183 réponses à ce sujet

[mesmerizedish]

I'm not sure the OP understands what "post-modern" means.

[whykikyouwhy]

Ceesko wrote...

HanErlik wrote...

maxernst wrote...

As to homosexuality, historical societies varied considerably in how they perceived sex and sexuality. Thedas isn't Judeo-Christian, so it shouldn't necessarily be expected to have the same attitudes toward sexuality.

Being against homosexuality is not just about religion. Pagan Germans and pre Islamic Turks were also against homosexuality. This is simple; if a society direly needs sons or daughters who are needed for working in farms or fighting in battles, homosexuality cannot be tolerated. But in properous societies, such as Ancient Roman and Greek aristocracy, homosexuality means no harm.

In that case, perception of hs (I got tired of writing this word) should have varied for different nations in Thedas. But they all acts like modern, wealthy, liberal Europeans. For example Dalish Elves are near to extinction but all the elves we know are bisexual.

Exactly. And this is not just about hs, the general attitude and behavior of most characters is well, is like modern,wealthy, liberal europeans!

Just take this latest DLC as an example, I mean come on! "The most impregnable fortress ever built?!", most of the lines in the trailer sounds like something come from oceans elven not a medieval fantasy.

I don't know how wealthy Hawke felt when (s)he was scrounging for coin to go on an expedition. And...Hawke's frugality continues throughout the game. Why else would (s)he be so inclined to look in every barrel or crate for a copper or a pair of torn trousers? Thrift is an admirable quality.

I suppose we could have had some more grime in the game...maybe people in Kirkwall dumping their chamber pots in the streets as the companions strolled by. Would that have done the trick?

OP, Perhaps you should relate what your ideal "medieval fantasy" is or entails. I'd love to hear about the pestilence, mass subjegation and illiteracy.

[Pzykozis]

Hmm if Thedas was more post-modern it might be better.. not that I'm saying its bad as it is though I guess it's somewhat undefined, it's not dark by any means just sort of fantasyish.

I mean Abercrombie is a hell of a writer and his work gets called post-modern fantasy alternatively dark fantasy like Eriksson, stuff in that vein.. well that'd be like heroin.

[Ryzaki]

Filament wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Ceesko wrote...


My feeling and this opinion in general stems from the way characters react to each other, the way they talk like if they were living in the 21th century, they way they react to gender differences as if everyone is unisex, all this defies all climate or logic that bioware tried to establish in DAO.

I found all of this to be there in DAO, and in their manifest for the game setting. It is not new.

Yeah.

It was so I don't get why the OP seems to think this is a new phenomenon.

[Deadmuskrat]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I'm not sure the OP understands what "post-modern" means.

[Maria Caliban]

Ceesko wrote...


Just watching the trailer for the new DLC{very hollywood-ish:} gives strength in my opinion that bioware turned its medieval fantasy rpg which was adequately portrayed in DA:O to neither medieval nor fantasy, but simply a postmodernist setting with swords instead of guns. Replacing the weapons with automatic machines will absolutely make no difference.

My feeling and this opinion in general stems from the way characters react to each other, the way they talk like if they were living in the 21th century, they way they react to gender differences as if everyone is unisex, all this defies all climate or logic that bioware tried to establish in DAO. It simply lost its feelings; it doesn't feel like a fantasy anymore, just a bizarre mish-mash between a modernistic setting and a medieval one.
Just my opinion.

1. I believe you mean it's a modern setting. Whether it's post-modern or not is debatable (most all modern fantasy is post-modern in parts) but it is modern.

2. There's lots of modern fantasy. You seem to be using fantasy as a synonym for 'medieval feeling,' which has nothing to do with fantasy.

Edit:

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I'm not sure the OP understands what "post-modern" means.

Ish beat me to it.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 16 septembre 2011 - 10:06 .

[maxernst]

HanErlik wrote...

maxernst wrote...

As to homosexuality, historical societies varied considerably in how they perceived sex and sexuality. Thedas isn't Judeo-Christian, so it shouldn't necessarily be expected to have the same attitudes toward sexuality.

Being against homosexuality is not just about religion. Pagan Germans and pre Islamic Turks were also against homosexuality. This is simple; if a society direly needs sons or daughters who are needed for working in farms or fighting in battles, homosexuality cannot be tolerated. But in properous societies, such as Ancient Roman and Greek aristocracy, homosexuality means no harm.

In that case, perception of hs (I got tired of writing this word) should have varied for different nations in Thedas. But they all acts like modern, wealthy, liberal Europeans. For example Dalish Elves are near to extinction but all the elves we know are bisexual.

Overgeneralize much?  I can think of plenty of examples of societies that weren't extraordinarily affluent where homosexuality was tolerated, at least within certain social boundaries (ancient Celts, a number of Native American tribes, and possibly even some pagan Germans)  Besides, we know squat about the sexual attitudes of non-Andastrean societies.  For all we know, the Qunari and the Chasind may burn homosexuals at the stake.  We know a grand total of one Dalish elf who is bisexual, and who is also an outcast.  Who knows what Dalish elves in general believe?  And honestly, in view of the structure of Dalish society, it wouldn't surprise me if homosexual behavior among young men were accepted.  The young men aren't allowed to marry until they've become fully fledged hunters, and that's a situation in which many societies have chosen to tolerate homosexual behavior.

[maxernst]

Ceesko wrote...


My feeling and this opinion in general stems from the way characters react to each other, the way they talk like if they were living in the 21th century,

Ick...since I assume you don't want them to speak Chaucer's English (which most of us couldn't understand), then you must want them to pepper modern english with a bunch of anachronistic thees and thys so their speech doesn't resemble anything that was ever real.  Sorry, as long as you keep out references to modern technological jargon out, I prefer they stick to modern English instead of creating an awful faux-medieval language.  

And as others have noted, how is this "new"?  How much different were gender roles in the Forgotten Realms...or for that matter in the Might & Magic games or the Elder Scrolls games or the Ultima games?  Did none of these games have a fantasy feeling? Since the only difference I can see is the gay content in the DA games (otherwise they are--if anything--far more historical than any of the traditional CRPG's), I conclude that the OP really doesn't care about historical feeling at all and that his only real objection is with its liberal portrayal of sexuality.

Modifié par maxernst, 16 septembre 2011 - 10:42 .

[Addai]

maxernst wrote...
Ick...since I assume you don't want them to speak Chaucer's English (which most of us couldn't understand), then you must want them to pepper modern english with a bunch of anachronistic thees and thys so their speech doesn't resemble anything that was ever real.  Sorry, as long as you keep out references to modern technological jargon out, I prefer they stick to modern English instead of creating an awful faux-medieval language.  

You don't have to use Chaucer's English to avoid modernisms and modern cliche's.  You do have to be plain-spoken, though.  I would guess the writers don't think that would appeal to a mass market audience that spends more time absorbing TV dialogue than reading.  And/or, it's just the style they want to write in.

The writers have always been pop/modern in tone, but I do think they pushed it a little further in DA2 than in Origins.  There were more breaking the fourth wall type of gags, etc.

[maxernst]

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...
Ick...since I assume you don't want them to speak Chaucer's English (which most of us couldn't understand), then you must want them to pepper modern english with a bunch of anachronistic thees and thys so their speech doesn't resemble anything that was ever real.  Sorry, as long as you keep out references to modern technological jargon out, I prefer they stick to modern English instead of creating an awful faux-medieval language.  

You don't have to use Chaucer's English to avoid modernisms and modern cliche's.  You do have to be plain-spoken, though.  I would guess the writers don't think that would appeal to a mass market audience that spends more time absorbing TV dialogue than reading.  And/or, it's just the style they want to write in.

The writers have always been pop/modern in tone, but I do think they pushed it a little further in DA2 than in Origins.  There were more breaking the fourth wall type of gags, etc.

Do you really think so?  I didn't notice much a shift in the language between DA:O and DA2. 

[motleykroot]

Hi, jumping in topic late.
Just thought that I'd point out that, with regard to modern/pop sounding language in DA2, particularly in relation to DA:O, that really you only ever hear three characters speak. 99% of the dialogue in the game is actually Varric relating what characters said, so if *their* speech occasionally sounds ultra-contemporary, it could well be Varric's influence.
How's that for pomo?

[Maria Caliban]

This is all Joss Wheden's fault.

[jlb524]

HanErlik wrote...
For example Dalish Elves are near to extinction but all the elves we know are bisexual.

I think their eggs and sperm still work properly, though.  I wouldn't worry.

[Stanley Woo]

We're not talking about postmodernism here, though, are we? We're talking about anachronism, where modern concepts and language are used instead of what we believe a medieval setting should use.

If that is the case, then of course we're going to use somewhat anachronistic concepts and language. The game, while set in a medieval-ish European-ish setting, is made for a modern audience to enjoy. You don't want people speaking in late Middle / early Modern English, as not everyone is familiar with such language. You also don't want realism because it's usually the antithesis of fun.

Games and stories are fictitious. They are not completely real, and usually aren't even realistic. Note that no one goes to the bathroom or has to eat or sleep, and time flows only when we say it does. Characters are exaggerated, a little melodramatic, and the story is high adventure where the protagonist will ultimately triumph. He will not age, will not suffer from gout, won't be laid up with the pox, doesn't take a half hour to don his armour, and speaks in language that is easily understandable and relatable to a modern audience, which is who we have targeted for this game and who will ultimately buy this game.

It is not a historical simulation, and doesn't even take place on Earth. It is fiction and follows the rules we, its creators, have set out for it. Complaints about it not being "realistic" are generally misguided. Discussion of real-world religions, sexual politics are not only inappropriate for the setting, but for the forum as well. Let's keep it game-related.

[Satyricon331]

Ceesko wrote...
Just take this latest DLC as an example, I mean come on! "The most impregnable fortress ever built?!", most of the lines in the trailer sounds like something come from oceans elven not a medieval fantasy.

I posted on another thread how the fortress sounded OTT and cliche.  There are several issues where Bioware just seems to be stepping back from taking the setting seriously - which is not to say it needs to be ultra-realistic in all respects.  otoh, HBO's "Game of Thrones," with its gritty, realistic-seeming flavor, is fun for many people, so I can't agree with an implication there's a strong tradeoff b/w what people perceive as "realism" or plausability-given-the-setting, and fun.

WIth that said, it's really strange to me that some people can think that centuries of exclusively female religious leadership would not impact gender norms, particularly given how prominent religion is in society.  My perception of ancient Tevinter is that is was more patriarchal, and that norm has degraded since then.  Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think people are overreacting 

[Vilegrim]

Stanley Woo wrote...

We're not talking about postmodernism here, though, are we? We're talking about anachronism, where modern concepts and language are used instead of what we believe a medieval setting should use.

If that is the case, then of course we're going to use somewhat anachronistic concepts and language. The game, while set in a medieval-ish European-ish setting, is made for a modern audience to enjoy. You don't want people speaking in late Middle / early Modern English, as not everyone is familiar with such language. You also don't want realism because it's usually the antithesis of fun.

Games and stories are fictitious. They are not completely real, and usually aren't even realistic. Note that no one goes to the bathroom or has to eat or sleep, and time flows only when we say it does. Characters are exaggerated, a little melodramatic, and the story is high adventure where the protagonist will ultimately triumph. He will not age, will not suffer from gout, won't be laid up with the pox, doesn't take a half hour to don his armour, and speaks in language that is easily understandable and relatable to a modern audience, which is who we have targeted for this game and who will ultimately buy this game.

It is not a historical simulation, and doesn't even take place on Earth. It is fiction and follows the rules we, its creators, have set out for it. Complaints about it not being "realistic" are generally misguided. Discussion of real-world religions, sexual politics are not only inappropriate for the setting, but for the forum as well. Let's keep it game-related.

how does Hawke triumph?  Survive I will grant you, endure might be a better phrase, but triumph? How? All the events are preset, apart from the circle of friends.... no matter what Hawke does it ends the same, when does being the champion matter? When does being a mage matter? Or a warrior? 


I mean it might matter in DA3 but like Witch Hunt it doesn't mater now  (and as an aside I liked witch hunt and yes I have asbestos under clothes on)

Modifié par Vilegrim, 17 septembre 2011 - 02:33 .

[Addai]

maxernst wrote...

Do you really think so?  I didn't notice much a shift in the language between DA:O and DA2. 

Yes.  The two things that come to mind off the top of my head is Isabela's "big boats" line and the quest name "Kind of Want."  Obviously it's meant to be humorous, but it's an obvious reach for modern humor.  Like when a Disney character uses a modern pop culture reference.

[Addai]

Stanley Woo wrote...
If that is the case, then of course we're going to use somewhat anachronistic concepts and language. The game, while set in a medieval-ish European-ish setting, is made for a modern audience to enjoy. You don't want people speaking in late Middle / early Modern English, as not everyone is familiar with such language. You also don't want realism because it's usually the antithesis of fun.

As I said above, avoiding modern anachronism is not a matter of having characters speak Middle English.  You can also have humor without recycling lines/ gags from a modern context.

Fantasy is meant to be fantasy, but that doesn't mean it can't have both a sense of realism and humor that is more creative.  It's a matter of whether you want the tone to be "Buffy vs the blood mages" or a bit more mature.  I think the tone slid more to the former in DA2, whereas it walked the line in Origins, and you could take the story more seriously.

It IS all Joss Whedon's fault.

[whykikyouwhy]

Addai67 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
If that is the case, then of course we're going to use somewhat anachronistic concepts and language. The game, while set in a medieval-ish European-ish setting, is made for a modern audience to enjoy. You don't want people speaking in late Middle / early Modern English, as not everyone is familiar with such language. You also don't want realism because it's usually the antithesis of fun.

As I said above, avoiding modern anachronism is not a matter of having characters speak Middle English.  You can also have humor without recycling lines/ gags from a modern context.

Fantasy is meant to be fantasy, but that doesn't mean it can't have both a sense of realism and humor that is more creative.  It's a matter of whether you want the tone to be "Buffy vs the blood mages" or a bit more mature.  I think the tone slid more to the former in DA2, whereas it walked the line in Origins, and you could take the story more seriously.

It IS all Joss Whedon's fault.

Just curious if you take issue with pop-culture references that crop up in period-piece Disney films.

I, for one, appreciate the little joke or "modern" reference here and there. Not only do they make me smile or chuckle or yell "oh, good show ser!", but they're tell-tale to the fact that the devs and writers clearly enjoyed the process of creating the game. And why would I ever begrudge them that.

[jlb524]

Vilegrim wrote...

how does Hawke triumph?  Survive I will grant you, endure might be a better phrase, but triumph? How? All the events are preset, apart from the circle of friends.... no matter what Hawke does it ends the same, when does being the champion matter? When does being a mage matter? Or a warrior?

I (or, my Hawke) felt triumphant after DA2 (I opposed the Templar crap).

[Guilebrush]

Vilegrim wrote...

how does Hawke triumph?  Survive I will grant you, endure might be a better phrase, but triumph? How? All the events are preset, apart from the circle of friends.... no matter what Hawke does it ends the same, when does being the champion matter? When does being a mage matter? Or a warrior? 

I dunno my Hawke (and by extension myself) felt a pretty dang triumphant at the conclusion of Act 2, no spoiler section but I'm sure we all know what I'm talking about here. Besides must the protagonist always have 100% influence in every situation? Heck even characters like Superman fail on occasion in spite of their best efforts and ridiculous power and resources: in fact some of the most celebrated super hero stories involve their being powerless to prevent catastrophe (Watchmen, Kingdom Come to name a couple.) I don't understand why when something similar happens to Hawke it's viewed as such a negative. Sure I would've liked to have more permutations of consequence especially with some of the side quests. Overall though, it didn't make me view Hawke as any less credible a main character than the Warden or Shepard or Revan or even the Child of Bhaal. That's just my opinion though but to be fair what others feel are their opinions I don't see why some people feel the need to try to present opinions as a collective fact.

Aside - You know a couple of recurring arguments that crop up on these boards are that Hawke had little/no impact on how events played out and another is how things in DA2 aren't "realistic." I think Mr. Woo made an excellent point about "realism" and when we think of "realism" in games we're really referring to "convention." Convention is how we can accept worlds where it's possible to shoot fire from your fingertips at giant winged reptiles while at the same time find people in plate armor back-flipping out of sight in a cloud of smoke utterly ridiculous. Neither situation is anywhere close to being even remotely realistic, so please for the sake of my sanity I beg people to stop going back to that term.

[Addai]

whykikyouwhy wrote...
Just curious if you take issue with pop-culture references that crop up in period-piece Disney films.

I, for one, appreciate the little joke or "modern" reference here and there. Not only do they make me smile or chuckle or yell "oh, good show ser!", but they're tell-tale to the fact that the devs and writers clearly enjoyed the process of creating the game. And why would I ever begrudge them that.

I actually mentioned Disney but must have edited it out for some reason- that was in my mind anyway.  I wouldn't say so much that "take issue" as I don't expect that kind of thing in a more serious, mature fantasy work, which can still be funny- my taste runs more to black humor.  There are definitely funny things in DA2 that don't rely on modern gags, don't get me wrong.  I just noticed that sort of thing more in DA2.

[Addai]

Guilebrush wrote...

Aside - You know a couple of recurring arguments that crop up on these boards are that Hawke had little/no impact on how events played out and another is how things in DA2 aren't "realistic." I think Mr. Woo made an excellent point about "realism" and when we think of "realism" in games we're really referring to "convention." Convention is how we can accept worlds where it's possible to shoot fire from your fingertips at giant winged reptiles while at the same time find people in plate armor back-flipping out of sight in a cloud of smoke utterly ridiculous. Neither situation is anywhere close to being even remotely realistic, so please for the sake of my sanity I beg people to stop going back to that term.

Sorry about your sanity, but it's a valid term in that there's a spectrum of low fantasy, more historically grounded storytelling and the more fanciful sort- in this case I wouldn't call it high fantasy in the case of DA, rather pop fantasy.  I think Origins was closer to the first and DA2 towards the other end of the spectrum.  It's not just a matter of wanting to see something plausibly historical.  The first sort of storytelling imposes more consequences on actions.  You can't just pull a rabbit out of a hat.  Thus to me it's more dramatic.

[Firky]

Stanley Woo wrote...

If that is the case, then of course we're going to use somewhat anachronistic concepts and language. The game, while set in a medieval-ish European-ish setting, is made for a modern audience to enjoy. You don't want people speaking in late Middle / early Modern English, as not everyone is familiar with such language. You also don't want realism because it's usually the antithesis of fun.

I'm currently playing Ultima V, thanks to GOG, and when you search a chest it says, "Thou dost find no trap." Then, you open it and (may) get poisoned and die. What it meant was, you searched it and didn't find a trap. Not that you found "no trap."

Now, there are many problems with this example. Most importantly, I have no idea whether or not "Thou dost find no trap" is actually an accurate way of expressing that kind of English, anyway. But, I did read an interesting piece with Sheri Graner Ray about speech in Ultima. "Thou didst not find a trap" might more accurately have protrayed the information.

Oddly, the most enjoyable part, for me, was being fooled by the game, dying of poison, and then wondering if this was correct Medieval style English or not.