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.
Not really. The representation that the DA franchise has delved into has been on a very simplistic nature. As I've stated previously in the thread, touching on the specific subject at hand doesn't make it coherent. The aspects you listed have mostly managed to serve as an introduction to the player on the different states surrounding the issue, but with little causes put into play. Certain aspects have been portrayed quite good, like the representation of a constitutional monarchy and feudalism in DAO, but even then it is nothing to boast about.
While you are right that certain elements are taken up in quest regarding the specific issue at hand that is being portrayed in the game, a major theme in the DA franchise revolves around individuals / groups fighting for equality against a conservative power (Mages, Elves, Dwarves). The representation in DA is quite frankly not that well executed. Limiting oneself to simply one aspect is not a very realistic portrayal. Throwing in a lot of causes revolving around putting the issue on the forefront doesn't make it good. As I stated in the OP, you have to take into consideration of the economical repercussions of it, conflict revolving around the different classes and races involved, state interest and power struggles, and more depending on what exactly the conflict entails. It is not enough either to simply states that aspects like these are in play, showcasing them as well and how it affects everyone both directly and indirectly involved is necessary.
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.
Regarding politicking in the series, true to an extent, though it naturally depends on how much of a focus that is put into it. The DA series have mostly just managed to address it, as you stated yourself. While it is true that for most people topics like these would go over their head, I wouldn't consider that it constitutes being a smart move on their part to simplify it. If BW wants to tackle an aspect, they should thoroughly address it. It's not a matter of creating arguments on forums (although intriguing) but more on the game's assessment of it.
Actually, ALL ideological conflicts can be fundamentally summarized this way (although in real life you usually have about 50,000 slightly different proponents of each idea with their own ideas on how to implement them). Differences on implementation (realpolitik, as you put it) are not the same as differences in ideology, though.
If you're talking *fundamentals* there are TWO political ideologies: individualism and statism. (Anarchism is a collapse of political ideology, not one in itself, kind of how atheism is not a religion.) Any given person's ideas may be a huge confused mixture of the two (and it's VERY, VERY common to see two groups of statists duking it out over who gets to be the one in control), but in ANY political issue that is actually a difference of *ideology*--over how an issue should be decided--that's the breakdown. It can be decided by individuals--provided those individuals aren't actually violating anyone's rights--or it can be decided by The State. The vast majority of people are not ideologically consistent--they are individualists on some issues and statists on others. In many cases the difference is only one of degree--a question of HOW MUCH Statism is appropriate and individualism is thrown out altogether. (This is actually the case in much of Dragon Age.) Or you may simply have a case of non-ideology where the person with the biggest gang runs things. But once you start talking real, consistent ideology, that is the breakdown.
Not exactly, since an ideological conflict that is portrayed in that capacity is a very simplistic portrayal of it. For it to realistically portray the political philosophy of it, dividing them into dichotomies won't due. Implementation regarding 'pure politics' surrounds on adding different aspects and causes, not differences in ideologies primarily.
You bring forward an interesting topic regarding individualism and statism. It is to be taken into note that by expanding our consideration to a different understanding of liberty, we change our position somewhat and see with more clarity that what may look from our current position like a deep antipathy between individualism and statism, is in point of fact something more of a continuity and logical progression. Without the addition of a distinct understanding of liberty to that of classical liberalism, from close up, all that we can discern are the opposite features of the two dominant political views. By expanding our vista, however, we can better discern their relatedness, and propose that a true alternative is not between these siblings, but between a false choice of these two ideologies and a true choice between distinct and competing ideas of the very nature of liberty itself.
However, as I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread, representation of it on a focal level is vital.
I honestly doubt this is within Bioware's capabilities. Not to say that it couldn't be done, but I don't think Bioware knows how to do it.
I'm curious Chewin, have you played Final Fantasy XII? If so, what did you think of it? (quick everyone, take a drink! I'm talking about FFXII again!!). Personally, I think it handled its themes in the way you advocate Bioware doing for Inquisition, though of course it was not a game that offered choices. Even so, I believe it nailed the realpolitik idea.
Yeah, I'm afraid of this as well.
Hmm, no never bothered with FXII. Was never aware that they delved into things like these. If it is as you described it, I might have a look when I find the time.
Saw the thread title, saw a Xanatos avatar, thought KnightofPhoenix had returned...
*le sigh*
God dammit!
Retour en haut
