I don't know that it's anything like that. LOTR is clearly a story and that influences how it presents itself - it's a morality tale with many shades of grey in between absolutely evil and absolutely good, as is typical in the fairy tales that Tolkien was trying to replicate.
Is Aragorn really a good guy? This is the guy who wanted to kill the person who eventually inadvertently saves the world. He can be judgmental and temperamental, and he tends to shirk what's expected of him because he's filled with self-doubt. I don't doubt that he's not above outright lying about who he is and what he's about if the situation calls for it. After all, he spent most of his years abroad under false names and disguises.
DAO is mainly a tactical RPG - there is no need for any morality beyond "these guys are evil, kill them," which tends to characterize a rather large percentage of the tactical content in this game. Most of the nontactical content seems to center around presenting a whole lot of classical hot-button topics that get people all hot and bothered, sometimes at the cost of presenting any real moral dilemma, or presenting truly despicable choices.
Many of the characters in DAO are self-serving, but many are not. Loghain, one of the villains, is NOT presented as a self-serving person. Alistair is ultimately revealed to be so, even though he's engineered to be likeable. Morrigan is self-serving, but she's also amenable to deals as long as you can reach an agreement - she's quite reasonable, actually.
For the most part, many characters in classic high fantasy literature - Earthsea, Belgariad, Malloreon, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Thomas Covenant, Riftwar - are ALSO self-serving. Most of Ged's adventures in the first book of Earthsea was all about the acquisition of power, and surviving the consequences of his stupidity. In Belgariad, Garion is basically just a simpleton who just does as he's told. He doesn't develop sophistication until much later. Belgarad is a lecherous thief, a cheat, womanizer, and liar. He's ruthless in the pursuit of whatever his mysterious goals happen to be, and he's not above killing random people to get what he wants, if it comes to it. He's especially callous to Angaraks, since he's also apparently a racist.
Yes, that counts as High Fantasy.
In DAO, Leliana is a repentant, Zevran is amoral, Wynne is pretty straightforwardly moral, Alistair is self-righteous, and Oghren is a drunk. It doesn't really get much worse than this for our band of heroes. You don't get "heroes" who relish the thought of randomly killing passers-by as long as they're the wrong color skin. Loghain is ruthless and Machiavellian, but he's got the best interests of Ferelden at heart. The Dragon is... ...well, monolithically evil. Zathrian is rightly vengeful, but he can be persuaded to see reason if you're persuasive enough. So can Werewolves. Apparently.
Adding self-serving characters is a staple of High Fantasy. The Lankhmar and Sanctuary series of stories are famously filled with morally ambiguous, kind of disturbing, heroes.
Just look at Denethor, lord of Gondor and the most powerful man in Minas Tirith. He's all about Gondor, or so he says, but ultimately, he's all about the wielding of power and politics. He's quite self-serving, and his undoing very nearly costs Minas Tirith dearly.
That said, LOTR doesn't portray him as a clear-cut villain. He has his plus points and he did strive to battle Mordor in his own way. Boromir, too, is not a clear-cut villain or hero. If LOTR is about anything, it's about the fact that you cannot easily point to every single person as heroes and villains and cast judgment on them summarily.
DARK fantasy?!?!?!?
Débuté par
Roxlimn
, déc. 01 2009 01:08
Retour en haut
#302
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 12:29
Vormaerin
-
- Members
- 1 582 messages
Roxlimn wrote...
Is Aragorn really a good guy? This is the guy who wanted to kill the person who eventually inadvertently saves the world. He can be judgmental and temperamental, and he tends to shirk what's expected of him because he's filled with self-doubt. I don't doubt that he's not above outright lying about who he is and what he's about if the situation calls for it. After all, he spent most of his years abroad under false names and disguises
You should watch the movies less and read the books more. The only 'self doubt' that Aragorn has is a brief period between Moria and Amon Hen, because he feels he's got two important obligations that are mutually incompatible....escorting Frodo and going to Minas Tirith. It would be hard to find less of a shirker anywhere in Middle Earth. Its hardly surprising he wants to kill a murdering wretch like Gollum. But he doesn't, despite much provocation.
I suppose he is a liar, in that he declared himself just a "ranger of the north" rather than "Elendil's heir", when he served in the armies of Rohan and Gondor. I'm not sure anyone would say that he had any moral obligation to reveal that information. There's no evidence he ever claimed to be something he's not; he just didn't tell everything he might have.
Is Aragorn a good guy? Holy smokes. Aragorn is such a good guy, he's more like a demi god than a man.
Your views of the LotR are so bizarre its giving me a headache trying to decipher them, so I'm out of this discussion.
#303
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 12:39
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
I say again, DA:O is a HEROIC DARK FANTASY.
Heroic means the player can act like a hero and make the difference, despite it being a darkish world. It can just end up being a bit less dark after the hero is trough.
Again, you have a skewed view of what "dark" fantasy means. Your'e thinking Lovercraft here..
Heroic means the player can act like a hero and make the difference, despite it being a darkish world. It can just end up being a bit less dark after the hero is trough.
Again, you have a skewed view of what "dark" fantasy means. Your'e thinking Lovercraft here..
#304
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 12:47
Roxlimn
-
- Members
- 1 337 messages
Perhaps I simply have a different perspective, no? In the absence of proof either way you're willing to assert that Elladan and Elrohir chose the Gift of Man, whereas the only two cases where the choice was actually made, one was made for love and surrounded by tragedy, and the other we don't really know why. For my part, I'd suggest that if they really wanted that, they could've chosen it LONG, long before, so why choose that way now? It seemed to me that they are far more likely to choose Elf, since they stay with Elves and live with Elves, and their father is one as well. They have only one motivation to choose Gift of Man.
Aragorn himself? He SHOULD be taking up the mantle of the King of Gondor - the heir of Isildur. Instead, he chooses exile for decades and decades and decades, never going back to Rivendell to face Elrond. That is not the behavior of a confident, dutiful royal heir. That is the behavior of a man who's running away.
Most of the time, he's ranging around doing all manner of menial duties that are really beneath the caliber of his stature and abilities, and when he's not kicking with the commoners, he's kicking up his heels guarding a dinky like town out in the middle of nowhere. Most of the powerful people who know who he really is clearly think that he's slacking, and that contributes to the overall impression of him and Gandalf being a pair of ne'er-do-wells.
As it turns out, his self-recriminating forays into the wilderness served some kind of use eventually, but it's hard to think of all those wasted years and not think that he's wasted a good portion of his time doing essentially nothing important.
When it really came down it, he delivered, but it took bringing the world to the brink of destruction for him to get out of his ridiculous emo shell and be the man he was always meant to be. Even then, he initially preferred staying outside the realms of his own city, unknown, even while he was going around healing people because he was the only one who could do it.
Seriously, it helps a lot if you don't go around assuming that Aragorn is this super-moral dude just because Gandalf happens to like him and everything turned out more or less okay (though only by the purest luck). For a VERY long time, he was not who he should have been, and Elrond was always on his case about it.
Aragorn himself? He SHOULD be taking up the mantle of the King of Gondor - the heir of Isildur. Instead, he chooses exile for decades and decades and decades, never going back to Rivendell to face Elrond. That is not the behavior of a confident, dutiful royal heir. That is the behavior of a man who's running away.
Most of the time, he's ranging around doing all manner of menial duties that are really beneath the caliber of his stature and abilities, and when he's not kicking with the commoners, he's kicking up his heels guarding a dinky like town out in the middle of nowhere. Most of the powerful people who know who he really is clearly think that he's slacking, and that contributes to the overall impression of him and Gandalf being a pair of ne'er-do-wells.
As it turns out, his self-recriminating forays into the wilderness served some kind of use eventually, but it's hard to think of all those wasted years and not think that he's wasted a good portion of his time doing essentially nothing important.
When it really came down it, he delivered, but it took bringing the world to the brink of destruction for him to get out of his ridiculous emo shell and be the man he was always meant to be. Even then, he initially preferred staying outside the realms of his own city, unknown, even while he was going around healing people because he was the only one who could do it.
Seriously, it helps a lot if you don't go around assuming that Aragorn is this super-moral dude just because Gandalf happens to like him and everything turned out more or less okay (though only by the purest luck). For a VERY long time, he was not who he should have been, and Elrond was always on his case about it.
#305
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 12:48
Roxlimn
-
- Members
- 1 337 messages
Lotion Soronnar:
Actually, I'm thinking that if it's going to differentiate itself as "dark" fantasy, it should at least differentiate itself from a genre where heroes can be amoral murdering bastards.
Actually, I'm thinking that if it's going to differentiate itself as "dark" fantasy, it should at least differentiate itself from a genre where heroes can be amoral murdering bastards.
#306
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 01:27
Kabraxal
-
- Members
- 4 814 messages
Instead of comparing it to LOTR, why not compare this game to sagas like the Sword of Truth or the Song of Ice and Fire. One, at least one of those sagas as been stated to be an inspiration for the game (Song of Ice and FIre) and, two, there are clear similarities between the "darkness" and "grime" that the books delve into and that this game touches.
But... I think the real issue here is the fact that many people obviously haven't taken the worse possible decisions all in one game.
SPOILERS
Quite frankly it is rather depressing considering you can kill almost your entire party, kill a kid or his mother, leave a town to be demolisheed, run rough-shud over an enitre populace (Dalish/Werewolves), leave the dwarven system in corrupt ruin or create a tyrannical soul ripping beast of a kingdom, leave your kin to be raped for money (city elf), let elves be taken as slaves or murdered to improve your stats, wipe out the circle, or take part in assassinations...
If a player so chooses, or isn't careful and doesn't reload, this game can get nasty. So it is clearly "dark" enough with certain paths that it clearly fits the dark fantasy label. It just so happens that Bioware also allowed players to be true paragons of hope and lift the world above its squalor.
But... I think the real issue here is the fact that many people obviously haven't taken the worse possible decisions all in one game.
SPOILERS
Quite frankly it is rather depressing considering you can kill almost your entire party, kill a kid or his mother, leave a town to be demolisheed, run rough-shud over an enitre populace (Dalish/Werewolves), leave the dwarven system in corrupt ruin or create a tyrannical soul ripping beast of a kingdom, leave your kin to be raped for money (city elf), let elves be taken as slaves or murdered to improve your stats, wipe out the circle, or take part in assassinations...
If a player so chooses, or isn't careful and doesn't reload, this game can get nasty. So it is clearly "dark" enough with certain paths that it clearly fits the dark fantasy label. It just so happens that Bioware also allowed players to be true paragons of hope and lift the world above its squalor.
#307
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 01:29
Vormaerin
-
- Members
- 1 582 messages
Roxlimn wrote...
Perhaps I simply have a different perspective, no? whereas the only two cases where the choice was actually made, one was made for love and surrounded by tragedy, and the other we don't really know why.
Aragorn himself? He SHOULD be taking up the mantle of the King of Gondor - the heir of Isildur. Instead, he chooses exile for decades and decades and decades, never going back to Rivendell to face Elrond. That is not the behavior of a confident, dutiful royal heir. That is the behavior of a man who's running away.
Dunno why I'm doing this, but one last post.. This post of yours is sufficiently mind boggling that its kind of like a train wreck you can't turn away from...
There are five cases of half elves making the choice where we explicitly have a statement by Tolkein as to what they decided: (As opposed to some wishy washy "well, they stayed behind after the Last Ship and the time Elrond said their choice had to be made, but you know, maybe they filed for an extension and caught Ship after the Last Ship... Arwen states that even if she could go back to being an elf, there was no ships remaining to take her and Elladan and Elrohir are still in Middle Earth at that point.)
Five Explicit Half Elf Choices:
Elros: Chose Man
Arwen: Chose Man
Earendil: Wanted to Choose Man, but didn't because his wife wouldn't.
Elwing: Chose Elf
Elrond: Chose Elf
Luthien also chose to be a mortal, but that's not quite the same.
For Arwen, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say 120 years of happy marriage is tragic just because people eventually die. By that definition, every love affair in the history of mankind has been a tragic one. But maybe an eternity of living knowing you turned your back on true love is vastly better....
As for the Aragorn stuff..... that completely contradicts everything Tolkein has written about the character. I don't even know where to start. I'd love to see you provide even one quote that supports that view..
#308
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 01:32
interesting03
-
- Members
- 223 messages
Hmm, some professional trolling is going on in this thread. We should begin taking bets, as to how many pages it'll reach.
#309
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:02
Obadiah
-
- Members
- 5 726 messages
I thought the annullment (execution) of the Circle of Magi was pretty dark. If you pick that option, Wynne doesn't even bat an eye.
#310
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:07
Roxlimn
-
- Members
- 1 337 messages
Vormaerin:
Oh no, you don't get to pull that stuff with me. I'm basing my view of Aragorn on Tolkien writing, too, you know. We simply have different views of what it means. It doesn't mean I'm WRONG. Your list is accurate. Of the choices we know 3 explicitly chose Elf and 2 explicitly chose Man. That's bald fact, with no equivocation. So no, your statement that Half-Elves chose Gift of Man "over and over again" is blatantly false by your own fact list given it only ever happened twice.
As for Elladan and Elrohir, I don't buy that just because they stayed, they chose Man. After all, the majority of the Sindarin were content enough to stay, and I'm pretty sure they're Elves. I got the impression that they stayed mostly for Arwen, but then disappeared from story. There is no reason they should choose Gift of Man other than because Arwen did so, and their father choosing Elf is at least as strong of a reason, and they have their loyalties, besides.
I think you're losing sight of the real points I made. Read them again.
Start with Elrond. He knows who Aragorn is. All he asks is that Aragorn take up the mantle of rulership of Arnor and Gondor - a title he inherits and has perfectly legal and strong argument to take up. As soon as he did so, Elrond did not withhold Arwen, though it cost him dearly. Near as I can tell, all Elrond is asking is that he take up the duties and responsibilities of his station. Instead, he flees Rivendell and goes wandering off on largely pointless forays doing nothing especially important.
Oh no, you don't get to pull that stuff with me. I'm basing my view of Aragorn on Tolkien writing, too, you know. We simply have different views of what it means. It doesn't mean I'm WRONG. Your list is accurate. Of the choices we know 3 explicitly chose Elf and 2 explicitly chose Man. That's bald fact, with no equivocation. So no, your statement that Half-Elves chose Gift of Man "over and over again" is blatantly false by your own fact list given it only ever happened twice.
As for Elladan and Elrohir, I don't buy that just because they stayed, they chose Man. After all, the majority of the Sindarin were content enough to stay, and I'm pretty sure they're Elves. I got the impression that they stayed mostly for Arwen, but then disappeared from story. There is no reason they should choose Gift of Man other than because Arwen did so, and their father choosing Elf is at least as strong of a reason, and they have their loyalties, besides.
For Arwen, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say 120 years of happy marriage is tragic just because people eventually die. By that definition, every love affair in the history of mankind has been a tragic one. But maybe an eternity of living knowing you turned your back on true love is vastly better....
I think you're losing sight of the real points I made. Read them again.
As for the Aragorn stuff..... that completely contradicts everything Tolkein has written about the character. I don't even know where to start. I'd love to see you provide even one quote that supports that view...
Start with Elrond. He knows who Aragorn is. All he asks is that Aragorn take up the mantle of rulership of Arnor and Gondor - a title he inherits and has perfectly legal and strong argument to take up. As soon as he did so, Elrond did not withhold Arwen, though it cost him dearly. Near as I can tell, all Elrond is asking is that he take up the duties and responsibilities of his station. Instead, he flees Rivendell and goes wandering off on largely pointless forays doing nothing especially important.
#311
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:16
Roxlimn
-
- Members
- 1 337 messages
Kabraxal:
Sure, compare them, then. I've always thought that "dark fantasy" itself was something of a sensationalist term to begin with, even applied only to literary works. Most "high fantasy" tales are already bleak and contain elements of grit and such, but prior to the term being coined, no distinctions were made, and few distinctions today are even clear-cut. One might make the argument that the term really is completely bogus.
The game allows you to really make some decisions that make people squeamish, for some reason. You still save the world from utter annihilation. Wiping out mage circles, assassinating inconvenient enemies, and abandoning people to dark fates is not at all unknown in tales that are otherwise just classified as "fantasy." That DAO allows you to do these things does not differentiate it.
Sure, compare them, then. I've always thought that "dark fantasy" itself was something of a sensationalist term to begin with, even applied only to literary works. Most "high fantasy" tales are already bleak and contain elements of grit and such, but prior to the term being coined, no distinctions were made, and few distinctions today are even clear-cut. One might make the argument that the term really is completely bogus.
The game allows you to really make some decisions that make people squeamish, for some reason. You still save the world from utter annihilation. Wiping out mage circles, assassinating inconvenient enemies, and abandoning people to dark fates is not at all unknown in tales that are otherwise just classified as "fantasy." That DAO allows you to do these things does not differentiate it.
#312
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:23
Roxlimn
-
- Members
- 1 337 messages
Hm... ...Seems like I was right. Apparently, nearly everything classifies as "dark fantasy:"
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Dark_fantasy
D&D is there, LOTR is there, Diablo is there, even freaking Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Dark_fantasy
D&D is there, LOTR is there, Diablo is there, even freaking Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
#313
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:24
Viglin
-
- Members
- 836 messages
Roxlimn wrote...
Kabraxal:
Sure, compare them, then. I've always thought that "dark fantasy" itself was something of a sensationalist term to begin with, even applied only to literary works. Most "high fantasy" tales are already bleak and contain elements of grit and such, but prior to the term being coined, no distinctions were made, and few distinctions today are even clear-cut. One might make the argument that the term really is completely bogus.
The game allows you to really make some decisions that make people squeamish, for some reason. You still save the world from utter annihilation. Wiping out mage circles, assassinating inconvenient enemies, and abandoning people to dark fates is not at all unknown in tales that are otherwise just classified as "fantasy." That DAO allows you to do these things does not differentiate it.
Youve gone on and on and Lord of the Rings being "Dark Fantasy"...since when?
Its a Kids book..hell DragonLance was more dark fantasy then that.
Or did you only watch the movies that shine the light on the "dark"...while totally skipping the boring, light, romantic stuff?
Where in LOTR do you recall;
-the "hero" killing a couple of their companions due to choices they thought was more fitting to the end resuilt[l personnaly killed Zev,Wynne,Shale and Leliane for needing a stronger army]
-sarcifing a mother or slaying her child
-wiping out an entire force of Mages on the off chance they all might be "tainted"
-wiping out a tribe of elves, considered "good"
-affecting the racial outcome of a nation[the dwarves], even bye framing someone who may have been an innocent lord
-murdering people, even those that help you]Brother Genveti]
-taking bribes, giving bribes, using social skills to turn people against their beliefs
Im sorry, but your idea of "dark" sounds more like blood and gore...compared to what true dark is.
Corruption.
#314
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:28
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Hm... ...Seems like I was right. Apparently, nearly everything classifies as "dark fantasy:"
No, seems that you were wrong.
Your definition of dark fantasy clashes with almost everyone elses. Blame yourself, not the game.
Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 02 décembre 2009 - 02:29 .
#315
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:45
Roxlimn
-
- Members
- 1 337 messages
Really? Did you read about my suggestions earlier about how to make this game REALLY dark? People have been calling me a sick bastard for pages now.
This game isn't all that dark and I like it that way. In fact, I turn OFF the gore because it irritates me - it's ALSO just an obvious hot-button item for the kiddies to get all excited about.
As for LOTR:
Frodo and Sam are heroes. Sam wants to kill Gollum, their guide. He never gets the chance, but he was willing at one point. So was Aragorn, actually, and you know he'd go through with it if he'd seen Gollum again. If Gollum had known what Frodo was all about, he'd have killed him right from the start, and it wasn't for lack of trying that he didn't succeed.
Gandalf sacrifices Frodo to the Quest, without fully telling him what he was getting into. These days, that kind of behavior gets you thrown in jail, or worse. And yes, Frodo is still someone's child.
There are no Mages that many in LOTR. That said, the guards of Galadriel's realm which is supposedly populated by "good" Elves usually shoot arrows first, and sometimes never ask questions after. They don't even care whether you're tainted or not. You trespass, you're dead.
The Elves in DAO are not considered inherently "good." In fact, they're kind of considered pests. Like Hobbits, actually. No one actually wipes out Hobbiton because no one thinks they're all that important, but the Rangers did abandon its guard more or less when the real action started. That would be more or less like leaving Redcliffe to its fate, no?
There aren't that many friendly nations in LOTR. That alone should tell you something. Most of the world is hostile to the heroes and their factions. That aside, we ARE talking about Orzammar politics here. There is no such thing as an innocent lord.
Gollum helped Aragorn and Gandalf plenty. There was much open talk of killing him. The heroes only ever lacked the chance to do it in a timely manner.
Gandalf implants seeds of thought all the time. In fact, he pretty much was instrumental in the rift between Faramir and Denethor, which caused no small amount of harm. But no bribes.
How about this: does DAO describe, in great detail, the slow and depressing fall of a person into a magical addiction that's disturbingly like the real thing? So much so that this person is willing to betray friends, family, nation, and all that's decent to the Dark Lord just to give into it?
How about corruption of power? Boromir displayed it. So did Denethor. And Saruman as well.
How about torture? Aragorn uses torture on Gollum. Yes, that Aragorn. You ever get an option to do that in DAO?
This game isn't all that dark and I like it that way. In fact, I turn OFF the gore because it irritates me - it's ALSO just an obvious hot-button item for the kiddies to get all excited about.
As for LOTR:
Frodo and Sam are heroes. Sam wants to kill Gollum, their guide. He never gets the chance, but he was willing at one point. So was Aragorn, actually, and you know he'd go through with it if he'd seen Gollum again. If Gollum had known what Frodo was all about, he'd have killed him right from the start, and it wasn't for lack of trying that he didn't succeed.
Gandalf sacrifices Frodo to the Quest, without fully telling him what he was getting into. These days, that kind of behavior gets you thrown in jail, or worse. And yes, Frodo is still someone's child.
There are no Mages that many in LOTR. That said, the guards of Galadriel's realm which is supposedly populated by "good" Elves usually shoot arrows first, and sometimes never ask questions after. They don't even care whether you're tainted or not. You trespass, you're dead.
The Elves in DAO are not considered inherently "good." In fact, they're kind of considered pests. Like Hobbits, actually. No one actually wipes out Hobbiton because no one thinks they're all that important, but the Rangers did abandon its guard more or less when the real action started. That would be more or less like leaving Redcliffe to its fate, no?
There aren't that many friendly nations in LOTR. That alone should tell you something. Most of the world is hostile to the heroes and their factions. That aside, we ARE talking about Orzammar politics here. There is no such thing as an innocent lord.
Gollum helped Aragorn and Gandalf plenty. There was much open talk of killing him. The heroes only ever lacked the chance to do it in a timely manner.
Gandalf implants seeds of thought all the time. In fact, he pretty much was instrumental in the rift between Faramir and Denethor, which caused no small amount of harm. But no bribes.
How about this: does DAO describe, in great detail, the slow and depressing fall of a person into a magical addiction that's disturbingly like the real thing? So much so that this person is willing to betray friends, family, nation, and all that's decent to the Dark Lord just to give into it?
How about corruption of power? Boromir displayed it. So did Denethor. And Saruman as well.
How about torture? Aragorn uses torture on Gollum. Yes, that Aragorn. You ever get an option to do that in DAO?
#316
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:47
Roxlimn
-
- Members
- 1 337 messages
Lotion Soronnar:
Um, I was using a wiki article that actually has pretty good looking links and references. That patently isn't MY definition. It's someone else's It's been brought up before, but I didn't think to look at the examples.
According to that site, even LOTR could be dark fantasy. And Buffy! Yeah.
Um, I was using a wiki article that actually has pretty good looking links and references. That patently isn't MY definition. It's someone else's It's been brought up before, but I didn't think to look at the examples.
According to that site, even LOTR could be dark fantasy. And Buffy! Yeah.
#317
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:50
MrFob
-
- Members
- 5 410 messages
Without starting to recite all other fantasy scenarios ever created, I just have to say, it is the ending, that really counts IMO. Of course, LotR has some moral ambiguity in it (though not much and certainly not as much as DA:O) but basically it is a happily ever after" ending. Of course, tears are shed for those who sail into the west but in the end, everyone is kind of content with his/her fate. The ending of DA:O (at least those I saw or could infer) have a certain feeling of loss to them. Of course, you stopped the blight but at what cost? In the end you won but you also lost. This bitter victory, the feeling that it's not entirely right, is portrayed really well IMO and together with all the moral shades of gray during the course of the game itself, that makes the scenario dark enough for me.
#318
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 02:51
Kabraxal
-
- Members
- 4 814 messages
I would not consider LotR dark fantasy. Diablo, certainly. Buffy is clearly part of the horror fantasy.
The issue I have with the dark fantasy title that assumes horror elements is that either it isn't actually horror or it should belong in the horro sub-genre. I find it odd that so many people actually mistake demons as a horror element first... sorry, but demons, angels, and gods were elements of fantasy long before horror got its hands on those elements. So merely having a demonic presence doesn't render something a horror story.
If such made a dark fantasy, then nearly every fantasy in history is going to fall under the "dark fantasy" label since almost all of them deal with demons and gods in some form.
The issue I have with the dark fantasy title that assumes horror elements is that either it isn't actually horror or it should belong in the horro sub-genre. I find it odd that so many people actually mistake demons as a horror element first... sorry, but demons, angels, and gods were elements of fantasy long before horror got its hands on those elements. So merely having a demonic presence doesn't render something a horror story.
If such made a dark fantasy, then nearly every fantasy in history is going to fall under the "dark fantasy" label since almost all of them deal with demons and gods in some form.
#320
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 08:08
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
You do relise the futility of starting forums rants about something not adhereing to your definition of X (which is f'course right) wihtout actually checking the definition first?
This forums could have been spared this silly topic if you just bothered to check the definition first and look up some examples, before deciding to go on a useless rant.
This forums could have been spared this silly topic if you just bothered to check the definition first and look up some examples, before deciding to go on a useless rant.
#321
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 08:11
RunCDFirst
-
- Members
- 563 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You do relise the futility of starting forums rants about something not adhereing to your definition of X (which is f'course right) wihtout actually checking the definition first?
This forums could have been spared this silly topic if you just bothered to check the definition first and look up some examples, before deciding to go on a useless rant.
I thought the purpose of forums was for useless rants.
#322
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 08:39
menasure
-
- Members
- 440 messages
mm back to topic. let's see how dark this game is.
by now my character is practically bathing in blood and getting rewards as a result. the last one was a particularly funny one. it was awarded for doing absolutely nothing while a village got slaughtered, freeing a blood mage who caused the whole slaughter and i ended up giving my approval to killed the mother of a boy. afterwards somehow the earl was actually grateful i did that and named me champion of his -extinct- district instead of a substantial cash reward i was expecting. the really funny thing is can not even refuse it while i have been looking for a way to unlock the blood mage title which would actually support my roleplay but despite of all my interactions with every possible shady blood mage and back stabbin deals in game i seem to be unable to achieve that.
sure the stories are pretty bloody and evil but maybe the real dark part is simply that you are forced to live with assumptions/delusions of npc's thinking you are a good guy and working for them while your only concern is how you can possibly play a believable evil role in game when you are supposed to be in the "good" team from the start LOL.
by now my character is practically bathing in blood and getting rewards as a result. the last one was a particularly funny one. it was awarded for doing absolutely nothing while a village got slaughtered, freeing a blood mage who caused the whole slaughter and i ended up giving my approval to killed the mother of a boy. afterwards somehow the earl was actually grateful i did that and named me champion of his -extinct- district instead of a substantial cash reward i was expecting. the really funny thing is can not even refuse it while i have been looking for a way to unlock the blood mage title which would actually support my roleplay but despite of all my interactions with every possible shady blood mage and back stabbin deals in game i seem to be unable to achieve that.
sure the stories are pretty bloody and evil but maybe the real dark part is simply that you are forced to live with assumptions/delusions of npc's thinking you are a good guy and working for them while your only concern is how you can possibly play a believable evil role in game when you are supposed to be in the "good" team from the start LOL.
Modifié par menasure, 02 décembre 2009 - 08:41 .
#323
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 09:44
Roxlimn
-
- Members
- 1 337 messages
The Arl is grateful because you can't really do anything bad in that scenario. Everything you do is okay. Sure, YOU have the benefit of metagame knowledge knowing that you could have done more. Doing less than what you're obligated to do isn't really evil. You are NOT honorbound to protect that little village - that was the Arl's job and he can't very well blame you for not taking on the role, now, can he?
You saved his boy by cooperating with the offer of the mother. That's actually a good act, you know.
You saved his boy by cooperating with the offer of the mother. That's actually a good act, you know.
#324
Posté 02 décembre 2009 - 11:36
EmperorSahlertz
-
- Members
- 8 809 messages
So first of all you are a guy who is all about: The end justify the means. Which pretty much explains your point of view.
Second of all, your grasp of LotR is twisted, at best. Gandalf died at the peak of Zirakzigil and for all intends and purposes he was gone, and would not be able to return to finish his job. Not even the power of the Valar could save him. Only by the intervention of Eru Illuvatar did Gandalf get ressurected, to finish his job.
And no LotR is NOT dark fantasy. The movies as wikipedia says emphasize the dark THEMES of the book. When more than 90% of all the dark stuff happens off-screen, a piece of work does not qualify as dark.
Second of all, your grasp of LotR is twisted, at best. Gandalf died at the peak of Zirakzigil and for all intends and purposes he was gone, and would not be able to return to finish his job. Not even the power of the Valar could save him. Only by the intervention of Eru Illuvatar did Gandalf get ressurected, to finish his job.
And no LotR is NOT dark fantasy. The movies as wikipedia says emphasize the dark THEMES of the book. When more than 90% of all the dark stuff happens off-screen, a piece of work does not qualify as dark.
#325
Posté 03 décembre 2009 - 03:42
Obadiah
-
- Members
- 5 726 messages
Roxlimn wrote...
Doing less than what you're obligated to do isn't really evil. You are NOT honorbound to protect that little village - that was the Arl's job and he can't very well blame you for not taking on the role, now, can he?
Says you. Letting people die when you could have done something about it but didn't sounds pretty evil to me.
