97 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantdeathrobot]

for two reasons

 

1. BioWare has no interest in putting forth potentially offensive stereotypes for their cultures, we always get some codex or character that tells us things aren't homogeneous and there's so much variety and whatnot, Martin has no interest in this and is fine portraying other cultures through the in universe offensive views of the people of Westeros.

 

2. The DA team has that luxury, if Martin dithered even more about giving us all the cultural minutiae of the Asshai he'd never get another book out.

 

I'm not sure it's a question of time. He doesn't need to make the Dothraki into savages and the Ghiscari into mustache twirling villains who feed babies to bears and eat puppies in order to properly write his story.

 

Dragon Age also has cultures portrayed as stereotypes; Fereldens known as filthy Dog Lords, the Dalish being murderous isolationists or Tevinter seen as a nation of slaving asshats and nothing else, for instance. The difference being we meet people who give us their version of events and round out the culture; the stereotypes aren't true, but aren't completely false either, like a good amount of real stereotypes. Whereas, say, the Dothraki are actually proud of the fact that they are little more than bloodthirsthy savages who don't really resemble the mongols and Native americans they are supposed to be based on.

 

To me, Dragon Age's approach is more interesting. I'm not dissing Martin's world building as a whole. Westeros is very well done save for the Ironborn, and the lore tidbits about ancient history in the books and WoT are great. But present Essos is a pretty big blind spot if you ask me, it fails to hold my interest because it's just so woefully uninteresting compared to Westeros.

[Steelcan]

I'm not sure it's a question of time. He doesn't need to make the Dothraki into savages and the Ghiscari into mustache twirling villains who feed babies to bears and eat puppies in order to properly write his story.

 

Dragon Age also has cultures portrayed as stereotypes; Fereldens known as filthy Dog Lords, the Dalish being murderous isolationists or Tevinter seen as a nation of slaving asshats and nothing else, for instance. The difference being we meet people who give us their version of events and round out the culture; the stereotypes aren't true, but aren't completely false either, like a good amount of real stereotypes. Whereas, say, the Dothraki are actually proud of the fact that they are little more than bloodthirsthy savages who don't really resemble the mongols and Native americans they are supposed to be based on.

 

To me, Dragon Age's approach is more interesting. I'm not dissing Martin's world building as a whole. Westeros is very well done save for the Ironborn, and the lore tidbits about ancient history in the books and WoT are great. But present Essos is a pretty big blind spot if you ask me, it fails to hold my interest because it's just so woefully uninteresting compared to Westeros.

I mean not to put too fine a point on it, but particularly for the Dothraki, I think that's a good thing.  Nomadic societies were traditionally very martially oriented and they were never able to maintain stable rule over any area for any length of time.  He's obviously going to some certain lengths in his depiction of them, but I find it more interesting that they are basically a destructive force that can only ever destroy other civilizations.  They will most likely never amount to anything of note and that's a pretty powerful stance imo.  The Ghiscari are similar imo to Roman accounts of the Carthaginians and other groups, keep in mind almost everything we hear about them comes from people who are horrendously opposed to their basic cultural tenets.

 

As far as the stereotypes go I think that if we met someone from Asshai or the Summer Islands (not counting prince whatshisname) we would get interesting perspectives.  The Dothraki have no opportunity to shed their perceptions, their way of life has no room for education or liberation of slaves, they have no methods for which any of them would ever arrive at such conclusions such as universities or organized religious instruction.

 

I just can't agree with you on Essos

[Seraphim24]

I would say it was originally an attempt to just be more interesting and not-vanilla ish, so you have fade spirits, and fade demons, and, well the fade, various types of magic, spirit, elemental, blood, golemns, different splinters of different groups doing different things. Ancient demons, modern demons, run of the mill demons, archers, dragons, various kinds of magic, warriors, paladins (templars), houses, factions, animals, plants, wildlife, etc, etc, etc.

 

However, it's also true the series has 3 games and they kind of take somewhat dramatically different turns and takes on certain things.. leading to more confusion as different visions collide, unlike Mass Effect which is more unified overall.

 

Like take the vision of "Qunari" from Dragon Age 1, you could say they were just very alert and kind of hyper-aware warrior society that was just as possibly pre-disposed towards allying with the rest of Thedas against the Blight or even on other matters, but in Dragon Age 2, you have, Arishok. So, how do you represent "Qunari" institutions etc in Dragon Age 3?

 

There are many competing visions of fantasy some more magical or diverse, some less so, Arthurian vs Tolkien, Warhammer/Planescape/Ravenloft vs Game of Thrones (which is actually in many ways closer to non-fantasy), Wheel of time vs Sword of Truth, Dragon-lance vs Dragoncrown war cycle, etc, etc.

 

So I guess realy the answer is, because it was intended to be so, and perhaps, accidentally so.

[ShadowLordXII]

Because they keep semi-rebooting the series between each and every single game.

[fhs33721]

 If Martin dithered even more about giving us all the cultural minutiae of the Asshai he'd never get another book out.

So basically nothing about the current situation would change at all? 

[In Exile]

I'm not sure it's a question of time. He doesn't need to make the Dothraki into savages and the Ghiscari into mustache twirling villains who feed babies to bears and eat puppies in order to properly write his story.

 

Dragon Age also has cultures portrayed as stereotypes; Fereldens known as filthy Dog Lords, the Dalish being murderous isolationists or Tevinter seen as a nation of slaving asshats and nothing else, for instance. The difference being we meet people who give us their version of events and round out the culture; the stereotypes aren't true, but aren't completely false either, like a good amount of real stereotypes. Whereas, say, the Dothraki are actually proud of the fact that they are little more than bloodthirsthy savages who don't really resemble the mongols and Native americans they are supposed to be based on.

 

To me, Dragon Age's approach is more interesting. I'm not dissing Martin's world building as a whole. Westeros is very well done save for the Ironborn, and the lore tidbits about ancient history in the books and WoT are great. But present Essos is a pretty big blind spot if you ask me, it fails to hold my interest because it's just so woefully uninteresting compared to Westeros.

 

I don't really see it as woefully underdeveloped so much as lacking in a POV. Martin adds complexity to his characters (and culture) by exploring it through the POV of a native. Our POVs are all Westerosi, or close enough to them. In Essos, we don't see a POV from a native character. We don't have a dothraki narrate - we see them through the lens provided by Daenerys. That removes a great deal of complexity and nuance to their culture. Same with the Ghiscari.  

[Ieldra]

However, it's also true the series has 3 games and they kind of take somewhat dramatically different turns and takes on certain things.. leading to more confusion as different visions collide, unlike Mass Effect which is more unified overall.

ME is far less complex. Just consider how ME's species each have one nation. There is far less potential for confusion here, and the ME team *still* managed to create a few glaring inconsistencies, to say nothing about the plausbility of some elements. From my POV, on a scale of 1-10, DA's worldbuilding rates at about 7, while ME's rates at about 4. For SF worlds, the 10 mark is held by the Orion's Arm Universe Project, for fantasy worlds, probably by Middle-Earth and Brandon Sanderson's Cosmere.     

[Donquijote and 59 others]

Because the world  is convoluted 

[Sah291]

I find the lore surprisingly realistic... in the way that there is a lot of mystery about what is true, and what is just myth, or hearsay based on some historian's opinion. I always liked that about their approach to the lore.

A lot of thought has gone into the fictional religions, and I can see where they got inspiration from real world folklore/mythology in creating Andraste, the elven pantheon, old gods, titans, magic, etc. A lot of this stuff is standard in a fantasy setting, but I always got the impression the writers knew their stuff.

DAI was the most lore heavy out of the three, and that was one thing I did like about it over the other two, despite some of its other flaws.

[SonnyKohler]

The Maker, the Fade, Veil, old Gods, Elven Gods, Andreste, Elven history, the Chantry, multiple ages etc.

Who can follow all this? Im sure Bioware writers even get confused.

Because lore is never simple.  Even our own histories are convoluted and confusing here in the real world.

 

I actually kind of like how complex it is.  Recently I've been getting in to elven lore in both TES and in DA.  Very interesting!

[Giantdeathrobot]

I mean not to put too fine a point on it, but particularly for the Dothraki, I think that's a good thing.  Nomadic societies were traditionally very martially oriented and they were never able to maintain stable rule over any area for any length of time.  He's obviously going to some certain lengths in his depiction of them, but I find it more interesting that they are basically a destructive force that can only ever destroy other civilizations.  They will most likely never amount to anything of note and that's a pretty powerful stance imo.  The Ghiscari are similar imo to Roman accounts of the Carthaginians and other groups, keep in mind almost everything we hear about them comes from people who are horrendously opposed to their basic cultural tenets.

 

As far as the stereotypes go I think that if we met someone from Asshai or the Summer Islands (not counting prince whatshisname) we would get interesting perspectives.  The Dothraki have no opportunity to shed their perceptions, their way of life has no room for education or liberation of slaves, they have no methods for which any of them would ever arrive at such conclusions such as universities or organized religious instruction.

 

I just can't agree with you on Essos

 

Yet, nomadic cultures weren't destructive juggernaughts. They were societies that were often warlike, yes, but not hugely more than others. Well, the Huns kinda were from the PoV of the Romans, but modern-day Hungarians would sing a different song for instance. But the Mongols, while being extremely brutal in their conquests, instituted law and order in the territories they conquered, as well as concepts like relative religious tolerance. The Turks mutated from nomads to settled fairly quickly.

 

Whereas the Dothraki have spent hundreds of years burning villages and cities and leaving only ashes behind because, well, that's what they do. They have primitive technology, fairly primitive societies, and to me just aren't interesting in the slightest.

 

Dany doesn't make up that the Ghiscari are ridiculously horrible to their slaves (to the point of gross inefficiency if you ask me), that they eat puppies, that they throw babies smeared in honey to bears and take bets on which gets eaten first, and other assorted atrocities. Quentyn doesn't make up that their armies are a bunch of clowns on stilts. I found them to be a hate sink that exists so that we could cheer when Dany punches them in the face, like an entire nation of Erimonds or Howes.

 

I found that Bioware developped the Avvars and Chasind better, despite them also being considered the resident barbarians in their respective setting. Even Tevinter, the closest equivalent to the Ghiscari, got more depth over time and we haven't visited the place yet.

 

I'm with Sten on that one; I just don't believe in cultures that can easily be summed up. Not only is it unrealistic, I find it boring. Just like a character that only has one defining facet.

[Seraphim24]

ME is far less complex. Just consider how ME's species each have one nation. There is far less potential for confusion here, and the ME team *still* managed to create a few glaring inconsistencies, to say nothing about the plausbility of some elements. From my POV, on a scale of 1-10, DA's worldbuilding rates at about 7, while ME's rates at about 4. For SF worlds, the 10 mark is held by the Orion's Arm Universe Project, for fantasy worlds, probably by Middle-Earth and Brandon Sanderson's Cosmere.     

 

No argument here.. have said multiple times ME is just pretty boring and standardized in many ways, it's really almost more just straight military than science fiction in many ways.

 

The subject of fantasy worlds however... yes well that could go differently here but would rather just settle on actually finding someone saying agreeable around here. =-)

 

Actually could say one thing which is that very early elements of Dragon Age and the overall experience resonated stronger than Middle Earth, however, that identity kept shifting to the point where modern Dragon Age is considerably less interesting than Middle Earth. Inquisition era Dragon Age is closer to just daytime drama TV or something as much as fantasy.

 

To be honest, I'm not like nego about it, Bioware kind of had a tradition of making like the "core" experience (Baldur's Gate, NWN, DA1) and then different people would kind of spin off slightly silly things that didn't really measure up to the original impact but were just kind of fireworks and such (Shadows of Undrentide, Dragon Age Awakening, etc), I don't know if they ever envisioned that people would find the kind of silly over the top stuff like ME so popular but like hey, more power to them and all that.

[Medhia_Nox]

The Maker, the Fade, Veil, old Gods, Elven Gods, Andreste, Elven history, the Chantry, multiple ages etc.

Who can follow all this? Im sure Bioware writers even get confused.

Try our world out if you think Dragon Age is convoluted... planet Earth supports over 321 million deities (blame Hinduism... as it's responsible for about 320 million of them)

 

Over five thousand years of actual history (as compared to the fill in the blanks lore of a fantasy world) in technicolor!   An estimated 14000 plus wars (95% or more of them not religiously motivated... just thought I'd educate while I'm here) - 196 countries in the world today and likely well over a thousand throughout history - endless epics on constant repeat. 

 

Six major world religions that have shaped the course of human civilization (instead of just one).  Several economic systems.  Dozens of government types ranging from tribalism to republics (note, in no way do I find republics superior to tribal societies - just suggesting a march through time of development).  

 

Several thousand immortals... world figures that will likely never die in the history of humanity... from Hammurabi and the first known laws ever set in stone... to Marcus Aurelius... to Galileo...  to let's say... Morgan Freeman (that voice!).  Sure, it's tough to know who in our modern age will be so memorable.

 

Quantum physics which.. ultimately, might actually BE the Fade.  Multiverse theory.  Digital universe theory. A whole host of mostly made up concepts to excite the mind and bewitch the senses... many of them suggesting alternate dimensions easily simulating concepts from our rich mythological history (and, of course, possibly similar to the Fade if such creatures as beings of energy could exist)  The point?  The theories are as varies as there are scientists to make them up. 

 

I find Thedas quite puny actually...

[Ieldra]

Actually could say one thing which is that very early elements of Dragon Age and the overall experience resonated stronger than Middle Earth, however, that identity kept shifting to the point where modern Dragon Age is considerably less interesting than Middle Earth. Inquisition era Dragon Age is closer to just daytime drama TV or something as much as fantasy.

I agree very much. I blame the sanitizing of the world in order to avoid making anyone uncomfortable. DAO showed us a particular vision of a fantasy world. There were elements I liked and those I didn''t but the whole thing oozed authenticity. Much of that was lost in the streamlining and focus-testing, and the result is a watered-down version of what once was. DAI's Thedas retains quite a few interesting elements and it's still one of video-gaming's better-made worlds, but it hast lost authenticity and feels increasingly artificial. 

 

@Medhia_Nox:

No wonder that some people find the real world confusing if Thedas is already too complicated for them Apart from that, I don't think it's appropriate to compare a fictional world with the real world. It would be plainly impossible for a small team to create such complexity in the few years that the development of a new fictional world usually takes.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Ieldra:  I totally agree about not comparing the two - but I think perspective can be helpful.

 

Games Workshops Warhammer Fantasy, Tolkien's Middle Earth and Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age are all examples of vastly complex fantasy worlds.

 

I'd put Dragon Age still at the lower end of developed. 

 

But one of their biggest storytelling failures - on the world building side - is making their world so small via characters.  Constantly re-using NPCs makes Thedas seem so empty to me. 

 

Tolkien had this problem somewhat too... BUT, he at least eludes throughout the books and appendixes that throughout all of Middle Earth the battle that the Fellowship is facing is being felt everywhere. 

 

I do not worship GRRM like some do, but that he has an obscene cast of characters really brings Westeros to life (while I feel Essos suffers typical world building problems... it's as if GRRM is like:  "Complex and beautiful crafted Europe!  And... everywhere else.")

 

There could be a million stories in Ferelden and Orlais alone... but the nature of the tales told (sweeping epics) and the cheapness of their conclusions (Darkspawn take a year to clean up... Cory about the same) makes the world feel emptier for it.

 

I think telling several DA stories while the Darkspawn continuously encroach... or while Corypheus continuously gains power would be the type of thing that expands a world. 

[PhroXenGold]

I've long thought the biggest mistake story wise BW made was ending the Blight in a single game. Based on all the lore about past Blights, it should've gone on for decades if not centuries, but he we are, killing of the Archdemon in a few months.

[Donquijote and 59 others]

 

 Sure, it's tough to know who in our modern age will be so memorable.

 

 

Justin Bieber!

[mgagne]

Justin Bieber!

 

 

His podex certainly is!

 

-----

 

More seriously I have to agree with Ieldra about the original vision being diluted.  This seems to be the trap those who approve budgets in gaming companies always seem to fall into:  a novel game is a surprise hit and generate unexpected profits so let's latch on to it, promote it and in order to broaden the customer base let's remove most if not all that made it appealing in the first place.  After all we live in an era that is nothing but a cacophony of little factions all clamoring about being offended by something or other. 

 

As for the OP's point, yes Thedas' lore is convoluted (blame the collective writing and the apparent lack of oversight/editing in house) but no it's not complicated as Medhia_Nox demonstrated.

[Vit246]

I agree very much. I blame the sanitizing of the world in order to avoid making anyone uncomfortable. DAO showed us a particular vision of a fantasy world. There were elements I liked and those I didn''t but the whole thing oozed authenticity. Much of that was lost in the streamlining and focus-testing, and the result is a watered-down version of what once was. DAI's Thedas retains quite a few interesting elements and it's still one of video-gaming's better-made worlds, but it hast lost authenticity and feels increasingly artificial. 

 

I don't disagree with you, but could you elaborate more on this?

[Medhia_Nox]

@Vit246:  My vote would be both the mages and the elves.

 

The fact that we're presented to this world on the premise that 1) being a mage is both dangerous and loathed making the struggle a very hard one. And 2)  elves are maligned and oppressed making the struggle a very hard one.

 

Are both being scrubbed away with magical glut and elven gods.

[Donquijote and 59 others]

@Vit246:  My vote would be both the mages and the elves.

 

The fact that we're presented to this world on the premise that 1) being a mage is both dangerous and loathed making the struggle a very hard one. And 2)  elves are maligned and oppressed making the struggle a very hard one.

 

Are both being scrubbed away with magical glut and elven gods.

That's why being an elven mage really suck in Thedas, now i understand Solas 

I guess better to be a noble human king  like your warden eh

[Ieldra]

I don't disagree with you, but could you elaborate more on this?

I call a story or world authentic if it feels like the realization of a writer's vision, unfiltered by adaptations caused by considerations foreign to the story itself, such as attempts to optimize its reception. It can also feel authentic if there were such adaptations as part of the original vision, since then you won't notice them because they don't cause cognitive dissonances.

 

I think it is very noticeable that DAO's "everyday darkness" has been mostly relegated to off-screen, if not removed outright, in order to avoid any non-essential imagery that could make people uncomfortable. As an example, think of the things you encounter in Arl Howe's estate. That might not be so noticeable for new players, but for old fans like me it resulted in a cognitive dissonance. DAO had something similar to A Song of Ice and Fire in it at its time, while DAI feels more like an afternoon TV show. It has some "fantastic darkness", but that leaves you mostly untouched because you can't relate to it, and even there the imagery is noticeably mild, as opposed to DA2's overly drastic one. Maybe this is yet another case of overcompensation.

 

It doesn't help that the main plot takes up so little space. The overall result is that instead of an intense and gripping epic, we have a meandering-along sequence of small dramas, playing out in a sanitized world that often leaves you oddly detached, in spite of some well-told and intense main plot missions. I like exploration, even in doses as big as in DAI, but I'd rather find something more than the beauty of the landscape to evoke passion.

 

I might also mention that I'm not asking for drastic imagery. That's exactly the wrong way to go about it. We never see anything drastic when we free that noble's son from Arl Howe's torture chamber, nor do we really see *anything* real but we do know that man in the library was given a BJ by the elven servant, and probably not quite without pressure. The important thing is that these very small elements of the world were on-screen in some way, instead of only present in Codex entries, or not at all.

 

Maybe it's not even actual sanitizing we see, but a result of paring down to the essentials. Yes, I think that's a part of the problem, when I think about Denerim and the number of people I could talk to and get quests from, as compared to, say, Val Royeaux in DAI. On most of DAI's maps, if there a handful of people we can speak to, it's the exception. In the Hissing Wastes, there is *no one* we can talk with about any of the map's quests. The end result is the Skyrim feels more alive than DAI's Thedas.

[Mistic]

But one of their biggest storytelling failures - on the world building side - is making their world so small via characters.  Constantly re-using NPCs makes Thedas seem so empty to me.

 

That I think it's the most important flaw in world building in Thedas, and one of the reasons DA:O seemed to develop the setting more: it was because every new character with some lines of dialogue developed the world. The same with Mass Effect, really. Reusing the characters or reusing the same ideas for different characters doesn't make the setting breath.

 

For example, from a world building perspective Dorian expands Tevinter more than Fenris did. Why? Because in DA:O we already knew how evil Magisters could be and the abuse they could inflict to their slaves. Dorian presented the other side of the coin, the great mage noble houses of the Imperium that aren't cartoon villains.