93 réponses à ce sujet

[exorzist]

One of the major criticisms of Dragon Age: Origins has been that the game draws on ‘derivative fantasy’ in its plot and storyline. Now, staying away from the debate over whether or not DA:O is ‘dark fantasy’ as marketed, or ‘Tolkien-esque epic fantasy’ , the whole discussion leads me to ask why is it that anything in the fantasy genre is immediately under fire for being self-referential.

What I want to know is when does something stop being cliché and become, instead, archetype?

American satirist Ambrose Bierce is often quoted as saying, “There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don’t know.” Which is full of all sorts of delightful irony if you consider that “There is nothing new under the sun,” was a Biblical quote some 1,800 years before. Film, literature and music have a grand ol’ history of drawing on those who came before. But, despite 2,000 years of literature leaning on Biblical reference and allegory, when a book like The Da Vinci Code comes out, no-one calls it derivative of the previous work – or of the Bible itself.

In fact, one modern-day columnist trying to trump up support for teaching religion in public schools wrote, “Trying to understand American literature and history without some knowledge of the Bible is like trying to make sense of the ocean despite a complete ignorance of fish.”

Continue reading the article by clicking here.

Thank you for all comments and feedback. Very appreciated.

Modifié par exorzist, 03 décembre 2009 - 05:03 .

[Bryy_Miller]

I rather think that Dragon Age does a remarkably well job of taking old fantasy conventions and making them feel fresh again.

[Taleroth]

exorzist wrote...

One of the major criticisms of Dragon Age: Origins has been that the
game draws on ‘derivative fantasy’ in its plot and storyline.

Citation needed.

Modifié par Taleroth, 03 décembre 2009 - 04:52 .

[Bryy_Miller]

I'd think this forum is a citation in itself.

[Ghandorian]

A good example of this in games is Turbines first mmo. It created a totally new ip that seemed to draw nothing at all form traditional fantasy. What did they learn form this? Buy the rights to Tolkien IP to make a ton more money. They won mmo of the year with LOTRO . . . . . about 6 years later and dropped the idea of being different.

[DEVACOMO]

It is obvious that there's nothing new under the Sun. You can say that S-F is derivative because this kind of literature is cliche of for example Stanislaw Lem or H.G Wells. Even this new kind of S-F such New Weird is. But, is it bad situation ? No. I think that we face new kind of art, when it develops new solutions of the archetype problems. And in my opinion Dragon Age doing it. When you compare DA with others cRPG, such Baldur' Gate or Morrowind, you can see that history of the created world ( I don't know that there is any RPG in which people are beliving in One God ) , characters of NPC, etc., are more sofisticated. 

Modifié par DEVACOMO, 03 décembre 2009 - 05:17 .

[exorzist]

Thank you for feedback ...

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

It is humans, Elves and dwarfs against the darkspawn... is it just me or do I see a reference to Lord of the Rings?

[Aesir Rising]

Tolkien drew from prior sources, including Finnish epics. He didn't work in a vacuum. That said, I reject the notion that you have to be different or new to be better. In fact, I would have enjoyed DA:O more if it's elves and dwarves were more Tolkien-esque (or more Finnish perhaps).

[exorzist]

Obviously even Tolkien was inspired ...

[Ghandorian]

Aesir Rising wrote...

Tolkien drew from prior sources, including Finnish epics. He didn't work in a vacuum. That said, I reject the notion that you have to be different or new to be better. In fact, I would have enjoyed DA:O more if it's elves and dwarves were more Tolkien-esque (or more Finnish perhaps).

yes I was trying to offer a real example of where a game company regretted being different. They turned around and bought the rights to make a LOTR mmo. They had publicly stated that creating a totally new IP on your own could limit interest. At least from their experience this was true.

[KalosCast]

Fantasy, in and of itself, doesn't generally lead to a lot of new and innovative ideas. I distinctly remember reading a Forgotten Realms novel involving a human, elf, and dwarf coordinating an epic defense of a human kingdom while a separate plot went on to take an artifact to the ancient evil guy's tower because it was the only way to destroy both.

With that said, I feel like Dragon Age is the most "realisitic" fantasy setting I've played in a very long time. In Forgotten Realms settings, there is no major wealthy city that isn't secretly run by evil mages, and pretty much every time plucky misfits have to prevent the end of the world, part of the evil plot involves a mage summoning something or the mage being the bad guy himself. You'd think people would realize that this kind of crap happens all the time and maybe we should lock them up in a tower policed by anti-mages, Dragon Age delivers. Each faction also has their own fresh spin on their usual archetypes. Elves live in the woods and love trees... but a good chunk of them are racist, heartless bastards turned bitter through years of oppression and what is essentially a constant exile. Dwarves have crazy beards and battle-axes... but are also two timing Machiavellian politicians, and gold-digging is more or less Orzammar's second favorite sport behind provings.

Would be nice to see a fantasy settings where humans aren't the biggest ****s though.

Modifié par KalosCast, 04 décembre 2009 - 12:37 .

[aphelion002]

There's a difference between rehashing old cliches and drawing upon old and powerful cultural imagery. Tolkien's archetypes are popular precisely because they tap into something which resonates in us. He himself said that he felt his novels were trying to describe some essential truth through myth. The trick is to take upon the elements which work without copying extraneous conventions and details slavishly.
  
I think Dragon Age handled this balancing act very, very well. It may have elves, dwarves, and orc-like creatures with similar attributes and personalities, but through a totally different mythological background. Its like watching familiar characters in an alternate universe, like seeing: "This is what these races would be if things turned out differently, if the forces and environment which acts on them were changed." Especially religion - the role of the Chantry is masterfully done, leaving enough ambiguity such that you feel they could be both bringers of some divine truth yet also at times, simply snake's-oil salesmen with their own selfish agenda.

Most critics don't realize that. They look at the races with similar faces and names and accuse it of being the "same old". They seem to want things to be different just for the sake of being different. That, in fact, shows a lack of independence and original thinking. All good stories draw upon familiar themes and motifs - whats wrong with drawing upon some of the most popular and proven ideas? If you make up a bunch of new races with different names and abiliities, thats not original or special. If you take familiar races and weave it seamlessly into your own unique setting and story, why then, thats a piece of art.


Kudos on this front, Bioware.

Modifié par aphelion002, 04 décembre 2009 - 12:52 .

[foolish_sagacity]

In similar discussions the idea of the "Monomyth" has inevitably come up. The theory that really, all adventure stories stem from the formula of The Epic of Gilgamesh, from The Odyssey to Star Wars. Indeed, some theorists say that we really only tell a handful of stories, and that it isn't trying to come up with the revolutionary 9th story frame of all time that matters but the skill in telling it. After all, how many of us have said as we're trying to tell a story "But you should hear my uncle/friend/relation/etc. tell it, he tells it so much better."



But enough of the mysterious "they" and their theories, "I" think Dragon Age works, but I also see a problem in the direction it's trying to go. It seems like they believe they are reinventing the epic Tolkien-esque fantasy genre by tweaking the formula very slightly. With the whole Dark Fantasy billing I wasn't expecting such a seeming tribute to Tolkien. And the "no-Orcs" mantra we once heard gave us...well....pretty freakin' close to orcs. The Genlocks in particular are shamefully close to goblins for a game that I thought was avoiding using goblins.



The problem may be the marketing. I was under the impression there were no orcs and goblins, but the Hurlocks are SO much like skull headed Uruk and the Genlocks like broad goblins. We were told dark, but honestly, it didn't feel that dark to me. Dark says to me little hope, watching Templars kill people I know are innocent, seeing people starving. This game didn't feel desperate at any point.



I think there was a problem here of trying to pretend they were getting away from the source material of LoTR that let them fool themselves into believing they had. The story frame, the darkspawn grunts, all were LoTR. Even many of the cultures are just real world examples, like Orlais being very French. It is undoubtedly derivative, but I feel it tries to hide it. That I believe is the flaw. Which is a shame because many aspects are quite new and fresh. The Fade and the notion of spirits and demons is staggeringly well thought out and formed for me the primary hook of this game. The culture of magic also was intriguing, with the mages all being locked away by murderous addicts who hate them. And the Brood Mother...oh the brood mother.



I just think that the dichotomy between that which is far too familiar and that which was a very fresh take is the point of issue. If they could make the fade that different and interesting why couldn't they make other aspects that amazing. If the Brood Mother is so messed up, and made in such a way, and is so gruesome and cool....why aren't the other darkspawn nearly that interesting? It does not seem to fit, orc, ogre and goblin wannabes coming from a hideous, corrupt almost sci-fi alien creature. Perhaps the darkspawn should have been like the zerg? I don't know.

[aphelion002]

foolish_sagacity wrote...

In similar discussions the idea of the "Monomyth" has inevitably come up. The theory that really, all adventure stories stem from the formula of The Epic of Gilgamesh, from The Odyssey to Star Wars. Indeed, some theorists say that we really only tell a handful of stories, and that it isn't trying to come up with the revolutionary 9th story frame of all time that matters but the skill in telling it. After all, how many of us have said as we're trying to tell a story "But you should hear my uncle/friend/relation/etc. tell it, he tells it so much better."

But enough of the mysterious "they" and their theories, "I" think Dragon Age works, but I also see a problem in the direction it's trying to go. It seems like they believe they are reinventing the epic Tolkien-esque fantasy genre by tweaking the formula very slightly. With the whole Dark Fantasy billing I wasn't expecting such a seeming tribute to Tolkien. And the "no-Orcs" mantra we once heard gave us...well....pretty freakin' close to orcs. The Genlocks in particular are shamefully close to goblins for a game that I thought was avoiding using goblins.

The problem may be the marketing. I was under the impression there were no orcs and goblins, but the Hurlocks are SO much like skull headed Uruk and the Genlocks like broad goblins. We were told dark, but honestly, it didn't feel that dark to me. Dark says to me little hope, watching Templars kill people I know are innocent, seeing people starving. This game didn't feel desperate at any point.

I think there was a problem here of trying to pretend they were getting away from the source material of LoTR that let them fool themselves into believing they had. The story frame, the darkspawn grunts, all were LoTR. Even many of the cultures are just real world examples, like Orlais being very French. It is undoubtedly derivative, but I feel it tries to hide it. That I believe is the flaw. Which is a shame because many aspects are quite new and fresh. The Fade and the notion of spirits and demons is staggeringly well thought out and formed for me the primary hook of this game. The culture of magic also was intriguing, with the mages all being locked away by murderous addicts who hate them. And the Brood Mother...oh the brood mother.

I just think that the dichotomy between that which is far too familiar and that which was a very fresh take is the point of issue. If they could make the fade that different and interesting why couldn't they make other aspects that amazing. If the Brood Mother is so messed up, and made in such a way, and is so gruesome and cool....why aren't the other darkspawn nearly that interesting? It does not seem to fit, orc, ogre and goblin wannabes coming from a hideous, corrupt almost sci-fi alien creature. Perhaps the darkspawn should have been like the zerg? I don't know.

Dragon Age is far from an "original" creation, but I take issue with your comparison with it to Tolkien. Like many others, you say "Tolkiensque" when you really mean "having orcs, elves, and dwarves". This is a superficial comparison which I take serious issue with. Tons of crappy fantasy writers use "orcs, elves and dwarves". Very few of them are "Tolkiensque".

IMO, what distinguishes Tolkien is not these similarities but the overall, arching mythology dealing with the primordial good and evil in the world. The atmosphere of the Tolkien books is very, very different from that of Dragon Age. When you reference LoTR, are you thinking of just the movies or are you thinking of the books? If you see the movies and think that Gandalf traipsing around fighting orcs is the extent of Tolkien, then you are doing yourself a huge huge disservice. 

Modifié par aphelion002, 04 décembre 2009 - 01:06 .

[OdinTGE]

The elves are a lithe pointy eared people who excel at poverty.

[LSDS]

I think it's a fair criticism.  Being derivative isn't a bad thing.  There are certain creatures and concepts that are found throughout the fantasy genre.

Now if people are claiming that Bioware's work is derivative of J.R.R.T in the sense that they copied his work then I think they are mistaken.  Clearly there are similarities between Middle Earth and Thedas but it isn't as though Tolkien invented elves and dwarves.

I suppose it's a part of human nature to want something new but it's also human nature to resist new ideas and cling to what's familiar.

OdinTGE wrote...

The elves are a lithe pointy eared people who excel at poverty.

Sten ftw.

[Big Mabels Diet-Plan]

Everything is deriviative to a point. There's like seven storys thematically speaking. If something wasn't derivative at all we as the audience would have absolutely nothing to recognise or anchor onto and there would be no story, just a word salad.

Fantasy is just a modern reshaping of mythology.

[exorzist]

aphelion002 wrote.... If you take familiar races and weave it seamlessly into your own unique setting and story, why then, thats a piece of art.


Kudos on this front, Bioware.

I think of the Ogre here actually ... In other fantasy games ogres are not very dangerous or hard to kill ...

[David Gaider]

foolish_sagacity wrote...
I think there was a problem here of trying to pretend they were getting away from the source material of LoTR that let them fool themselves into believing they had.

I think you're under a mistaken impression. We never said we were "getting away" from anything. Our intention was to take the familiar archetypes and put our own spin on them. There are certainly worse things than being compared to LotR or any one of a number of other fantasy franchises... heck, Tycho at Penny Arcade even implied in his editorial today that we must have been inspired in part by Lois McMaster Bujold -- who I've never even read (though perhaps I should). Fantasy as a genre tends to draw from the same pool, so such comparisons are not really surprising... and at the end of the day we were not striving to be different just for the sake of being different. Some people prize that more than others, I suppose, but at the end of the day we are satisfied with taking a genre we love and doing it well.

[Deathstyk85]

there is nothing new, people have talked about elves and dwarves for forever, not just Tolkien

also, every fantasy thing like this has a great enemy. i find the darkspawn to be about as original as you can get in the situation. they could do like every other game and say "oh there is a great orc horde. stop it!" or "oh noes evil undead guy! stop him!"

of course it isnt completely original, but is that really a bad thing? also, its pretty much impossible to be entirely original when it comes to the fantasy genre, if you try to hard, youll end up coming out with something completely rediculous, because you tried to hard to make it "your own original"

[kevinwastaken]

Elves belong in any fantasy game I think, except maybe Conan-esque tales.



Dwarves on the otherhand... why do we need a race of midgets? Are puny little elves not enough?

[Deathstyk85]

they werent puny

they were the classic fair folk that is depicted in almost everything lol, they just happened to be a little shorter than humans.

and yes i think dwarves were very necessary

but i think the qunari were my favorite race from the game.