112 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

I didn't think I had to spell it out, but fair enough. I think it's obvious that the society of Ferelden and Orlais is culturally based on medival Western Europe, although in a fantasy setting. We know that they are feudal states. 

 

You don't actually know what feudalism IS, do you.  Feudalism is a system whereby ALL LAND is "owned" by the crown, distributed to the nobility by the monarch, and the vast majority of commoners are BOUND TO THE LAND (which is controlled by the nobles), required to work it and turn much of the produce directly over to the nobles and from there to the monarch. There has not yet been a "classic" feudal society on display in Thedas.  Ferelden commoners own their OWN land and are not beholden to the banns and arls the way feudal serfs are.  It is the inverse of feudalism, where the monarch actually owns very little land of their own.  Rowan and Maric spend most of The Stolen Throne trying to garner enough support from the nobility to put together an army capable of kicking a foreign empire out.  They don't have the ability to just *demand* support.  The nobles and freemen are independent of the crown.  Kirkwall and the other cities of the Free Marches are city-states somewhat similar to the Hanseatic League--a loose alliance of independent cities ruled by a variety of authorities.  The Viscount was installed by the Templars, for instance, while Starkhaven had a Prince.  Antiva is much like 15th century Italy--independent cities more or less perpetually at war with each other.  This is not feudalism.  There may not even *be* a monarch, and he or she certainly doesn't own the entire country.  Orlais may be the closest there is to a feudal nation, and even then it's more like the disintegrating post-feudal monarchies of the 16th and 17th centuries.

[iSousek]

Can't happen, won't happen. Although I have to admit DA:O had me back at Locke with all the struggles for thrones throughout the game, story and lore setting is too "grand" in both ME and DA universes. That leaves room mostly for small interactions with unimportant characters revolving around common practical ethical judgements. 

 

Also, in most BW games, threat is quite obvious and not really open to interpretations (blight, reapers, demons...) and the majority of the game is focused on these, Doesn't really leave a lot of room for seeing the other perspective on the issue.

 

It doesn't really help that you are always a soldier. In order for a game to fully explore the rich spectrum of political ideas, it would have to be set in much more common setting(no apocalyptic threat), where majority of the problems are truly socio-economic in character, not military. Your character should be governmental decision maker, not a bandit leader or a soldier. 

 

DA 2 had the potential for all of that, but had to properly introduce the Qunari to the game which took up much of the game

[iSousek]

Ferelden commoners own their OWN land and are not beholden to the banns and arls the way feudal serfs are.  It is the inverse of feudalism, where the monarch actually owns very little land of their own.  Rowan and Maric spend most of The Stolen Throne trying to garner enough support from the nobility to put together an army capable of kicking a foreign empire out.  They don't have the ability to just *demand* support.  The nobles and freemen are independent of the crown.  

 

I could easily be mistaken, but I don't remember where is it said that ferelden commoners own the land. Owning property on the land and owning the land are two different things

 

Also, feudal disobedience was common in Europe. Marric wasn't a monarch and he wasn't the source nor guarantee of the rights of the fereldan lords (no matter how legitimate his claim for the throne was), that's why he needed to ask for their support

[Xandurpein]

You don't actually know what feudalism IS, do you.  Feudalism is a system whereby ALL LAND is "owned" by the crown, distributed to the nobility by the monarch, and the vast majority of commoners are BOUND TO THE LAND (which is controlled by the nobles), required to work it and turn much of the produce directly over to the nobles and from there to the monarch. There has not yet been a "classic" feudal society on display in Thedas.  Ferelden commoners own their OWN land and are not beholden to the banns and arls the way feudal serfs are.  It is the inverse of feudalism, where the monarch actually owns very little land of their own.  Rowan and Maric spend most of The Stolen Throne trying to garner enough support from the nobility to put together an army capable of kicking a foreign empire out.  They don't have the ability to just *demand* support.  The nobles and freemen are independent of the crown.  Kirkwall and the other cities of the Free Marches are city-states somewhat similar to the Hanseatic League--a loose alliance of independent cities ruled by a variety of authorities.  The Viscount was installed by the Templars, for instance, while Starkhaven had a Prince.  Antiva is much like 15th century Italy--independent cities more or less perpetually at war with each other.  This is not feudalism.  There may not even *be* a monarch, and he or she certainly doesn't own the entire country.  Orlais may be the closest there is to a feudal nation, and even then it's more like the disintegrating post-feudal monarchies of the 16th and 17th centuries.

What you describe is the theory behind feudalism. What I'm referring to is the reality of the political situation in Western Europe, and specifically England, in the middle ages. The political reality only paid lip-service to the feudal idea. The king could "demand" support, but he could never be sure he got it. In theory he owned the country, in reality, power was shared with powerful nobles, who often were strong enough to ignore the king's demand without serious repercussions. The same was true in France. The nobles ignored the king's call to arms they thought it was in their best interest, and history abound with proof of this.

 

So no, there is no theory of "divine" right to support the feudal idea. But I still contend that power and power and power sharing in Fereldan closely matches the political reality of England in the middle ages. I think that the even the author's themselves has mentioned the time of the War of the Roses as an inspiration. If this isn't what you define as feudalism, then sure have it your way. we can call it something else.

 

My original point is still that there's nothing in the game that supports the idea that Fereldan ought to have developed rules for judging evidence more advanced that was the custom in medival England (which is to say, virually non-existent beyond "common sense"). On the contrary, everything points to the opposite, and that makes sense to me. That's how it worked in the medival England, where the writers have drawn a lot of inspiration in designing Dragon Age's Fereldan.Both the Landsmeet and the court scene in Amaranthine supports the idea that ultimate authority rests with the individual of the ruler or the nobility, not the law.

 

The fact that there's no systematic theory , like the idea of "divine right" to support this fact presented in the game, doesn't really change the fact that we have a great deal of evidence that it was so in practice. If your special interest is legal theory, I can understand that it's vexing that there's no such theory given in the game, but ultimately I think that's just something you have to deal with, in the same way I have to deal with how the game manages (or mismanages) military matters in the game, which is my hobby.

[Chewin]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I don't see how Dragon Age 2 fails what you're asking for.

 

On the surface the Mage Templar conflict is about freedom vs security, and the game shows us both the damage of rogue mages and the oppression of templars. Beyond that though the game adds a number of perspectives.

 

Inside of people supporting the Circle there is disagreement as to whether the restrictions should be tightened, loosened or kept as is.

Fenris suggests that without any control mages will take over a nation due to their power. So he frames the conflict as a fight to prevent tyrannical government.

Bethany isn't comfortable with her magic, and seems to like having a sheltered environment in which to learn to control it surrounded by similar people.

Varric says that the templar control pushes the mages towards rebellion creating a cycle of violence, irrespective of what anyone's goals are.

 

I think it has problems because Hawke's rise to power is not a very interesting story, nor a very good one to hang the mage templar conflict off.  There is also very little cause for the player to reflect on anything, and the only real consequence for any of the player's actions is an explosion of violence. I wouldn't say it's brilliant, but then I wouldn't say other games do any better either.

 

Scratches on the perspectives, more accurately. 

 

And everything you listed alludes and reflects to the Freedom vs Security conflict and how almost everything in the games simply revolves around it. That isn't giving the conflict a realistic portrayal. The examples you gave centers simply on oppression. For it to be given context regarding Fenris' claim, it should have, for example, focused on explaining how exactly the mages would take over a nation, with what numbers, with what means they would utilize it, etc. Does magic resolve it? How about governance? Would it be a similar state as Tevinter? Why or why not? Do they have the economical gains to fulfill their quest? What about lyrium, and so on.

 

Of course Fenris wouldn't have needed to blurt out and asnwer every question surrounding it, but the issue could have been expanded on other than just a simple claim that the mages will do so. 

 

Yes, Hawke's rise to power is disappointing, and I would hardly call it one. As Aveline states herself, he / she stumbled upon the title "Champion". Had it focused on gaining alliances, connections, economical gains, finances in general, and more. Quest that surrounded on mercenaries, smugglers, owning a mine, city guard had potential to give a very coherent structure both as a rise to power and political story, but never utilized it. 

 

 

I honestly don't understand what you're asking for, though I admit that my english is terrible, so that might be my entire fault  But it seems to me like you wnat the writers to do an in depth political analysis of Thedas which IMO could hardly have a place in a videogame (or in a conventional fantasy book for that matter). Could you maybe give a more concrete example of the kind of improvement you'd like to see?

 

 

As I stated in the OP, simply managing to express whatever conflict that takes place in DAI from different viewpoints and different parties involved without simply touching in the subject at hand execute it on a coherent level, I am more than satisfied. Considering all the factions involved; mages, templars, Celene, Gaspard, Inquisition and more, DAI has a nice opportunity to take them into the limelight and exploit it.

 

Considering what the Fade Tears entails, I see no reason in BW limiting themselves to just the Inquisition focusing on the Tears, making it a Order vs Chaos conflict solely. If they manage to branch the narrative into also focusing on the the mage vs templar issue and the event regarding Celene, Gaspard and the elven rebellion, and them in turn fully utilizing the narrative in them respectively, DAI might turn out just great on the political side. 

[Icy Magebane]

And everything you listed alludes and reflects to the Freedom vs Security conflict and how almost everything in the games simply revolves around it. That isn't giving the conflict a realistic portrayal. The examples you gave centers simply on oppression. For it to be given context regarding Fenris' claim, it should have, for example, focused on explaining how exactly the mages would take over a nation, with what numbers, with what means they would utilize it, etc. Does magic resolve it? How about governance? Would it be a similar state as Tevinter? Why or why not? Do they have the economical gains to fulfill their quest? What about lyrium, and so on.

So basically a series of BSN threads integrated into the game itself?  That doesn't sound like it would be much fun in a video game...  at least here we aren't limited to 2-3 dialogue options.

[Chewin]

As I stated in my post, limiting it to one person isn't necessary, and the topic can be expanded upon through other characters, for example.

It certainly is a complicated matter how you want to address it in the game and to its full capacity to make it relevant, but hardly an impossibilty. Everything from quests, dialog, codexes, etc can contribute to a similar topic, tie it together, and ultimately make something off it.even if you have an interesting concept, a lack of proper execution may leave it flat.

[javeart]

(...)

 

 

As I stated in the OP, simply managing to express whatever conflict that takes place in DAI from different viewpoints and different parties involved without simply touching in the subject at hand execute it on a coherent level, I am more than satisfied. Considering all the factions involved; mages, templars, Celene, Gaspard, Inquisition and more, DAI has a nice opportunity to take them into the limelight and exploit it.

 

Considering what the Fade Tears entails, I see no reason in BW limiting themselves to just the Inquisition focusing on the Tears, making it a Order vs Chaos conflict solely. If they manage to branch the narrative into also focusing on the the mage vs templar issue and the event regarding Celene, Gaspard and the elven rebellion, and them in turn fully utilizing the narrative in them respectively, DAI might turn out just great on the political side. 

 

I think I get what you mean now, and I'd say that I'm sure we'll get something like that in DAI, but truth it's I'd say that we already got something like than in previous games too  , so I guess that it definitely comes down to a difference of what one could think it's "deep enough" for a concrete kind of media and a concrete genre.

[Das Tentakel]

Good OP, but I am not holding my breath. 
 
Complexity – and I’ll grant BioWare that DA does have, relative to many (not all) other videogame franchises, a reasonable degree of complexity as a setting – is not necessarily ‘ good’ by itself. It’s easy making a complex setting: Just throw in enough elements and built-in conflicts. It’s far more difficult keeping the elements both believable and interesting and having them hang together systematically. The different elements have to ‘cohere’ together and behave and interact in understandable, credible ways. 
What’s more, this has to be experienced by the players, not just referred to or mentioned in passing ('Show, not tell'). At least not if they are directly relevant to the main plot or a major subplot. 
 
But to be honest, I’m stumped how BioWare should handle this. For one thing, I think you need some pretty robust worldbuilding, and DA, frankly, in my opinion is a quickly-cobbled together, unholy inconsistent mess that lacks many of the basics. That still makes it better than most fantasy videogame worldbuilding, but that is a very, very, very low standard. It was good enough for the first game – which kept things reasonably diverse but also pretty simple – but I don’t think it’s robust enough for a game that deals with politics the way GoT or The Witcher II does.
 
More importantly, apart from the setting itself, you need writers who ‘get’ politics, particularly of the sort that existed in premodern societies, and who also have the imagination to use that knowledge creatively. Few fantasy or SF writers have this (Martin has it, at least to some extent, as do the relevant Witcher II writers), but I have not seen a single example of this among BioWare writers. What attempts that exist are, in my opinion, half-hearted and not particularly convincing. To some extent, I am willing to cut them some slack, as they do not function in a vacuum and have to work in tandem with designers who just require a framework for the killing, looting and leveling. ‘ Gameplay trumps story and setting’ and all that. But whether they really are unable or have to work in a context that makes it impossible to realize their storytelling and worldbuilding potential, is immaterial for the end product and how it is experienced by the players.
 
Copying GoT, The Witcher and other works might help a bit, but honestly, that’s ‘copying the furniture’ without having or developing the underlying knowledge, methods and attitudes that made the originals possible.

[javeart]

Good OP, but I am not holding my breath. 
 
Complexity – and I’ll grant BioWare that DA does have, relative to many (not all) other videogame franchises, a reasonable degree of complexity as a setting – is not necessarily ‘ good’ by itself. It’s easy making a complex setting: Just throw in enough elements and built-in conflicts. It’s far more difficult keeping the elements both believable and interesting and having them hang together systematically. The different elements have to ‘cohere’ together and behave and interact in understandable, credible ways. 
What’s more, this has to be experienced by the players, not just referred to or mentioned in passing ('Show, not tell'). At least not if they are directly relevant to the main plot or a major subplot. 
 
But to be honest, I’m stumped how BioWare should handle this. For one thing, I think you need some pretty robust worldbuilding, and DA, frankly, in my opinion is a quickly-cobbled together, unholy inconsistent mess that lacks many of the basics. That still makes it better than most fantasy videogame worldbuilding, but that is a very, very, very low standard. It was good enough for the first game – which kept things reasonably diverse but also pretty simple – but I don’t think it’s robust enough for a game that deals with politics the way GoT or The Witcher II does.
 
More importantly, apart from the setting itself, you need writers who ‘get’ politics, particularly of the sort that existed in premodern societies, and who also have the imagination to use that knowledge creatively. Few fantasy or SF writers have this (Martin has it, at least to some extent, as do the relevant Witcher II writers), but I have not seen a single example of this among BioWare writers. What attempts that exist are, in my opinion, half-hearted and not particularly convincing. To some extent, I am willing to cut them some slack, as they do not function in a vacuum and have to work in tandem with designers who just require a framework for the killing, looting and leveling. ‘ Gameplay trumps story and setting’ and all that. But whether they really are unable or have to work in a context that makes it impossible to realize their storytelling and worldbuilding potential, is immaterial for the end product and how it is experienced by the players.
 
Copying GoT, The Witcher and other works might help a bit, but honestly, that’s ‘copying the furniture’ without having or developing the underlying knowledge, methods and attitudes that made the originals possible.

 

I agree with most of your post, but I have to say that I personally don't find GoT or The Witcher (books, not game, that it's what I know better ) more interesting in a political level, and I don't think DA should try to imitate them. I mean, they build a very complex struggle for power, but social cleavages are almost non-existent. I like much more the kind of story that revolves around politics derived from that kind of social conflict that the ones that focus almost entirely on elites competition for legitimate government, where a king succeed another and the world stays basically the same... well, a huge civil world like the one n GoT is world changing in itself, one could say, and sure it makes for a great, epic story... but meh, only up to a point, IMO... a lot of people suffer and dies, but most institutions wil probably survive with great health, almost completely untouched.  Really changing the balance of power, in a wider sense, destroying the circle, or the chantry, or given the Dales back to the elfs, putting an end to the magecracy of Tevinter, etc, that kind of political change, it's far more interesting to me. Just personal preference, anyway

[CronoDragoon]

I would love some examples of a game that gives some of these kinds of things--like economic repercussions. Can you think of any specific examples of a game doing this--and in more than merely a reference?

 

Suikoden III as an entire section of the game where you play as a character (Thomas) gifted a run-down castle to get him out of his father's household. You then spend hours essentially fortifying yourself against neighboring nations' desires to annex your land and all the shops/economic trade you've established on your manor. Then the Flame Champion (whoever you decide is the MC out of three characters) comes and brings everyone he/she's recruited along the way, establishing a bustling hub of independent trade. There are plenty of details and political negotiations I'm omitting here, but I think it's safe to say that the Suikoden series has done politics far better than any other games I've played.

 

The Witcher? It's good, but I've yet to see any in-game political intrigue as fleshed-out as everything that happens in Dragon Age Origins from the landsmeet onwards.

[TEWR]

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.

 

The Ivalice Alliance of Final Fantasy games are definitely some of the ones with a great deal of complexity to them. I can't say for certain that it's exactly what you'd look for, but at the very least it has a very complex plot with political machinations and well fleshed out characters and you can see within the setting a framework that intersects to bring things together in the grand scheme of the plot. The setting is very greatly fleshed out, both through dialogue (be it NPC chatter, main dialogue, etc) or the game's codex system which will update as you kill more enemies of a certain type.

[Das Tentakel]

I agree with most of your post, but I have to say that I personally don't find GoT or The Witcher (books, not game, that it's what I know better ) more interesting in a political level, and I don't think DA should try to imitate them. I mean, they build a very complex struggle for power, but social cleavages are almost non-existent. I like much more the kind of story that revolves around politics derived from that kind of social conflict that the ones that focus almost entirely on elites competition for legitimate government, where a king succeed another and the world stays basically the same... well, a huge civil world like the one n GoT is world changing in itself, one could say, and sure it makes for a great, epic story... but meh, only up to a point, IMO... a lot of people suffer and dies, but most institutions wil probably survive with great health, almost completely untouched.  Really changing the balance of power, in a wider sense, destroying the circle, or the chantry, or given the Dales back to the elfs, putting an end to the magecracy of Tevinter, etc, that kind of political change, it's far more interesting to me. Just personal preference, anyway

Oh, social cleavages definitely exist, but GoT mostly focuses on a bunch of ‘elite’ characters and their associates, while Geralt is basically ‘outside’ the social order.
But that they move in class-based societies with huge differences in wealth and social status is pretty obvious.

What you are describing sounds like ‘class struggle’ and ‘revolution’. I can understand some people liking it – it feels like the player is decisive in making the world a better place (or alternatively, a worse one) but personally I’m too old and too cynical for that to work for me.
In the real world, the revolution either goes off the rails, or it succeeds because it doesn’t change all that much, except perhaps in the long run, another nudge in a particular direction we modern westerners approve of. Evolution with a bit of extra fireworks, really.
That’s why I prefer the smaller-scale, more human, more believable everyday ‘realpolitik’. Sure there can be, and I would say in a videogame has to be, a bit of ‘idealism’; you’re putting the more decent guy /gal in power, you right wrongs, you help found fantasy Switzerland. Small to medium steps, at best.
Overthrowing the magocracy in Tevinter? Sure. Then, humans being humans, we’ll see the upper 20% of Tevinter society physically eliminated. Former Elven slaves become an oppressed minority for another 200+ years. The new leaders are incompetent and squabble, and the Qunari move in for conquest and conversion. A third of the remaining population flee south, most of them perish on the way, the remainder are put into camps and have no future. Except for some pretty young girls (or boys…) who end up as…well, you get the picture.
Sure, the story can have a ‘happy ending’ because the devs control the narrative after all, but as far as I am concerned I’m then having adventures in Lalaland. Unless it was a tongue-in cheek political parody,  which I do enjoy.
 


Of course, there’s the ‘evil option’, becoming fantasy Stalin and wiping out regimes, peoples and cultures. Not appealing, to be honest, although I get from some of the comments on BSN that there are quite a few people who would relish playing such a role in DA:I.

Anyway, this is more about the ‘scale’ of choices and consequences than actual ‘political storytelling’ which is about presenting the political aspects of characters, plot, subplots, choices & consequences etc. in an interesting, believable and multi-faceted way.

[Wolfen09]

thats a new one, fantasy stalin....

 

any way, the ground work is there, but the mage vs templars will never be actual politics, according to the developers a while back, there is no sit down to absolve the dispute.  Its pick a side and destroy the other one, which makes me think that there isnt gonna be much more than da2 style missions for it.  The civil war has a better chance of being political than the mage templar war.  However, once again i think its gonna be da2 style where you have like 5 missions where you help one side or the other, then choose one to side with.  I dont like this approach, as i like compromise.... or at least i like to tell the 2 sides to sit down and shut the f*ck up before i bash their skulls in for pure stupidity

[Chewin]

Good OP, but I am not holding my breath. 
 
*snip*

 

A very accurate description, Tentakel! You summarize the issue perfectly!

 

I agree with most of your post, but I have to say that I personally don't find GoT or The Witcher (books, not game, that it's what I know better ) more interesting in a political level, and I don't think DA should try to imitate them. I mean, they build a very complex struggle for power, but social cleavages are almost non-existent. I like much more the kind of story that revolves around politics derived from that kind of social conflict that the ones that focus almost entirely on elites competition for legitimate government, where a king succeed another and the world stays basically the same... well, a huge civil world like the one n GoT is world changing in itself, one could say, and sure it makes for a great, epic story... but meh, only up to a point, IMO... a lot of people suffer and dies, but most institutions wil probably survive with great health, almost completely untouched.  Really changing the balance of power, in a wider sense, destroying the circle, or the chantry, or given the Dales back to the elfs, putting an end to the magecracy of Tevinter, etc, that kind of political change, it's far more interesting to me. Just personal preference, anyway

 

Oh, it does exist, both in TW and GoT. It certainly hasn't that much of a focus point (with TW2 it depends on the path taken), but when the issue arises it is put forward quite well.

 

The Ivalice Alliance of Final Fantasy games are definitely some of the ones with a great deal of complexity to them. I can't say for certain that it's exactly what you'd look for, but at the very least it has a very complex plot with political machinations and well fleshed out characters and you can see within the setting a framework that intersects to bring things together in the grand scheme of the plot. The setting is very greatly fleshed out, both through dialogue (be it NPC chatter, main dialogue, etc) or the game's codex system which will update as you kill more enemies of a certain type.

 

Very intriguing. Don't think I will have the time to play it in the near future, but perhaps some walkthroughs on YT will suffice. 

[javeart]

Oh, social cleavages definitely exist, but GoT mostly focuses on a bunch of ‘elite’ characters and their associates, while Geralt is basically ‘outside’ the social order.
But that they move in class-based societies with huge differences in wealth and social status is pretty obvious.

What you are describing sounds like ‘class struggle’ and ‘revolution’. I can understand some people liking it – it feels like the player is decisive in making the world a better place (or alternatively, a worse one) but personally I’m too old and too cynical for that to work for me.
In the real world, the revolution either goes off the rails, or it succeeds because it doesn’t change all that much, except perhaps in the long run, another nudge in a particular direction we modern westerners approve of. Evolution with a bit of extra fireworks, really.
That’s why I prefer the smaller-scale, more human, more believable everyday ‘realpolitik’. Sure there can be, and I would say in a videogame has to be, a bit of ‘idealism’; you’re putting the more decent guy /gal in power, you right wrongs, you help found fantasy Switzerland. Small to medium steps, at best.
Overthrowing the magocracy in Tevinter? Sure. Then, humans being humans, we’ll see the upper 20% of Tevinter society physically eliminated. Former Elven slaves become an oppressed minority for another 200+ years. The new leaders are incompetent and squabble, and the Qunari move in for conquest and conversion. A third of the remaining population flee south, most of them perish on the way, the remainder are put into camps and have no future. Except for some pretty young girls (or boys…) who end up as…well, you get the picture.
Sure, the story can have a ‘happy ending’ because the devs control the narrative after all, but as far as I am concerned I’m then having adventures in Lalaland. Unless it was a tongue-in cheek political parody,  which I do enjoy.
 


Of course, there’s the ‘evil option’, becoming fantasy Stalin and wiping out regimes, peoples and cultures. Not appealing, to be honest, although I get from some of the comments on BSN that there are quite a few people who would relish playing such a role in DA:I.

Anyway, this is more about the ‘scale’ of choices and consequences than actual ‘political storytelling’ which is about presenting the political aspects of characters, plot, subplots, choices & consequences etc. in an interesting, believable and multi-faceted way.

I disagree, it's not only about a "scale". What I meant when I said "in a wider sense", was not only about changes with a bigger impact in the world, I meant a broader definition of politics too. Like the difference between politics as what happens in the political system and politics as what happens anywhere where there's some kind of power. And, sure, there's social classes in GoT and The Witcher (books), but they're almost completely irrelevant to the story, to the political story at least.

 

It's like the difference between the kind of political thriller where all the action revolves around the competition between two candidates and where in fact there's no need even to rise the question of their respective ideologies, because the story drives the spectator to put her/his sympathy in one of them judgding mostly their integrity and personal qualities (exactly the way we usually judge candidates to the iron throne, like this one is evil this one is nice, and such ),And those are great if done right, very interesting and certainly, one cannot deny that the process by which leaders are elected and such is a fundamental political issue.

 

But then, there's that other kind of political story, where it's not about politicians (or noblemen, etc.), or not only at least, but about a political struggle that goes deeper than that, and which also doesn't need to be class related. It doesn't even have to be "big", it could be very well be more "small", and "human", like the story of slave that rebels agains their masters and things like that. What's important it's that it's a story where the focus is put in the power relationships and the conflicts around them for other kind of social groups. That's not maybe a political story per sé, the way the others are, but that doesn't mean that it's not full of politics (in a broader sense). And I find this type more interesting usually, though If you connect those two types, it's even better. And I think that DA does,  while others don't, though it has its limits, which I find reasonable.

 

As for my concrete examples, I didn't mean to say that DA it's better because those things can happen and I want those thing to happen. They were only examples of the kind of thing that I have in mind, and, though it's true that the first examples that came to my mind are all of them things that I'd like  , I think keeping the circle or the chantry from falling, or defending Tevinter's polytical systems, or any other "conservative" stance, would do as well as examples of options that I find more enjoyable than simply putting Alistair or Ainora in the throne (or Stannis or Daenerys, etc). I'm not even saying that the option to defend or destroy the Chantry it's necessary, only that a story that revolves around that possibility (or an elven revolution, etc ) it's more appealing to me, even if in the end the player has no choice about it, because I didn't mean it as a defense of more player agency or anthing like that. 

[Chewin]

I disagree, it's not only about a "scale". What I meant when I said "in a wider sense", was not only about changes with a bigger impact in the world, I meant a broader definition of politics too. Like the difference between politics as what happens in the political system and politics as what happens anywhere where there's some kind of power. And, sure, there's social classes in GoT and The Witcher (books), but they're almost completely irrelevant to the story, to the political story at least.

 

It's like the difference between the kind of political thriller where all the action revolves around the competition between two candidates and where in fact there's no need even to rise the question of their respective ideologies, because the story drives the spectator to put her/his sympathy in one of them judgding mostly their integrity and personal qualities (exactly the way we usually judge candidates to the iron throne, like this one is evil this one is nice, and such ),And those are great if done right, very interesting and certainly, one cannot deny that the process by which leaders are elected and such is a fundamental political issue.

 

But then, there's that other kind of political story, where it's not about politicians (or noblemen, etc.), or not only at least, but about a political struggle that goes deeper than that, and which also doesn't need to be class related. It doesn't even have to be "big", it could be very well be more "small", and "human", like the story of slave that rebels agains their masters and things like that. What's important it's that it's a story where the focus is put in the power relationships and the conflicts around them for other kind of social groups. That's not maybe a political story per sé, the way the others are, but that doesn't mean that it's not full of politics (in a broader sense). And I find this type more interesting usually, though If you connect those two types, it's even better. And I think that DA does,  while others don't, though it has its limits, which I find reasonable.

 

You are not wrong regarding broader definition regarding politics, since that is what it mainly revolves around on--giving it a broader scope of the general conflict. It doesn't matter if the scope of the conflict is grandeur or not, having it centering on being a dichotomy will lead to nothing. GoT doesn't delve into it social classes that well in the show, but better in the books. TW is not solely trapped to the books however, TW1 and TW2 (the whole ordeal regarding the Pontar Valley gave it a focus point on Iorveth's path). 

 

As for two candidates fighting each other, it depends on the political side of the story one wants to tell and focus on. Is it a matter of ethics, were it is focused on ideas and concepts? Or is it more centered on power struggle, which is focused on more 'materialistic' factors? It is a loss if the story characterizes its leads into a splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts. That is something that stories revolving around these should stay away from.

 

Regarding your 'class struggle' principle, they are certainly intriguing, but it is an easy way to stumble and center simply around it. The conflict can be great if portrayed and executed well, but one has to also include 'outside' parties and factors, how it affects around the centered conflict, what aspects are put into play and what kind of causes. It is very much a political story if one has such factors involved.

[javeart]

You are not wrong regarding broader definition regarding politics, since that is what it mainly revolves around on--giving it a broader scope of the general conflict. It doesn't matter if the scope of the conflict is grandeur or not, having it centering on being a dichotomy will lead to nothing. GoT doesn't delve into it social classes that well in the show, but better in the books. TW is not solely trapped to the books however, TW1 and TW2 (the whole ordeal regarding the Pontar Valley gave it a focus point on Iorveth's path). 

 

As for two candidates fighting each other, it depends on the political side of the story one wants to tell and focus on. Is it a matter of ethics, were it is focused on ideas and concepts? Or is it more centered on power struggle, which is focused on more 'materialistic' factors? It is a loss if the story characterizes its leads into a splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts. That is something that stories revolving around these should stay away from.

 

Regarding your 'class struggle' principle, they are certainly intriguing, but it is an easy way to stumble and center simply around it. The conflict can be great if portrayed and executed well, but one has to also include 'outside' parties and factors, how it affects around the centered conflict, what aspects are put into play and what kind of causes. It is very much a political story if one has such factors involved.

 

The thing it's I'd rather have a "flawed" attempt to tell a more "wide" story (more conflicts, more social groups involved, etc), even if one could complain about it not being as detailed as it would be desirable, than one that gains in detail and complexity at the expense of restricting the focus to a very specific space of poltical struggle (like A, B, C and D fighting for thr throne), so I'm happy with DA, overall. But, again, personal preference

 

As for my insistence in pointing that I'm talking about The Witcher books, and not the games, it's only because I've read about them and I have seen videos, but I haven't played them, so of course I cannot judge their storytelling, political or not   I've only read the books, so that's what I judge 

[Chewin]

I can respect your viewpoint. And apologize on berating you regarding the Witcher games. Thought you left out the games b/c they didn't involved the features you described.

 

I want to point out, I am glad how this thread has proceeded. Threads like these are always quite a sensitive topic and I am pleased that people have managed to go on in a very mature and collected way.

[Das Tentakel]

The thing it's I'd rather have a "flawed" attempt to tell a more "wide" story (more conflicts, more social groups involved, etc), even if one could complain about it not being as detailed as it would be desirable, than one that gains in detail and complexity at the expense of restricting the focus to a very specific space of poltical struggle (like A, B, C and D fighting for thr throne), so I'm happy with DA, overall. But, again, personal preference

As for my insistence in pointing that I'm talking about The Witcher books, and not the games, it's only because I've read about them and I have seen videos, but I haven't played them, so of course I cannot judge their storytelling, political or not I've only read the books, so that's what I judge

I think you'll rather like TW2 in this respect .

I agree that a depiction of a 'wider' struggle for power would be interesting, and that's certainly absent from GoT (TW1 and 2 have it, though). Unlike in medieval Europe, Westeros' bourgeoisie and peasantry, for instance, are remarkably, erm, quiet.
Slavery in Essos, on the other hand, is a big issue. But to be honest I think Martin sort of stumbles when describing Essos, which is way too much the ‘exotic and bad, bad, bad non-quasi-Anglo-French abroad’ compared to Westeros. Not that Westeros lacks brutality and cruelty, but that’s in the context of a major crisis. On Essos, things are already pretty abysmal when things are normal.

Not sure I would describe the wider ‘struggle for power’ you mentioned as 'political' at the really small-scale end though, as this does not involve power in or over the 'polis', the polity. It can be epic in its own way, though, not in terms of scale but certainly when it comes to the intensity of the struggle or the emotions involved. European movies like Jean de Florette, Gosford Park or Karakter can be quite epic and dramatic in this sense.

Personally, I prefer a focused experience that is done well – even if it’s ‘just’ dynastic politics – than a lot of issues that are done badly.
 

 
There’s a serious risk of breadth, rather than depth. DA:O, in this respect, is a good example of that. There are a bunch of issues, but they are all treated fairly superficially, and when examined a little more closely, they can seriously break immersion because they just don’t add up. Or at least, not really well.
It wasn’t a big issue for me – heck, it was the first game in a new franchise, I felt that I could cut Bio some slack here, it's a broad introduction to a new setting – but things then got worse, not better in DA2.

Will DA:I improve on DA:O in this regard? I’ll have to wait and see.