all authors who have ever authored author their authorial works.

Nope. That's a very simplistic defintion. The vast majority of fiction deals with people, and is written by a person (obviously). It generally deals with a whole range of issues we may face in life (wether 'we' is referring to people from our own reality or an invented one), and they don't always have to be serious issues. Social commentary is just about unavoidable. You don't have to look for the intentional subtext, because the writer's own cultural influence will dictate, to an extent, how he interprets and portrays his subject. Therefore we can look at a writer and use his work as a certain snapshot of his society and its attitudes, whether past or present.

As a wild example, what might an Iranian player make of the use of American accents to depict an oppressed people (Elves) in DAO? (it's an objective and rhetorical question).

Modifié par shootist70, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:07 .

[Maverick827]

shootist70 wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

Anyway, as far as subtexts go, they're always there. Even when a creator is trying to keep any such content out they'll still let their cultural perspective show. It's just the way it goes.

Social commentary, by definition, is an active thing.  It is written with a specific intent to rebel against a certain social perception.  It is undeniable and requires no conjecture to prove its existence.

When you specifically look for social commentary and settle on an author's "cultural perspective" passively showing, then that is not social commentary.  That is merely the way in which all authors who have ever authored author their authorial works.

Nope. That's a very simplistic defintion. The vast majority of fiction deals with people, and is written by a person (obviously). It generally deals with a whole range of issues we may face in life (wether 'we' is referring to people from our own reality or an invented one), and they don't always have to be serious issues. Social commentary is just about unavoidable. You don't have to look for the intentional subtext, because the writer's own cultural influence will dictate, to an extent, how he interprets and portrays his subject. Therefore we can look at a writer and use his work as a certain snapshot of his society and its attitudes, whether past or present.

As a wild example, what might an Iranian player make of the use of American accents to depict an oppressed people (Elves) in DAO? (it's an objective and rhetorical question).

It's quite evident that you don't know what social commentary is.

[Marzillius]

fredward55 wrote...

Burdokva wrote...

Well, count me evil then, but Dragon Age is one the few fantasy settings that lets me vent my dislike for the elves. Even when I play a good guy, a sometimes find it hard to resist oppressing them. Just for fun, because I'm tired of the majority of fantasy settings (be they games, books, movies) always portraying elves as beautiful, wise, powerful... *insert blah*... compared to us, disgusting humans.

I do too I blame Eragon for that ever since I read the first 2 books I started having a haterd for elves

Those elves are pretty awesome though.

[Werewolf2010]

Khraum wrote...

I mean DA makes us seem like the real blight. We conquer, pillage, rape and in the case elves, literally bring physical pollution. Most of all, in our appetite for power and exploitation we blew up heaven and unleashed a force out to destroy everything. Sure, elves and dwarves are bad too. Zathrian cursed humans and the dwarves turned their poor into golems, but it was because of bad things we did or to fight off problems we created. I know all fantasy likes to offer some social commentary on the real world, but the whole human bashing thing is starting to get cliched. I, for one, would like a more complicated story behind how the blight really started and the DA world turn the way it is, why doesn't rely on overly used tropes like making oppressed groups look like native Americans, Jews etc and humans racist parasites.

I agree. It often seems that the mistakes made in DA history seem a bit lopsided for the humans doesn't it? I like how Mass Effect handled it's history a tad better, every species made their fair share of mistakes in that one. 

Modifié par Werewolf2010, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:38 .

[shootist70]

Maverick827 wrote...

It's quite evident that you don't know what social commentary is.

And it's quite evident that you only know a wikipedia definition of it. It can be more wide ranging and interpretive than obvious polemic and rhetoric.

Modifié par shootist70, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:57 .

[Maverick827]

shootist70 wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

It's quite evident that you don't know what social commentary is.

And it's quite evident that you only know a wikipedia definition of it.

My definition is actually based upon basic logic which dictates that a piece of work created with the intention to subvert social norms needs to be intentionally created.

An author's view of culture which inadvertently shapes his or her work is not itself a deliberate statement about society.  Don't tell me you believe Twilight to be filled with social commentary deliberately planted by Meyer regarding teenage lust and pedophilia?

Modifié par Maverick827, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:13 .

[shootist70]

Maverick827 wrote...


It's actually basic logic which dictates that a piece of work created with the intention to subvert social norms needs to be intentionally created.

An author's view of culture which inadvertently shapes his or her work is not itself a deliberate statement about society.  Don't tell me you believe Twilight to be filled with social commentary deliberately planted by Meyer regarding teenage lust and pedophilia?

Incorrect. Let me paint a clear picture for you: I've read stories that were written by working class people that described upper-class society, I've read stories from people from different cultural backgrounds that describe the west...the list goes on. Those writers never intentionally indulged in social commentary, it just wasn't a part of their story. Yet their views of those other cultures were so polarised that their descriptions still constituted it, simply because we can understand exactly what led them to describe it in the terms that they did.

Like I said, social commentary isn't always the obvious rhetoric you seem to think it is.

Modifié par shootist70, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:18 .

[Maverick827]

shootist70 wrote...

Incorrect. Let me paint a clear picture for you: I've read stories that were written by working class people that described upper-class society, I've read stories from people from different cultural backgrounds that describe the west...the list goes on. Those writers never intentionally indulged in social commentary, it just wasn't a part of their story. Yet their views of those other cultures were so polarised that their descriptions still constituted it, simply because we can understand exactly what led them to describe it in the terms that they did.

Like I said, social commentary isn't always the obvious rhetoric you seem to think it is.

You still don't understand what "social commentary" means within literature.

Hint: don't take the phrase literally.

[shootist70]

Maverick827 wrote...


You still don't understand what "social commentary" means within literature.

Hint: don't take the phrase literally.

What do you think I've just described? Think about it instead of sticking to your almost verbatim quoted wikipedia definition. With respect, come back when you're able to discuss it in actual intellectual terms, bud.

Modifié par shootist70, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:43 .

[Maverick827]

shootist70 wrote...

What do you think I've just described?

What do you think you've just described?

[shootist70]

Maverick827 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

What do you think I've just described?

What do you think you've just described?

Oh, don't be stupid.

Getting pointless. Let's just leave it here.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Werewolf2010 wrote...

I agree. It often seems that the mistakes made in DA history seem a bit lopsided for the humans doesn't it? I like how Mass Effect handled it's history a tad better, every species made their fair share of mistakes in that one. 

True enough...though the stories emphasize that the elves have no recorded history (at least in Ferelden during the Dragon Age).  The elves, or different groups/factions/nations of elves, may have made horrendous mistakes that their descendants and the audience are not yet aware.  Or they may have all been tree-hugging hippies.  Who knows?  Either way, it looks like an opportunity for future interesting stories.

[flamesoul32]

"A person is smart. People are not."

The original quote used language I'd rather not post. Basically I agree with DG though.

There also the point of the whole humans hubris creating the blight is not really confirmed only preached and beliefed. Who knows what made the darkspawn.

Modifié par flamesoul32, 01 octobre 2010 - 11:20 .

[Jademoon121]

In a lot of fantasy settings the humans play both villain and hero. Almost every game universe touches the diversity of humanity, you can't lump all them together. The Tevinter Magisters were evil because they were drunk on power, lyruim and magic, not for being human. The humans in the Grey Wardens are noble because they fight for a noble cause, not for being human. Besides if it's not humans who caused all the problems it's usually elves. Noldor, Highborne and Asur/Druchii are prime examples

[tool_bot]

ShadyKat wrote...

Humans....evil?
I disagree. IMO, humans are the saviors and heroes way too often in games like this.

Oh god,

'Help us, dashing human male. Only your earnest common sense and wisdom can ave the day!'

I am so sick of that. If ever given the choice, I won't play as a human. Dimwitted chimps have no business doing anything but getting our mess in order.

[Faz432]

Because we live to kill and create destruction.

[Saibh]

Faz432 wrote...

Because we live to kill and create destruction.

Especially me. With my flamethrower. Also, everyone I know. I am only friends with people who own flamethrowers.

[Faz432]

Saibh wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

Because we live to kill and create destruction.

Especially me. With my flamethrower. Also, everyone I know. I am only friends with people who own flamethrowers.

I see

www.youtube.com/watch