112 réponses à ce sujet

[Chewin]

As an avid gamer and a political enthusiast, I'm always interested in the storytelling aspect a specific game tends to tell, especially when a game focuses to tell a political one. While we don't know the exact plot points of the story of DAI and everything it will delve into, it is however quite clear that the game will feature some major factions who are in conflict with each other one way or another.

 

The intention of this thread is to discuss / speculate on what particular kind of political story Inquisition will tell, what may be expected of it, how it will evolve throughout the plot, how much it will generally delve into, etc.

 

But for us to be able to talk about this, we first of all need to make a distinction between political theory and pure politics / realpolitik. Naturally, they can never be fully separated nor should they be, but I think being able to distinguish between them and knowing which one a video game is focused on is crucial to the portrayal of politics in the medium.

 

Political theory focuses on ideas and concepts and is very much connected to ethics. Games that fit into this category would be e.g. Deus ex: Human Revolution or Dragon Age 2. These games uses characters and factions to symbolize greater values and principles in the story, meaning that you pick the option or side primarily based on what they represent. It is essentially an examination of what you think ought to be in a particular setting and / or a particular question. In a lot of ways, it has a simplistic portrayal of politics on the ground, but it also brings to the forefront the conflict of ideas which is definitely complex, depending on the execution of it.

 

"Pure politics" / realpolitik focuses on power struggle, self-interest and more "materialistic" factors. A game fit into this category would be The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings or Dragon Age: Origins. Characters and factions fight primarily for state / personal interests, geo-strategic advantages and self-preservation; not ideas primarily. It is in that sense 'grittier' and almost inevitably much more cynical. The more complex and convoluted the political intrigue is, the better and more realistic it is.

 

Again, they are not completely separate. The Witcher 2's political portrayal features ideas, but they are portrayed like the other material factors as opposed to being the center of it all. The same can't be said about DH:HR, where political and economic factors are used as means to draw light to the concepts and the ideas it wishes to highlight. Both political portrayals are great but depends entirely on how it is executed (to be frank, both DAO and DA2 have been rather lackluster on respective regard).

 

Now we come to the important part, concerning Inquisition and what I'm afraid it may lack just like its predecessors, which is a multifaceted execution. 

 

What I mean by that is; There is no ideological conflict or issue that can be summarized as Idea X vs Idea Y that has largely been used in the DA franchise. For it to be successful, it can't simple deal with, for example, Order vs Chaos. No, it has to take whatever conflict that arises in the game and put it into other conflicting ideas and issues: like what magic means to the world and everyone, morality and how reliable it is, progress, laws, etc.

 

Likewise, having a dozen major and minor factions all fighting for their own interests in an elaborate web of political intrigue helps to flesh out the conflicts that takes place in the game. There is no real political conflict that can be summarized as Faction A vs Faction B. There are always several factions and sub-factions at play.

 

So in short; any bipolar representation of politics, whether ideological or factional, is fundamentally flawed, simplistic and more often then not, annoying. If Inquisition will simply focus on, let's say Mage vs Templars (Freedom vs Security) as DA2 did, it will ultimately be a very simplified version of a political story. But if it manages to express it from different viewpoints and perhaps different parties involved, it may turn out as a very realistic and intriguing aspect of the game. Considering that DAI features the Inquisition, mages, templars, Empress Celene, Gaspard de Chalons, elves, dwarves, Qunari, etc. DAI has a great opportunity to bring this all into fruition, if BW wants to execute on it.

 

TL;DR If DAI stays away from dichotomies and actually takes factions in the game into account into the general conflict and executes it well, DAI can turn to be quite a great game on the political factor, even if it isn't a focus point in the overall plot.

[ButterRum]

The premise of the gameplay is to make choices and alter the outcome, so I think you will be disappointed if you expect the game's choices to have blurred lines.

This game will be huge. I heard the main story alone takes 50 hours to complete but don't quote me on that.

We have the civil war in Orlais, the mages vs templars, the tear in the Fade, Briala and the elven rebellion, a possible Qunuari invasion ... Anything else I am missing?

So we will have lots of choices to make. Does anyone think the entire list will make the game?

So far the mages vs Templars, the tear in the Fade, and I'm assuming the civil war in Orlais, are confirmed.

[Chewin]

It certainly has the "ingredients" to put these factions into play. Ultimately however it depends on the execution; if ideas, themes, issues, etc. rises at all during the conflict(s) taking place.

[ButterRum]

I don't think the Dragon Age lore presents political issues in a purely black and white sense, but there are definitely factions that have a very contrasting views, such as the Mages vs Templars. Our party members have at least taken middle ground, what with Leliana being from the Chantry (she doesn't hate elves or magic) and Morrigan (a heavy magic user but not a zealot like Anders).

[Sir Edric]

As long Qunari comes into play, I'm happy. I can imagine a Qunari or Sten taking on Nevarra or someone else and entering the war finally! Probably for DLC.

 

Anyhow, nice post, Chewin and I agree that DA needs to step up its game.

[Chewin]

I don't think the Dragon Age lore presents political issues in a purely black and white sense, but there are definitely factions that have a very contrasting views, such as the Mages vs Templars. Our party members have at least taken middle ground, what with Leliana being from the Chantry (she doesn't hate elves or magic) and Morrigan (a heavy magic user but not a zealot like Anders).

 

No, not completely black and white but neither has it managed to fully put it into limelight. DAO certainly managed better than DA2, but even there it was mostly merely touched upon.

[Jazzpha]

I think it'll depend ultimately on how comfortable Bioware feels with shaking up its status quo as the series moves forward. One of the reasons I think DA2 took so much agency away from the player was because Inquisition required a very particular kind of setup, so Anders was locked into his role, as were Meredith and Orsino.

If Bioware has given themselves enough latitude in the overall narrative to allow for some serious sociopolitical shifts (and the notion that the inquisition straight-up resolves the Mage/Templar conflict seems to indicate that they do), then we might see some notable changes in the political landscape during DAI after all.

I think, again, it all comes down to how much free rein Bioware wants to give the player. There's been tension between the fixed arc of the overall mythology and freedom of player choice since DA2, but I'm hoping that, since DAI seems poised to pay off a lot of that set-up, we'll see some serious changes in DAI and beyond.

[Chewin]

*snip*

 

Good point, but even with the setup that DA2 featured, the general build up and conclusion was poor and didn't add up to much anything. Changes to the status-quo especially violent ones tend to have a ripple effect in its surrounding region, and the events that took place in previous installments, it should certainly have some major ones.

 

The thing with making wars and conflicts in general in nay media great is to make it as realistic as possible, by giving it certain causes and aspects--economics, geo-politics, class conflict, racism, and more. It is also not enough to simply touch upon them, but also putting them into play so it adds up and reflects on the conflict. 

[Jazzpha]

I definitely agree with that. I think the next logical step for BW to take is to start tying their threads together into a whole-- a lot of the aspects of the DA world have been kind of isolated from each other (eg racism towards the elves as a concept has been independent of the overall political scene, it's just been a sort of subplot idea), but that's been starting to change as books like The Masked Empire have begun to incorporate things like elven anger stemming from unequal treatment into the larger political fabric of the world (see: Halamshiral).

If that sort of interweaving continues, we may very well see what you're hoping for in DAI.

[Xandurpein]

Ultimately there is conflict between player agency and political topics. As long as Bioware wants to continue produce Dragon Age games, they have to severly restrict the players' ability to influence the political developments. I love the political aspects of these games, but not when it comes at the cost of feeling railroaded by the game as in DA2.

It's simply not realistic to think that the players' choice could affect for example the question of a Dalish homeland, as any future game would have to account for both possibilities. We have to accept that really major decisions, like a mage rebellion or a war between Orlais and Ferelden must happen regardless of players choice.

[Recon Member]

Ultimately there is conflict between player agency and political topics. As long as Bioware wants to continue produce Dragon Age games, they have to severly restrict the players' ability to influence the political developments. I love the political aspects of these games, but not when it comes at the cost of feeling railroaded by the game as in DA2.

It's simply not realistic to think that the players' choice could affect for example the question of a Dalish homeland, as any future game would have to account for both possibilities. We have to accept that really major decisions, like a mage rebellion or a war between Orlais and Ferelden must happen regardless of players choice.

 

It's not about events happening, but how the are handled. It doesn't matter if a war between Orlais and Ferelden happens, but more how it is done during the conflict. You don't need to give the player a choice for BioWare to give the political intrigue it deserves.

[Dabrikishaw]

Ultimately there is conflict between player agency and political topics. As long as Bioware wants to continue produce Dragon Age games, they have to severly restrict the players' ability to influence the political developments. I love the political aspects of these games, but not when it comes at the cost of feeling railroaded by the game as in DA2.

It's simply not realistic to think that the players' choice could affect for example the question of a Dalish homeland, as any future game would have to account for both possibilities. We have to accept that really major decisions, like a mage rebellion or a war between Orlais and Ferelden must happen regardless of players choice.

Cannot be repeated enough. Don't get your hopes up.

[Chewin]

Ultimately there is conflict between player agency and political topics. As long as Bioware wants to continue produce Dragon Age games, they have to severly restrict the players' ability to influence the political developments. I love the political aspects of these games, but not when it comes at the cost of feeling railroaded by the game as in DA2.

It's simply not realistic to think that the players' choice could affect for example the question of a Dalish homeland, as any future game would have to account for both possibilities. We have to accept that really major decisions, like a mage rebellion or a war between Orlais and Ferelden must happen regardless of players choice.

 

Certainly, but the argument isn't strictly about the level of influence on the player's point, but rather its focus on it and general execution. Having a choice presented in the game and not taken into account later on is problematic, but is mostly a design problem. In that case, creating such choices that can't be followed on shouldn't then be created in the first place. 

[Maria Caliban]

I find myself wondering how many people actually read the original post, and of those who did, who decided, "That's interesting, now I'll post about something not really related."

[Icy Magebane]

I disagree that the sociological and political aspects of DA:O and DA2 lacked complexity.  Both games presented players with a world influenced by rigid class systems, racism, tension between races, religious infighting, religious intolerance, arguments about the abuse of physical power, arguments about the abuse of political power, and many other themes.  Most side quests combined two or more of these components in the personalities of the characters and in the nature of the conflict we were being asked to resolve.  As the Warden and Hawke, we saw these issues first hand and were allowed to express our own opinions, both through words and with action.  While the interactions and their results tended to vary in terms of overall importance to the world, they did a good job of establishing the protagonists as inhabitants of Thedas with justifiably limited influence.  I expect the same level of interaction and control from DAI, as well as a cast of multifaceted characters who represent various religious, economic, and philosophical views.  Although the role of figurehead of the Inquisition may give us some degree of clout, I don't expect that we'll have much influence over institutions that have been in place for centuries.

[PsychoBlonde]

Technically everything in the series thus far is Realpolitik.  They have avoided really addressing any philosophical underpinnings (theory) for the various viewpoints in the games, simply throwing them out as justifications instead of examining them in detail.  On the one hand, this is a smart move, because they avoid getting into intellectual territory that is way over the heads of probably 90% of the audience for these games.  Once you start arguing political theory, very soon you're arguing ethics and then epistemology and even metaphysics.  Epistemology predominately, though--every political theory is, at base, a theory of epistemology.  The metaphysics is usually implied by the epistemology.  Some systems (Logical Positivism) even attempt to dispense with metaphysics altogether.  On the other hand, this is vaguely unsatisfying for those interested in the inner workings of these things.  You cannot really change someone's mind by arguing politics with them, even if you have a mountain of evidence that their politics, put into effect, lead to a permanent state of war or destruction.  They'll just start arguing that the evidence doesn't apply Because of Reasons and boom, you're arguing epistemology.

[Icy Magebane]

Technically everything in the series thus far is Realpolitik.  They have avoided really addressing any philosophical underpinnings (theory) for the various viewpoints in the games, simply throwing them out as justifications instead of examining them in detail.  On the one hand, this is a smart move, because they avoid getting into intellectual territory that is way over the heads of probably 90% of the audience for these games.  Once you start arguing political theory, very soon you're arguing ethics and then epistemology and even metaphysics.  Epistemology predominately, though--every political theory is, at base, a theory of epistemology.  The metaphysics is usually implied by the epistemology.  Some systems (Logical Positivism) even attempt to dispense with metaphysics altogether.  On the other hand, this is vaguely unsatisfying for those interested in the inner workings of these things.  You cannot really change someone's mind by arguing politics with them, even if you have a mountain of evidence that their politics, put into effect, lead to a permanent state of war or destruction.  They'll just start arguing that the evidence doesn't apply Because of Reasons and boom, you're arguing epistemology.

But how can any of this be represented in a video game, aside from interpretations of the motives of the characters?  Longer speeches from the NPCs in which they clarify and expound upon their opinions?  Our interaction is limited, no matter how in depth the political discussions get.

[PsychoBlonde]

What I would like to see is opportunities where holding to a specific ideology creates a disaster that you must then deal with.  You don't have solid evidence that this person is possessed by a demon.  Do you let them go?  Do you kill them?  Do you try to finagle together some other option?  And when the disaster COMES, how do you deal with your companions saying "you were wrong".  I'd like to see more of the "you were wrong!" discussions, and those tend to get left out, you just get "So and so disapproves -15" and it's over.  Because that sort of things is so shallow.  You disapprove of me not killing someone on the basis of slim evidence?  Are you going to approve when we come across someone of YOUR faction who has slim evidence against them and I kill THEM, then?  No?  Then what you possess is not an ideology, it is simply a bias.

 

There is no ideology that will successfully prevent ANY bad outcome from EVER happening.  You can assemble all the evidence, behave with scrupulous attention to the facts, use the best predictive models . . . and still be wrong--horribly, catastrophically wrong.  The real interest comes in dealing with that.  Do you rewrite history and insist that you should have (somehow) known better and guilt trip yourself to death?  Do you focus your efforts on repairing the damage?  Do you learn from your mistake?  Do you change the way you make future decisions as a result?  Do you start erring on the side of caution?  Does that cause further problems?

[PsychoBlonde]

But how can any of this be represented in a video game, aside from interpretations of the motives of the characters?  Longer speeches from the NPCs in which they clarify and expound upon their opinions?  Our interaction is limited, no matter how in depth the political discussions get.

 

I didn't say it was EASY.  Some of these issues would require the entire game to be based around them in order for it to really work.  But, on the other hand, you could probably MAKE an entire game out of them, such as, say, the issue of certainty.  How do you decide when you know enough to be certain?  Crime dramas depend heavily on this issue.

[Savber100]

This is easily the most interesting post I've seen on this forum for a loooonnng time. 

God, I miss the old DA:O political debates... 

Anyways, old nostalgia aside:

I would love to see DA:I fully explore the political factions between the nations of Thedas but  I fear that Bioware has never been good about intricacies of "real politick". They tend to paint everything with broad strokes. 

Even the complexities of people like Loghain seem to be more like accidents than actual thought-out plots. 

I mean I love to hear Gaider comment on his thoughts on this. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

What I would like to see is opportunities where holding to a specific ideology creates a disaster that you must then deal with.  You don't have solid evidence that this person is possessed by a demon.  Do you let them go?  Do you kill them?  Do you try to finagle together some other option?  And when the disaster COMES, how do you deal with your companions saying "you were wrong".  I'd like to see more of the "you were wrong!" discussions, and those tend to get left out, you just get "So and so disapproves -15" and it's over.  Because that sort of things is so shallow.  You disapprove of me not killing someone on the basis of slim evidence?  Are you going to approve when we come across someone of YOUR faction who has slim evidence against them and I kill THEM, then?  No?  Then what you possess is not an ideology, it is simply a bias.

 

There is no ideology that will successfully prevent ANY bad outcome from EVER happening.  You can assemble all the evidence, behave with scrupulous attention to the facts, use the best predictive models . . . and still be wrong--horribly, catastrophically wrong.  The real interest comes in dealing with that.  Do you rewrite history and insist that you should have (somehow) known better and guilt trip yourself to death?  Do you focus your efforts on repairing the damage?  Do you learn from your mistake?  Do you change the way you make future decisions as a result?  Do you start erring on the side of caution?  Does that cause further problems?

Well if i will kill someone who may be possessed no one will say "you were wrong" and there won't be disaster simple choice for me so bad outcome prevented.

[PsychoBlonde]

Well if i will kill someone who may be possessed no one will say "you were wrong" and there won't be disaster simple choice for me so bad outcome prevented.

 

 

Killing someone IS a disaster.  It was a disaster for the person you killed.  Do they have a family they were supporting?  Who's going to feed them now.? So it's a disaster for them, too.  Do they have friends who are going to come after you for revenge, forcing you to kill them as well?  What about the friends and family of THOSE people?  What about the people who are in similar situations who will now fight to the death because they KNOW you're going to kill them, no matter how slim the evidence?  You MIGHT save more people than you kill, but that doesn't make it GOOD, just (perhaps marginally) better than the alternative.  And you don't KNOW that you saved ANYONE, only that you MIGHT have.  But you don't consider this a "bad outcome" because nobody complained about it?  Only POTENTIAL future deaths count, not CURRENT actual ones--and then, only if someone gripes about it?!

[PsychoBlonde]

One thing that they could do which would be quite interesting is to quit with the "suspicious unsupported letter proves something" thing that is so dang common in these games.  "I found a letter where so-and-so says he wants to help The Bad Guy--this proves that they're in cahoots!"  You know what happens when law enforcement in real life applies this kind of logic?  They wind up as a news story and a thousand outraged Facebook shares announcing "That so-called evidence could have meant ANYTHING!!!"  But in games, it's always one-dimensional.  A single footprint solves the case.  This dropped handkerchief MUST have blood on it because they were involved in the murder.  They couldn't have had a bloody nose, oh no.

 

Part of this is because all such features in video games are purely manufactured.  There's no messy randomness like in real life.  Video game characters don't get bloody noses.  They don't randomly pass by the scene of a murder.  They weren't childhood friends with the villain that they haven't seen in  years.  It's all so cookie-cutter.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Killing someone IS a disaster.  It was a disaster for the person you killed.  Do they have a family they were supporting?  Who's going to feed them now.? So it's a disaster for them, too.  Do they have friends who are going to come after you for revenge, forcing you to kill them as well?  What about the friends and family of THOSE people?  What about the people who are in similar situations who will now fight to the death because they KNOW you're going to kill them, no matter how slim the evidence?  You MIGHT save more people than you kill, but that doesn't make it GOOD, just (perhaps marginally) better than the alternative.  And you don't KNOW that you saved ANYONE, only that you MIGHT have.  But you don't consider this a "bad outcome" because nobody complained about it?  Only POTENTIAL future deaths count, not CURRENT actual ones--and then, only if someone gripes about it?!

Not rly you pretty much will slain 1241513 peoples before the ending i don't see how 1 more person will make difference.

Pretty much all i need to do to see

if i don't kill him what positive outcome for me it will be none worst scenario may be huge disaster...

if i will kill him no bad outcome for me positive outcome no disaster.

LOGIC WINS!