183 réponses à ce sujet

[Gibb_Shepard]

FedericoV wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Ha, you kinow everything doesn't have to be modernised in order for the audience to enjoy it. Hell, people play medieval game to get a sense of medieval realism. Look at the Witcher 2, modernised to be understandable but still retains a sense of realism about the whole thing.

Sorry, TW2 is dark and gritty and everything else, but I would not call that game realistic. It's anything but realistic. It's very high fantasy after all... If you want a realistic fantasy, magic should be low key, just like ASoIaF.

Fantasy is all about magic genius, otherwise it's just medieval

"Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting. Many works within the genre take place in fictional worlds where magic is common."
(Google, Definitions, 2011)

Fantasy can still be fantasy while still keeping to it's medieval and historically accurate traits. Magic can be as prominent as Harry Potter, but still retain the beliefs and ideals of Medieval society.

[Gotholhorakh]

Stanley Woo wrote...
You don't want people speaking in late Middle / early Modern English, as not everyone is familiar with such language.

Ha, I remember when people got familiar with things by encountering them, spending time with them and learning about them. I'm not sure what the process is now.

That was before your modern people, who come pre-packaged with 5 things they will ever be familiar with, and everyone studiously sticks to those for fear of frightening them off.


The notion of unfamiliarity being a swear-word is fairly recent in most of the world outside the mainland USA (where I understand it's been popular since at least the 1950s) and seems to be a big part of what causes everything to be treated more anachronistically now than necessity dictates (I don't think the DA 'verse is a good example of this, to be honest).

The Tolkien mythology managed to become some of the most popular literature on the planet with everyone being unfamiliar with its language and setting and nobody's head fell off.

Even that has some measure of the same thing - it would have been just as easy for Tolkien to write it in a germanic or celtic language as fairly modern English, but it doesn't suffer from the whole "You can't make this movie without baseball caps, people don't relate to guys without baseball caps" thing.

I think literature and popular culture are impoverished by sticking to what people are familiar with, and we have almost all of human history to show us that it isn't necessary for things to become popular or be enjoyed.

For my part, I don't have a huge problem with the level the DA 'verse takes it to, I think it stops somewhere around the point of necessity, but I do think people are right to point out (once in a while) that excessively modern language and behaviours not needed. Imagine if everyone did that and we could all go full nerd? Ah, we can but dream.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 19 septembre 2011 - 08:13 .

[FedericoV]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Fantasy is all about magic genius, otherwise it's just medieval

"Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting. Many works within the genre take place in fictional worlds where magic is common."
(Google, Definitions, 2011)

Fantasy can still be fantasy while still keeping to it's medieval and historically accurate traits. Magic can be as prominent as Harry Potter, but still retain the beliefs and ideals of Medieval society.

First, calm down: we're just talking of videgoames and you should not attack personally.

Second: magic is used with various degrees in the fantasy genre. That's why there are terms like "low fantasy" or "high fantasy": in low fantasy setting, the magic is scarce and exceptional (ASoIaF). In high fantasy settting, the magic is pervasive (Forgotten Realms). The genre is called fantasy because, you know, fantasy is not reality. The more high fantasy a setting is, the less realistic. Realism: to be grounded in reality. Sorry, but bridges in reality are not guarded by drunk trolls .

Second: The world in TW2 is an high fantasy one, so it's not realistic by definition. Having said that, while political intrigues and racism are depicted in a mature and coherent way, I do not find the setting particularly realistic because it does not follow its premise coherently. A word ravaged by tons of monsters and sinister forces, a word where magic is present, strong and influential, would have a completely different political and social organization. Political and religious power would be centralized and there would have never been the condition for the raise of feudalism.  Moreover, in a feudal society like the one depicted in TW2, there would not have been any kind of personal freedoom, freedom of movement and commerce would have been kept to a minimum and the concept itself of rebellion would originate only by religious or ethnic means and not because of modern concepts like justice, fraternity or parity of treatment under the law.

Modifié par FedericoV, 19 septembre 2011 - 08:17 .

[Gotholhorakh]

FedericoV wrote...
A word ravaged by tons of monsters and sinister forces, a word where magic is present, strong and influential, would have a completely different political and social organization. Political and religious power would be centralized and there would have never been the condition for the raise of feudalism. 

Whoa, holy contentious statements, batman!

On the point of "would not", well we won't address that too much because we can't know where magic is introduced, but feudal systems have certainly existed where common threats are faced from without and within, and feudal systems are not necessarily precluded by the centralisation of religious power, history gives examples of both in reality.

Moreover, in a feudal society like the one depicted in TW2, there would
not have been any kind of personal freedoom and the concept itself of
rebellion would originate only by religious or ethnic means and not
because of modern concepts like justice or parity of treatment before
the law.

On the second point, rebellion in feudal systems would never arise through the wish for freedom or equal treatment under the law? Errr... are you sure about that?!

Have you ever heard of a country called England?

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 19 septembre 2011 - 08:35 .

[FedericoV]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Whoa, holy contentious statements, batman!

... LOL... maybe I'm going a little bit too far... just maybe . You know, I admit it... sometimes I like to vent. My basic point was the second one :innocent:.

On the point of "would not", well we won't address that too much because we can't know where magic is introduced, but feudal systems have certainly existed where common threats are faced from without and within, and feudal systems are not necessarily precluded by the centralisation of religious power, history gives examples of both in reality.

We're not talking of normal dangers but monsters like the friggin' Kayran. Assuming that they have the choice, people have allways choosen protection over freedom. Moreover, the ability to use magic would probably create a ruling class out of it, a class that have both political and religious power. In that sense, I think that the development of the DA setting is more "realistic" than TW2.

On the second point, rebellion in feudal systems would never arise through the wish for freedom or equal treatment? Errr... are you sure about that?!

Have you ever heard of a country called England?

Yes, I have. What historical event are you talking about? Mind that I'm not talking about feudal lords starting civil war to defend or expand their privileges over the king, I'm talking of rebellion that start from the common people.

Modifié par FedericoV, 19 septembre 2011 - 09:03 .

[Gotholhorakh]

FedericoV wrote...

Yes, I have. What historical event are you talking about? Mind that I'm not talking about feudal lords starting civil war to defend or expand their privileges over the king, I'm talking of rebellion that start from the common people.

Well at the start of the removal of feudalism, we have the peasant's revolt, which had many contributing factors but which was essentially a matter of inequality under the law and hard treatment (the poll tax, restriction of wages allowed, not being allowed to leave the village, horrible punishments etc.) coupled with the realisation by the serfs that they could ask for more freedom and money - elevated legal status, because it was law that was limiting both of these things. The Black Death empowered them in this as well as having caused extra harsh laws and punishments, as serfs were.. well, rarer and consequently worth more.

Look in France and across Europe, there are examples of this. The thing that feudalism most often gives way to is the elevated legal status (personal freedoms) of the peasants it "owns", and one of the biggest factors that "helps that along" is feudalism itself becoming harsher and more "legally punitive" (depending on what 'legal' means in the context) when it's threatened.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 19 septembre 2011 - 09:21 .

[FedericoV]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Well at the start of the removal of feudalism, we have the peasant's revolt, which had many contributing factors but which was essentially a matter of inequality under the law and hard treatment (the poll tax, restriction of wages allowed, not being allowed to leave the village, horrible punishments etc.) coupled with the realisation by the serfs that they could ask for more freedom and money - elevated legal status, because it was law that was limiting both of these things. The Black Death empowered them in this as well as having caused extra harsh laws and punishments, as serfs were.. well, rarer and consequently worth more.

Look in France and across Europe, there are examples of this. The thing that feudalism most often gives way to is the elevated legal status (personal freedoms) of the peasants it "owns", and one of the biggest factors that "helps that along" is feudalism itself becoming harsher and more "legally punitive" (depending on what 'legal' means in the context) when it's threatened.

Ah, you mean that: I do agree. The revolts were grounded on the harsh treatment of the peasantry. I was just talking of the idelogical context of those revolts. Terms like freedom were used by feudal lords and nobles, not by the peasants. When they are used in fantasy settings they allways sound like an anachronism to me. For example, the pesant revolt lead by Thomas Muntzer in Germany after the reform was very political in its content but the whole ideological context  was religious and apocaliptyc. But off course, there are many things I ignore about history and I could be wrong. 

Modifié par FedericoV, 19 septembre 2011 - 09:41 .

[TheReignmaker]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Though I don't agree with the OP on everything, I do see where he's coming from.  See what I did there?

I find this response worrisome.  Perhaps because I'm not sure if I fit within this "modern audience."

Modifié par TheReignmaker, 19 septembre 2011 - 08:41 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

TheReignmaker wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Though I don't agree with the OP on everything, I do see where he's coming from.  See what I did there?

I find this response worrisome.  Perhaps because I'm not sure if I fit within this "modern audience."

I'm sure I don't. 

I think modern society is self-obsessed enough that it's probably a good move to make a "medieval fantasy" as modern as possible.  Not my cup of tea, though.

[macrocarl]

I would say that BW's take on keeping sexuality pretty even-opportunity amongst the companions could be considered Post Modern (reaching out to a wider audience that is normally marginalized). I would also argue that being narratively driven as a way of organizing concepts and ultimately forms (the visual part anyway) would also lean towards a more contemporary voice, although I'm not sure if that's PoMo any longer. Or at least, I'm thinking that it's not actually exclusive to Post Modernism.
Yes BW is using bits and pieces from many different genres and subgenres but they are pretty seemless which is generally considered very contemporary as apposed to a more disjointed pastiche approach found in Post Modernism. I mean stealing or borrowing different bits from other genres and cultures has been going on for ever and ever but it's the unified narrative parts that make me think BW's video games are whatever is going on now after Post Modernism.
The whole thing about Hawke being proactive and player agency comes a bit out of Phenomenology by way of Heidegger and he's all over the Post Modern view point.
OK, off to get a cheese burger!

[dragonfire100]

Addai67 wrote...

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.

So what final fantasy dont have realistic stuff the guns on it was fake im sure you would enjoy fable if it had story telling which it really did its the matter on how the story plays not the story telling itself i will admit act 1 and 3 were poorly done but EA rush it to much act 2 was the best but its a matter on how the story played why should it matter if its story telling?

[Blight Nug]

The creators are not obligated to follow realistic medieval gender interaction since its their fictional world and story to begin with. I'm personally a homophobe but I can play the game understanding that liberal views are just part of the setting. In fact I find it quite interesting to have visually medieval setup but with modern political views.

One thing I have to complain about is many times in DA2 and DAO I either have to be gay or distance my self from a companion. There should be more platonic options regarding romanceble companions.

Regarding realism, it really depends on where it is applied. No one want to have the characters eat and ****** every five minutes of the game many do enjoy more realistic visuals. For DA2 I didn't like how the weapons and armors as well as battle animation seemed more anime like and exaggerated.

[Eollodwyn]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
You don't want people speaking in late Middle / early Modern English, as not everyone is familiar with such language.

Ha, I remember when people got familiar with things by encountering them, spending time with them and learning about them. I'm not sure what the process is now.

That was before your modern people, who come pre-packaged with 5 things they will ever be familiar with, and everyone studiously sticks to those for fear of frightening them off.


The notion of unfamiliarity being a swear-word is fairly recent in most of the world outside the mainland USA (where I understand it's been popular since at least the 1950s) and seems to be a big part of what causes everything to be treated more anachronistically now than necessity dictates (I don't think the DA 'verse is a good example of this, to be honest).

The Tolkien mythology managed to become some of the most popular literature on the planet with everyone being unfamiliar with its language and setting and nobody's head fell off.

Even that has some measure of the same thing - it would have been just as easy for Tolkien to write it in a germanic or celtic language as fairly modern English, but it doesn't suffer from the whole "You can't make this movie without baseball caps, people don't relate to guys without baseball caps" thing.

I think literature and popular culture are impoverished by sticking to what people are familiar with, and we have almost all of human history to show us that it isn't necessary for things to become popular or be enjoyed.

For my part, I don't have a huge problem with the level the DA 'verse takes it to, I think it stops somewhere around the point of necessity, but I do think people are right to point out (once in a while) that excessively modern language and behaviours not needed. Imagine if everyone did that and we could all go full nerd? Ah, we can but dream.

Personally, I'm glad the characters don't sound like this or this. 

This, though, would have been EPIC.

[Gotholhorakh]

FedericoV wrote...
For example, the pesant revolt lead by Thomas Muntzer in Germany after the reform was very political in its content but the whole ideological context  was religious and apocaliptyc. But off course, there are many things I ignore about history and I could be wrong. 

Ha, I'm with you there - Muntzer has been widely and wilfully misrepresented and re-characterised. History seems to be full of that sort of thing, and the dial has been turned right up to 11 in the last 30 years.

Eollodwyn wrote...
Personally, I'm glad the characters don't sound like this or this.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

This, though, would have been EPIC.

Ha, Beowulf, if you don't sound crazed, it just isn't right.

Don't get me wrong, I do see the need for a balance of contemporary language, but one can do that with overtones of lovely old language and usage - see LOTR for a wonderful example of this - people are free to take it or leave it and it stays understandable.

Personally, I'd be happy with Sir Gawain/Beowulf although the nerd in me wants to say that Chaucer is practically ebonics as far as I'm concerned.

Blight Nug wrote...

The creators are not obligated to
follow realistic medieval gender interaction since its their fictional
world and story to begin with. I'm personally a homophobe but I can play
the game understanding that liberal views are just part of the setting.
In fact I find it quite interesting to have visually medieval setup but
with modern political views.
 

I'm so with you on that one.

I'm going to pipe up here not to support your personal views, but the notion that we enjoy the reality the writer has created WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO MAKE POLITICAL DEMANDS ON THAT REALITY. In the written scenario, it is just how reality is for the five minutes you're in it.

Your reaction is part of the experience. If it challenges you, deal with it or GTFO.

People who want to have other people's fiction and art altered to suit their own political sensibilities are loathesome, frightening Orwellian nightmares and I dread the day when it actually happens and they get their way.

I am liberal by nature, but can you imagine anything more wretched for our games/TV/books/plays/songs/paintings than all art having to pass somebody's arbitrary black one-legged lesbian dwarf test? Holy Soviet Russia, Batman.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 20 septembre 2011 - 08:58 .

[Dragoonlordz]

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.

Actually I do.

Fantasy is all about magic genius, otherwise it's just medieval.

Magic isn't always casting spells, go back in time take a lighter with you and watch how primitive natives think it's "magic" therefore technology and science is also Fantasy not just spells. Same applies to most things, believing lightning is magic from gods and such. Someone who see's a hurricane and does not know what it is might call it magic, a desease of unknown origin called a curse and assumed cast by witches. It is all "magic" in that sense so to me fantasy just means a setting where much is unexplained.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 20 septembre 2011 - 06:49 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Jek Romano Shavo wrote...

Dragoonlordz 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.

Actually I do.

As do I. English may not be my native tongue, but I'd still want something like this. Seriously.

Honestly I would love a game with language spoken if in English, maybe dialogue in the style of Shakespeare or from time of 1500s. If a game is set in the 1500's I would love to have the writing show this via dialogue.

Example

The service and the loyalty I owe,
In doing it, pays itself. Your highness’ part
Is to receive our duties, and our duties
Are to your throne and state, children and servants,
Which do but what they should, by doing every thing
Safe toward your love and honour.

or

Wanton in fullness, seek to hide themselves
In drops of sorrow. Sons, kinsmen, thanes,
And you whose places are the nearest, know
We will establish our estate upon
Our eldest, Malcolm, whom we name hereafter
The Prince of Cumberland; which honor must
Not unaccompanied invest him only,
But signs of nobleness, like stars, shall shine
On all deservers. From hence to Inverness,
And bind us further to you.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 20 septembre 2011 - 06:59 .

[dragonfire100]

Dragoonlordz 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.

Actually I do.

Fantasy is all about magic genius, otherwise it's just medieval.

Magic isn't always casting spells, go back in time take a lighter with you and watch how primitive natives think it's "magic" therefore technology and science is also Fantasy not just spells. Same applies to most things, believing lightning is magic from gods and such. Someone who see's a hurricane and does not know what it is might call it magic, a desease of unknown origin called a curse and assumed cast by witches. It is all "magic" in that sense so to me fantasy just means a setting where much is unexplained.

You think magic is real?man i jumped out laughing i really wet my pants anyway no magic is not real science and magic are not real with dont remember you useing your hands to do science you have to use the technology to use it anyway woos point was DA2 and evey other rpg is meant to be fantasy.

[Dragoonlordz]

dragonfire100 wrote...
-snip-

No offense intended by this but I think my comment went "whoosh" over your head or you misunderstood it's context and meaning. But like said not attacking you over it and glad you had a laugh even if based on a misunderstanding.

I'll clarify, I was saying that to be a 'fantasy' title magic spells are not needed because in the old days centuries ago even weather was classed as magic, curses and illness where supposedly cast by witches while these days we know that is not true. Simple things could be deemed magical based on the lack of understanding of how it worked. So a medieval game can be just as much fantasy without the need for spells just the lack of knowledge of how such things worked.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 20 septembre 2011 - 09:24 .

[dragonfire100]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

dragonfire100 wrote...
-snip-

No offense intended by this but I think my comment went "whoosh" over your head or you misunderstood it's context and meaning. But like said not attacking you over it and glad you had a laugh even if based on a misunderstanding.

I'll clarify, I was saying that to be a 'fantasy' title magic spells are not needed because in the old days centuries ago even weather was classed as magic, curses and illness where supposedly cast by witches while these days we know that is not true. Simple things could be deemed magical based on the lack of understanding of how it worked. So a medieval game can be just as much fantasy without the need for spells just the lack of knowledge of how such things worked.

Im not insulting but what was the point of doing that to my comment?

[Addai]

dragonfire100 wrote...
So what final fantasy dont have realistic stuff the guns on it was fake im sure you would enjoy fable if it had story telling which it really did its the matter on how the story plays not the story telling itself i will admit act 1 and 3 were poorly done but EA rush it to much act 2 was the best but its a matter on how the story played why should it matter if its story telling?

I've only seen videos of Fable, but it looks horrid to me.

People prefer different kinds of storytelling.  I don't mind some myth and magic, but prefer a grounded, historical, low-magic story if I can get one, for the reasons I stated.  You're allowed to disagree.

[Dragoonlordz]

dragonfire100 wrote...
Im not insulting but what was the point of doing that to my comment?

What do you mean? The snip? Thats to save space as I only wished to reply in general rather than something specific and trying to avoid masses of text per reply in the process. I always do it unless something very specific within a previous comment that wished to highlight, in which case I snip rest keep the bit replying to.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 20 septembre 2011 - 09:52 .

[dragonfire100]

Addai67 wrote...

dragonfire100 wrote...
So what final fantasy dont have realistic stuff the guns on it was fake im sure you would enjoy fable if it had story telling which it really did its the matter on how the story plays not the story telling itself i will admit act 1 and 3 were poorly done but EA rush it to much act 2 was the best but its a matter on how the story played why should it matter if its story telling?

I've only seen videos of Fable, but it looks horrid to me.

People prefer different kinds of storytelling.  I don't mind some myth and magic, but prefer a grounded, historical, low-magic story if I can get one, for the reasons I stated.  You're allowed to disagree.

Just wanted to know.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

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.

Mr. Woo is't into Betrayal at Krondor, huh?