402 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

Ya, but you would have to draw a fairly arbitrary line to put one in and not the other. I mean, I agreee wtih Tool about FFT. I thought that was pretty dark, much more then a lot of horror titles, because the implications to were much worse, like Malak and Rafa(I think those were the names), the heaven and hell knights.



I don't think you necessarily have to exclude them from being considered dark, unless you have very descriptive demands for a title to be considered dark fantasy.

[Lord_Valandil]

Yah...Kingdom Hearts is stretching it XD

Maybe if Mickey is the secret follower in the Signature Edition...



I haven't played all the Final Fantasy games, and I know they're not about rainbow, bunnies and happiness, but I'm (kinda) sure that there aren't things like the Broodmother, rape intentions (like in the City Elf origin story), and so on...If there are, then I'll eat my hat.

I don't really like the FF universe, but they aren't bad games (XIII bored me, though), and I guess they can be compared to DA to a certain degree.

[slumlord722]

NEEDS MOAR GRIMDARK

[Meltemph]

Everything else feels more like political intrigue. Which can be dark (if done like Zevran's childhood) but in this case weren't. It really did feel like nobles simply playing games against one another.

I thought the demon and fade aspects had quite dark undertones, also the blight itself and the reason for it I also found it dark. It was not an oppressive darkness all the time, I agree, but I definitely thought the magic portion and even the Chantry aspects to be very dark.



I dunno, I found DAO to be quite morbid, personally.

[Meltemph]

@Lord_Valandil

Actually FFT had a lot of that, and I would consider it very dark. The motivations behind what the people did in that game, and the evil that was represented, I found to be darker then most games out there.

The Heaven and Hell Knights chapter alone, was quite dark.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 octobre 2010 - 02:38 .

[tmp7704]

monkeycamoran wrote...

Hehe. Dark fantasy won't depict slavery, oppression, and racism good just because it's dark. You make it sound like as if authors have to choose whether to portray their world as Zion or Sodom.

I think you are simply misreading what i wrote. Using your analogy, all i said was that while high fantasy may depict setting where the inhabitants attempt to defend Zion from Sodom, in dark fantasy such struggle generally doesn't happen. If just because there' no Zions nor Sodoms to speak of, or for many other possible reasons.

[DMC12]

DarthCaine wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Dark fantasy, I thought normally has a element of horror to it? I guess the horror part is a bit subjective,  but you could consider the Broodmother or the sacrifice horror and other Demon related events as horror/fantasy mix. Dark Fantasy does not have to be about horror to be considered Dark Fantasy, I don't think.

I mean, if Buffy can be considered Dark Fantasy, I don't see why DA can't be considered it as well.

Yes, well, there's also people that say Twilight and Harry Potter are dark fantasy (check the wiki)

If dark fantasy was only horror, then every single RPG is dark fantasy, since they all contain some kind of monsters

Dark fantasy needs an dark bleak pessimistic atmosphere of depression. DAO has a high fantasy atmosphere of LOTR and DnD.

High fantasy just has to do with magical and unrealistic elements, not it's darkness. I found the tone and atmosphere of the game to be pretty pessimistic, and the content of the game to be quite mature. Just because people aren't ****ing around every corner, there's little of torture porn, and it lacks boring albinos with kitty eyes, doesn't mean its not dark fantasy.

[tmp7704]

Ryzaki wrote...

BTW: Slavery is looked down upon in Fereldan. So much for DA being Dark. :innocent:

Doesn't prevent the man in charge of said country from selling his own subjects to the slavers coming from another country where it's backbone of economy. With all legal paperwork, royal seal and all. And certainly the concept doesn't bother anyone in the world enough to go to war with said country because eeew, they're evil slavers. So much for DA being... not dark?

[Ryzaki]

tmp7704 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

BTW: Slavery is looked down upon in Fereldan. So much for DA being Dark. :innocent:

Doesn't prevent the man in charge of said country from selling his own subjects to the slavers coming from another country where it's backbone of economy. With all legal paperwork, royal seal and all. And certainly the concept doesn't bother anyone in the world enough to go to war with said country because eeew, they're evil slavers. So much for DA being... not dark?

It's not dark.

Considering that the leaders have to do it behind the back of their people no that doesn't make it dark.

Not exactly sunshine and rainbows but not doom and gloom either.

It's a nice shade of grey. I just wish they'd stop advertising it as dark. <_<

[tool_bot]

Lord_Valandil wrote...
I haven't played all the Final Fantasy games, and I know they're not about rainbow, bunnies and happiness, but I'm (kinda) sure that there aren't things like the Broodmother,

Hm... Don't think there was anything like the broodmother per se but the Summoners role reminds me of that of the Wardens only bleaker because Sin will always return. Think you might have me there.

rape intentions (like in the City Elf origin story),

Tactics did have rape in it. It wasn't as traumatic as the Origins rape section (it wasn't told from the first person perspective) but it was there.

and so on...If there are, then I'll eat my hat.

The politics of Tactics and XII were much grittier. It's just that the goals of XII felt much more noble. Tactic's though was nothing but depressing.

ps **** you Square Enix for FFXIII. 

[Addai]

DMC12 wrote...

High fantasy just has to do with magical and unrealistic elements, not it's darkness. I found the tone and atmosphere of the game to be pretty pessimistic, and the content of the game to be quite mature. Just because people aren't ****ing around every corner, there's little of torture porn, and it lacks boring albinos with kitty eyes, doesn't mean its not dark fantasy.

I'd hate to see the game these people are talking about, or speculate on why anyone would want to play such a thing.

[Meltemph]

The politics of Tactics and XII were much grittier. It's just that the goals of XII felt much more noble. Tactic's though was nothing but depressing.

I didn't find XII all that dark, but very political. To the point where, even the people who you ended up fighting against, I felt bad for. It was probably the most realistic approach to politics in a FF setting, at least that is how I took it.

[Meltemph]

It's not dark.

Wow... You don't consider a leader of a country, selling their people to slave traders to be dark? Jeeze, you have strict definitions. The worst actions outside of genocide I can think of.

[tool_bot]

Meltemph wrote...

@Lord_Valandil

Actually FFT had a lot of that, and I would consider it very dark. The motivations behind what the people did in that game, and the evil that was represented, I found to be darker then most games out there.

The Heaven and Hell Knights chapter alone, was quite dark.

For me it was the end of Chapter 1 (at Fort Zeakdon I think it was) where Zalbag orders the death of Teta. I was like

"Wha-? Did he just..."

And Delita's dialog through that whole fight. Being a peasant in Ivalice really sucked. Your life really meant nothing to the nobility.

[tool_bot]

Meltemph wrote...

The politics of Tactics and XII were much grittier. It's just that the goals of XII felt much more noble. Tactic's though was nothing but depressing.

I didn't find XII all that dark, but very political. To the point where, even the people who you ended up fighting against, I felt bad for. It was probably the most realistic approach to politics in a FF setting, at least that is how I took it.

Complete agreement.

Vayne I less then 3 you. Still wouldn't stop me from killing you, though. You really do deserve it.

[tmp7704]

Ryzaki wrote...

Not exactly sunshine and rainbows but not doom and gloom either.

It's a nice shade of grey. I just wish they'd stop advertising it as dark. <_<

But the thing is, the "dark fantasy" doesn't have to be "doom and gloom" to be called as such. The definition includes works that's "bleak, pessimistic and morally ambiguous, especially in comparison with more dualistic high fantasy" which very much suggests these "nice shades of grey". In fact, it's possible to argue that "dark" fantasy is the one where you actually have shades of grey as opposed to white/black settings of the high fantasy.

This can be of course considered "just realism", but since there's no "realistic fantasy" as established sub-genre, not in the least because it'd be quite an oxymoron, "dark fantasy" is used instead.

(as for the slave trade, revealing it is worth whole 1 point in your score at the Landsmeet. It's something part of the nobles will scoff at, but they'll still fall behind Loghain and try to loop your head off if you don't bring at least couple stronger arguments)

Modifié par tmp7704, 17 octobre 2010 - 03:03 .

[Ryzaki]

tmp7704 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Not exactly sunshine and rainbows but not doom and gloom either.

It's a nice shade of grey. I just wish they'd stop advertising it as dark. <_<

But the thing is, the "dark fantasy" doesn't have to be "doom and gloom" to be called as such. The definition includes works that's "bleak, pessimistic and morally ambiguous, especially in comparison with more dualistic high fantasy" which very much suggests these "nice shades of grey". In fact, it's possible to argue that "dark" fantasy is the one where you actually have shades of grey as opposed to white/black settings of the high fantasy.

This can be of course considered "just realism", but since there's no "realistic fantasy" as established sub-genre, not in the least because it'd be quite an oxymoron, "dark fantasy" is used instead.

(as for the slave trade, revealing it is worth whole 1 point in your score at the Landsmeet. It's something part of the nobles will scoff at, but they'll still fall behind Loghain and try to loop your head off if you don't bring at least couple stronger arguments)

True but the same thing goes on over here. Police are aware that people are being kidnapped for slavery but put it on the backburner (or rather consider other things more important and are understaffed) so they use the whole "ran away" excuse not to go looking.

I'm not saying it's not morally ambigious but honestly there had to be some morally ambigious things in LOTR yet that's not considered dark fantasy.

Edit: Also please note DF is all three things.

Can you honestly say DA is "bleak, pessimistic and morally ambigious? "

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 octobre 2010 - 03:07 .

[Meltemph]

Ya, I found the slave trade thing to be reprehensible. It would be essentially the same as taking an entire, specific, minority in the USA and just selling them to a different country to be used as slaves, just to make everyone else's lives easier.

Also, the fact that you can sacrifice all those slaves for personal gain? ya... I found that just a little evil.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 octobre 2010 - 03:06 .

[Ryzaki]

Meltemph wrote...

It's not dark.

Wow... You don't consider a leader of a country, selling their people to slave traders to be dark? Jeeze, you have strict definitions. The worst actions outside of genocide I can think of.

Realistic.

Dark to me would be him doing it, everyone *knows* he's doing it and no one gives a damn.

[Lord_Valandil]

Ryzaki wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It's not dark.

Wow... You don't consider a leader of a country, selling their people to slave traders to be dark? Jeeze, you have strict definitions. The worst actions outside of genocide I can think of.

Realistic.

Dark to me would be him doing it, everyone *knows* he's doing it and no one gives a damn.

Just like real life

[Meltemph]

Realistic.

Dark to me would be him doing it, everyone *knows* he's doing it and no one gives a damn.

Huh? Why would you need that qualifier for the decision to be dark/horror act?

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 octobre 2010 - 03:08 .

[Ryzaki]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It's not dark.

Wow... You don't consider a leader of a country, selling their people to slave traders to be dark? Jeeze, you have strict definitions. The worst actions outside of genocide I can think of.

Realistic.

Dark to me would be him doing it, everyone *knows* he's doing it and no one gives a damn.

Just like real life

Nah. I always figured they cared...but there was just nothing they could do.

[Sir JK]

To me what makes a genre dark is that it explores the darker themes of humanity, ambigous morality and presents choices were the right cause of action is very unclear. That all major things are grey and morally unclear. That it doesn't tell you what is right and what is not.



As an example. In classical fantasy there are villains that may do horrors. But they are presented as just that: Villains. The setting points out that what they are doing is wrong and often demonizes them. Some classical fantasy games allows you to join them or ignore them yes, but it does often point out that this is a villainous action.

Dark fantasy presents the same situation but without labels and without demonization. Often by presenting both sides as equally morally ambigous. Turning it the choice between villainy and heroism to one between grey and grey. The choice become yours, as audience, to decide wether you think one side is right and the other wrong and then presents you with the consequences of doing just that.



At the same time, it does not have to do so all the time. Allowing glimmers of hope, humour and actually succeeding in achieving in a unambigously good result is a good way to present contrast. To allow us a brieg reprieve before returning to the seriousness. Just like using humour when presenting a very serious topic, it makes you listen all the more. Not because yo want to hear jokes, but that it prevents the seriousness from blinding you.



A dark setting does not have to be depressing. The Witcher is not dark because it's bleak and hopeless but because it deals with racism, terrorism, poverty and similar issues in a very mature way. Lets you explore them.

Similarily, dragon age is dark. The finest example I think is the mage circles. The big core question there is: "Is it acceptable to limit some innocent individuals freedom for the safety of the masses". The answer? Up to you.



Dragon Age is dark fantasy. The witcher is dark fantasy. They are not on the same level perhaps, but both are dark. Both explore the darkness in humanity's soul. In different manners and on different scale perhaps. But they do. Hence why they are dark.



In my humble opinion anyways.

[Ryzaki]

Meltemph wrote...

Realistic.

Dark to me would be him doing it, everyone *knows* he's doing it and no one gives a damn.

Huh? Why would you need that qualifier for the decision to be dark?

Because there's optimism in trying to stop him and in thinking what he's doing is wrong.

And one of the qualifiers to be DF as you said is pessimistic

Trying to stop him requires hope that you can.

Edit: Though honestly DA is dark in the same way most RPGs are dark. Trying to say its darker than most other RPGs is ridculous. Because it's not.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 octobre 2010 - 03:11 .

[Meltemph]

Because there's optimism in trying to stop him and in thinking what he's doing is wrong.



And one of the qualifiers to be DF as you said is pessimistic

I never said it had to be pessimistic... In fact, I don't know of any book author who has said that. That is just a different type of DF. Not all of them are or should be a like. Also, you can EASILY make that act terrible, by sacrificing all of them(same with slaughtering an entire clan of people if you want).