Epiphany and epitome are different things
Reply on topic to follow.
Reply on topic to follow.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Building fantasy cultures underuses scientific knowledge - Discuss
- Thread starter AwesomeButton
- Start date
Raghar
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 22,631
A quality writer is able to do just that. Some RPG game masters can do that as well.
It's not difficult. And if someone wanna have better education, he can read books about "social anthropology" or about "bronze age". As every wrtiter knows, writing characters is easy, theirs behaviour comes from characters. Some people just sucks because they can write everything just because they wanna have that in that place, even when characters would NEVER do that in that context.
But before 19 I read about 4000-6000 books, so it might be just experience with quality writing.
YES!
Hi, I'm Roqua
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2017
- Messages
- 2,088
Camping in modern style teaches you how to camp in modern style. Seeing a bar fight is nothing compared to experiencing being in a bar fight. Picking up women, or trying to, is your only example that would give someone the first hand experience to write about the experience.
Going to a medieval castle is something I've done and the experience could easily be replaced by looking at them in a book. More so, as the books I've read on castles gives me information on why it was built a specific way, the tools used, and the type of setting people lived in due to technology, which would much better lend themselves to setting than just looking at something.
Looking does nothing, doing gives experiences, learning gives knowledge. Also, the rpg settings and most popular games are the most unrealistic. If you read the posts of people who love games with no content revolved around just dungeons they love the most retarded and unrealistic dungeons and consider them designed well. The more retarded, obtuse, and confusing the dungeon the better in their opinion. If you look at the top 10 rpgs lauded by this site not one has a sensible setting nor a realistically designed dungeon.
Also, I do not think the people designing dungeons are the same designing setting and dialogue. I think a writers time would be far better spent reading up on old cultures and their governing philosophies, norms, and mors and the why of it than visiting castles. They would need to open their mind politically and philosophically and see the world outside of the cult bubble they live in, as people in various social ranks in the imagined culture, what they were raised to believe, and not impose their cult beliefs anachronistically on their thinking.
We live in a time where the current loud moth bullies want everyone to see in black and white. There is no grey. A couple years ago, or within the last decade at least, a cop on Brockton (or a town near Brockton, I forget which) was responding to a call. I special needs teen (mid to mate teens) was threatening a little girl with a knife and was escalating. The cop ended shooting the retarded guy. And all cultists hated him with a fervor for it. That cop probably didn't wake up hoping that day was the day he finally got to shoot a retard. He was put in a bad situation and made a call. He has to live with the decision he made. It most likely wasn't black and white for him and if he had the emotions of a robot and time to study the situation he may have been able to end the situation without lose of life. Maybe if he was smarter, or had better control of his emotions, or the situation was slightly changed things would have been different. Chances are he is a decent guy pulling the trigger on a retarded kid weighs on him and makes him feel like shit and he will have the guilt forever. The cultists call his job and blood because they are unable to see the grey. He did what the cult considers something a good person wouldn't, see he is bad and can only be hated. They are incapable of seeing his life, upbringing, beliefs, or morals as valid as it culminated in an outcome they dislike. Never mind that none of them had the courage to become a cop and be placed in that situation required to make a call that will weigh on their conscience. These are the people making the settings for well known rpgs. Visiting castles and going camping and watching bar fights isn't going to fix it.
I don't do fiction but few thoughts I came to think:
1. Financial incentive and room: I think growing talent in-house can work very well if you have resources to the process. Profile in general might be people who have good entry level skills. Problem may be finding these people to begin with. In the end they might be found from unusual places. There is a factor that these sort of people don't tend to have issues getting employed to begin with, they also tend to be clever in their career planning.
So you have decent / good writers. But you also need good manager / producer for the team and you can't just have someone who checks that people come to work and submit their stuff in time. In the real production there are far more responsibilities, but I'm not going to write a novel here. My main point regarding this is, that people who are good at something, tend to get there because they embrace what is real in themselves and around them. Then you are creating a product for audience which loves and is even obsessed with contrived and artificial. Now like I wrote earlier, I don't do fiction, but I can't but think that without good management, this could very well be a recipe for disaster.
It's not necessarily all bad though. Not my money so I'm not giving anyone advice here and even as gamer, last fantasy RPG I played was Arcanum so It's been a while and I don't know about fantasy in TV and filmsland either. For hybrid, I really liked all the three Shadowrun games. For post apo settings FO:NV and Wasteland 2 were both IMO solid games. One older game, KotOR II, wouldn't exists without KotOR, but KotOR II is IMO the product Star Wars needed.
I think there might be quite double standard what comes to perceived quality of writing. It's not that games are considered dumb per se from where I come. It's that fantasy and sci-fi are considered dumb genres, because of Hollywood, be that films or TV. Now, with fans of these products this symmetry appears to be somehow reversed.
Iznaliu
Arbiter
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,686
I think it can be said that fantasy/sci-fi have both advantages and disadvantages over more "conventional" settings.
fantadomat
Arcane
Why do people take my words so literal?!Seeing a bar fight and picking up girls is just a basic example,not a set in stone experience that will change your entire world.Also real live happenings can change your political and philosophical views.A person is summary if its life and experiences.Also seeing things is an experience,real live is not some rpg when you get exp only when you do shit.Also democracy and liberal propaganda are every where not only in your country,although you mericans are very bipolare,after all you have only two parties to vote for.
Azarkon
Arcane
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 2,989
All fantasy is inspired by history and myth. That doesn't make history and myth the primary source of most CRPGs. There's a significant and obvious difference between settings inspired directly by European history and myth, and those inspired through the filter of Dungeons and Dragons and Tolkien.
It's the difference between this:
And this:
Last edited:
IncendiaryDevice
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
.
I do understand where you're coming from, I just think you don't have enough understanding of the topic to make logical points.
Firstly, you lump Tolkien and D&D together as if they themselves exist in a vacuum of invention, as if they are the same thing. As if you see what exists as the most popular example of a genre and then attack it as a whole, because what you want to attack is whatever is in over-supply and you need something to lash out at to make your point. You see vague similarities between Tolkien and D&D and that's enough, everything is now under the umbrella of Tolkien and D&D, like they are some two headed dragon, two faces of the same beast. They are, to you, the summation of your bucket you like to call 'western'.
What you don't understand is that life is a constant stream of intertwining influences whereby no one work is ever the same as another piece of work and while some entities have a stronger influence than others, there's no overriding definite link of cause and effect between two separate products in terms of a singular dragon.
Tolkien is nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons, in any way, shape or form and D&D is as far from Tolkien as Banner Saga is from Wizardry. And whats even more important is that both Tolkien and D&D are both products which have already been influenced by the historical variety that you aspire to, they have already filtered history to provide a new and remoulded... fantasy... drawn from every culture on earth.
And this is the reason they ascended to the peak of popularity, causing you to get annoyed about the lack of variety. Tolkien and D&D are already providing tid-bits of all the cultures that you could dig up to make an RPG about. You want to make an african voodoo setting? D&D could do that. You want to make an oriental martial arts setting? D&D could do that.
I'll attempt to put it into diagram form for you:
Roman Gods -------------------------------l
...........................................................} -----King Arthur-------l
Greek Gods ---------------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .}-----etc------l
...........................................................}-----------Sinbad-------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l
The Immortals -----------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . }-----etc------l . . . . . . . . . }-----------l
...........................................................}-----------Vikings-------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l
Norse Gods ---------------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . }-----etc------l . . . . . . . . . }-----------l . . . . . . . . }----------- D&D
...........................................................}-----------Krakens-------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l
Voodoo --------------------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .}----etc-------l . . . . . . . . . }-----------l
...........................................................}-----reincarnation--------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l
Ancestral Heritage -------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .}-----etc------l
...........................................................}------Ghengis Kahn-------l
Martial Arts ----------------------------------l
What has happened is that D&D has ceased to influence the gaming world, having been absent for 15 years, and yet developers still wish to cash in on that market, or, if you prefer less cold language for developers that still care more for their reputation than dollars through the door, developers still have the enthusiasm to recreate the joy of a D&D atmosphere. If it's not the real thing then its going to struggle to match the quality of the real thing, this is the same for any product ever created, from Pepsi versus Coca Cola to Steven Segal versus Sylvester Stallone.
With D&D losing its gleam through repeated photcopying, people such as yourself are complaining that the D&D influence is to blame, when the problem has nothing to do with D&D, quite the opposite, its the absence of D&D which is helping to fuel your disdain. In looking for something 'new', you are in fact regressing by retreating back along the lines in the above diagram, looking for one of the already merged influences, digging it out, and presenting it as new and fresh, neither realising nor caring that by doing so you are regressing the possibilities open to a creator with what they can do with their setting and regressing the global appeal down to something altogether more narrow and colloquial. Niche'ing your niche.
D&D already has everything you need to make any game you want in any setting. D&D is not to blame and D&D has no connection to any catch-all descriptor of what it is, in your case the hyperbole of 'western'. What is to blame is the same thing that's always to blame... a complete lack of imagination combined with people who don't actually care enough from a craftsman perspective combined with people such as yourself who use these failings to invent hyperbolic political statements.
This is not to say myopic and narrow games shouldn't exist. This isn't to say specialist niches within niches shouldn't exist. This isn't to say only D&D should exist, this is just explaining why D&D is at the top of the tree, why it does not meet any hyperbolic criteria of invented stereotype and why you don't get why what you're suggesting is both redundant and purely academic.
All fantasy is inspired by history and myth. That doesn't make history and myth the primary source of most CRPGs. There's a significant and obvious difference between settings inspired directly by European history and myth, and those inspired through the filter of Dungeons and Dragons and Tolkien.
It's the difference between this:
And this:
I do understand where you're coming from, I just think you don't have enough understanding of the topic to make logical points.
Firstly, you lump Tolkien and D&D together as if they themselves exist in a vacuum of invention, as if they are the same thing. As if you see what exists as the most popular example of a genre and then attack it as a whole, because what you want to attack is whatever is in over-supply and you need something to lash out at to make your point. You see vague similarities between Tolkien and D&D and that's enough, everything is now under the umbrella of Tolkien and D&D, like they are some two headed dragon, two faces of the same beast. They are, to you, the summation of your bucket you like to call 'western'.
What you don't understand is that life is a constant stream of intertwining influences whereby no one work is ever the same as another piece of work and while some entities have a stronger influence than others, there's no overriding definite link of cause and effect between two separate products in terms of a singular dragon.
Tolkien is nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons, in any way, shape or form and D&D is as far from Tolkien as Banner Saga is from Wizardry. And whats even more important is that both Tolkien and D&D are both products which have already been influenced by the historical variety that you aspire to, they have already filtered history to provide a new and remoulded... fantasy... drawn from every culture on earth.
And this is the reason they ascended to the peak of popularity, causing you to get annoyed about the lack of variety. Tolkien and D&D are already providing tid-bits of all the cultures that you could dig up to make an RPG about. You want to make an african voodoo setting? D&D could do that. You want to make an oriental martial arts setting? D&D could do that.
I'll attempt to put it into diagram form for you:
Roman Gods -------------------------------l
...........................................................} -----King Arthur-------l
Greek Gods ---------------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .}-----etc------l
...........................................................}-----------Sinbad-------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l
The Immortals -----------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . }-----etc------l . . . . . . . . . }-----------l
...........................................................}-----------Vikings-------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l
Norse Gods ---------------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . }-----etc------l . . . . . . . . . }-----------l . . . . . . . . }----------- D&D
...........................................................}-----------Krakens-------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l
Voodoo --------------------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .}----etc-------l . . . . . . . . . }-----------l
...........................................................}-----reincarnation--------l . . . . . . . . . }----------l
Ancestral Heritage -------------------------l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .}-----etc------l
...........................................................}------Ghengis Kahn-------l
Martial Arts ----------------------------------l
What has happened is that D&D has ceased to influence the gaming world, having been absent for 15 years, and yet developers still wish to cash in on that market, or, if you prefer less cold language for developers that still care more for their reputation than dollars through the door, developers still have the enthusiasm to recreate the joy of a D&D atmosphere. If it's not the real thing then its going to struggle to match the quality of the real thing, this is the same for any product ever created, from Pepsi versus Coca Cola to Steven Segal versus Sylvester Stallone.
With D&D losing its gleam through repeated photcopying, people such as yourself are complaining that the D&D influence is to blame, when the problem has nothing to do with D&D, quite the opposite, its the absence of D&D which is helping to fuel your disdain. In looking for something 'new', you are in fact regressing by retreating back along the lines in the above diagram, looking for one of the already merged influences, digging it out, and presenting it as new and fresh, neither realising nor caring that by doing so you are regressing the possibilities open to a creator with what they can do with their setting and regressing the global appeal down to something altogether more narrow and colloquial. Niche'ing your niche.
D&D already has everything you need to make any game you want in any setting. D&D is not to blame and D&D has no connection to any catch-all descriptor of what it is, in your case the hyperbole of 'western'. What is to blame is the same thing that's always to blame... a complete lack of imagination combined with people who don't actually care enough from a craftsman perspective combined with people such as yourself who use these failings to invent hyperbolic political statements.
This is not to say myopic and narrow games shouldn't exist. This isn't to say specialist niches within niches shouldn't exist. This isn't to say only D&D should exist, this is just explaining why D&D is at the top of the tree, why it does not meet any hyperbolic criteria of invented stereotype and why you don't get why what you're suggesting is both redundant and purely academic.
The issue is that this potential advantage should sometimes come to something. What comes to this games, KotOR 2 IMO did it very well. I wrote about this in GD Trek thread. You can ignore parts related to Discovery, I was quite tired when I wrote it, but I think it's understandable. And it isn't just Enterprise, also what I wrote about Dark Matter is relevant.
What I didn't wrote there is how I realised that in comparison to Enterprise, it started to make sense why Mass Effect 2 is so highly regarded. I didn't liked where it started to steer ME series, but when compared to Enterprise which I think set the bar and which was often used as reference in media and which was about... nothing, sure ME series could be a good experience. Another thing regarding ME series, I was not sure what to think about how people focused so much to it's ending, when the journey itself left a lot to be desired. Campaign was quite uneven and disjointed, poor written villain. It was much about visuals and not that much about substance. Again when compared to production like Enterprise, I can see why BioWare may have thought they could get away with it.
There is another bizarre phenomena which I noticed when I did some research. After Enteprise was cancelled, fans attempted fund raiser to get season 5. They raised $35 million before they ended the campaign. So they got 4 series of utter garbage, yet wanted to fund series 5, which would somehow magically be better. What comes to games, I couldn't but to think Chris Roberts Star Citizen, which has since 2012 to may 2017 collected more than $150 million, and they still have no product at all!
So there comes this angle, be that films or tv, we are offered great premises and exploration. But after one premise there is another, and another, like ethics, but we know nothing about ethics, but no matter, Look, time travel, but it really adds nothing... but no matter, Look, Space Nazis! Science, why bother when you get over with it with techno bable and say Look! Mirror Universe! It's like terrible DM in P'n'P.
So what Hollywood is selling is endless anticipation to get people watch ads. Chris Roberts is selling air, so what people are actively paying for is to anticipate. I don't know if perhaps ME: Andromeda tried to take this route too, I haven't played it and I'm not going to.
So the potential, yes it is there but it's also very bizarre world where things may not be as simple as they first appear. For personal account, back in the 90's I and someone who was and still is very good in what he do, watched Phantom Menace. And we didn't nitpicked about anything. Didn't gave a damn about Star Wars, we watched it to see for effects, green screen, and camera work and stuff. The experience is difficult to explain, but to convey it somehow. it was like the experience amounted to not so pleasant feeling, it was like 'RUN LIKE HELL!"
fantadomat
Arcane
IncendiaryDevice i agree with you mate.The problem(if we can call it that) is that we are overly exposed to all those cultural items.This days the market is oversaturated with all kinds of fantasy/sifi shit,books,movies,games and anime.Most people are becoming jaded and overly exited for the next new thing.
Iznaliu
Arbiter
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,686
Were they fans of Star Trek, or fans of Enterprise? If they were the latter, that would explain it.
I wouldn't know and I didn't wanted to hijack the topic for Trek discussion. It's known franchise, I made parallels to other less known series (Dark Matter) to prove my point that issues what Enterprise had weren't exclusive to it, or are even limited to films / TV but games as well. I could as well take new or old Battlestar Galactica. I actually appreciate what Moore was trying to do in series 3. How well it delivered during it's run it's another matter, finale was dictated by Larson so their that's another matter. At this point I guess we could ask how good was that classic BSG series 2? Wasn't it cancelled like, for a reason?
Regarding OP, it's very good question and I think it's achievable. I wonder if perhaps certain things often associated with films / TV sci-fi / fantasy has to go to make it at least easier to happen.
I think games are media which is perhaps very accommodating for experimentation. Outside of setting and resident culture(s) that I can click through dialogue within few minutes is a huge advantage over watching 45 minutes TV episode or 90 minutes film with 10 minutes worth of ideas content, which then may lead to nothing. I think Shadowrun: Dragonfall may be good example of balancing I have in mind.
Azarkon
Arcane
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 2,989
Tolkien and Dungeons and Dragons are simply the two most significant and powerful influences on modern fantasy CRPGs. I have never said that they are one and the same or that they are the ONLY influences. I have also never said that they were sui generis, so cut the crap.
It could do it, but it's not the only way to do it. The problem is that, by and large, developers approach fantasy world building through the assumptions and stereotypes created by Dungeons and Dragons and Tolkien. They directly reference these assumptions and stereotypes in their own settings and in doing so, they don't engage in world building, but world copying, with a few modifications. Take the example of orcs - many CRPG settings have a form of orc, and in almost all of them, this orc is practically the same as the Tolkien orc, or the Warcraft orc. In no way do any of them resemble the mythological version of orc which is usually just an evil spirit or forest ogre.
The same argument applies to the depiction of undead, elf, dwarf, goblin, wizards, priests, etc. in popular fantasy CRPG settings, or their equivalents by another name. It's not that these creatures have no historical or mythological basis, it's that the main inspiration for developers is not history or mythology but Dungeons and Dragons, Tolkien, and at times Warhammer and Warcraft.
Indeed, high fantasy almost reminds me of a comic book universe in which many authors develop the same setting. But rather than use the fact that they are developing the same setting to make it more detailed and elaborate, they make just enough changes to make it seem it's not the same setting, and then spend much of their effort copying what IS the same.
No one is blaming Dungeons and Dragons, or Tolkien, or Warcraft. I have always placed the blame on CRPG developers themselves. Again, cut the crap.
Last edited:
I agree with Azarkon on the copyist nature of worldbuilding for the masses. People have their expectations of a fantasy setting, and for your setting to be marketable you have to stay within certain creative boundaries.
However, I believe a talented, learned writer, can easily achieve both originality and a good enough degree of conformity. I may be somewhat biased, but I believe "studying history fixes everything". Well, not everything obviously, but to a large part, a wide general knowledge and orientation in historical realities (you don't need to have a PhD for that) can greatly improve the quality of your world building. And you don't even have to go into history's "aid disciplines" like anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, ethnicity studies, etc. Knowledge of these is just a bonus.
How I imagine this would work - I see a world, a setting in the same terms in which I see a character. Writing a believeable, a "deep" character in the non-ironic sense, requires a good amount of shared experience on the writer's part. To write a character who is a fisherman for example, you have to know at least something more than the average player about fishing as an activity, as a means of providing sustenance, and you need to have some personal or impersonal observations on people who fish for a living. That may come from your own life's experience, or from first-hand observation, or from stuff you've read about fishermen communities as they existed at some point in time and at some place.
Similarly, if you are writing a romance between two characters who can't be together due to some natural or cultural obstruction, you need some experience and some natural psychologist skill in order to put yourself in each character's shoes. The fact that most writers lack such exprience has resulted in the cringy interpersonal relations we see in games.
Returning to worldbuilding, in order for a writer to have some kind of "a bag of tricks" or a pool of ideas to pick from when building a world, he can't come up with them from thin air, he needs some experience with the "life stories" of the actual world, in various points in time. In other words he needs knowledge of what has been expreinced by the real world, i.e. with history.
It is the limited genral knowledge of writers that keeps settling us with tropes like "elves are repressed minority, live in ghettoes, but they are wiser than their oppressors and have good hearts, their lives matter". The hacks who call themselves game writers simply have nothing to draw on. I'll try giving a real example next time, of how worldbuilding can be approached better.
However, I believe a talented, learned writer, can easily achieve both originality and a good enough degree of conformity. I may be somewhat biased, but I believe "studying history fixes everything". Well, not everything obviously, but to a large part, a wide general knowledge and orientation in historical realities (you don't need to have a PhD for that) can greatly improve the quality of your world building. And you don't even have to go into history's "aid disciplines" like anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, ethnicity studies, etc. Knowledge of these is just a bonus.
How I imagine this would work - I see a world, a setting in the same terms in which I see a character. Writing a believeable, a "deep" character in the non-ironic sense, requires a good amount of shared experience on the writer's part. To write a character who is a fisherman for example, you have to know at least something more than the average player about fishing as an activity, as a means of providing sustenance, and you need to have some personal or impersonal observations on people who fish for a living. That may come from your own life's experience, or from first-hand observation, or from stuff you've read about fishermen communities as they existed at some point in time and at some place.
Similarly, if you are writing a romance between two characters who can't be together due to some natural or cultural obstruction, you need some experience and some natural psychologist skill in order to put yourself in each character's shoes. The fact that most writers lack such exprience has resulted in the cringy interpersonal relations we see in games.
Returning to worldbuilding, in order for a writer to have some kind of "a bag of tricks" or a pool of ideas to pick from when building a world, he can't come up with them from thin air, he needs some experience with the "life stories" of the actual world, in various points in time. In other words he needs knowledge of what has been expreinced by the real world, i.e. with history.
It is the limited genral knowledge of writers that keeps settling us with tropes like "elves are repressed minority, live in ghettoes, but they are wiser than their oppressors and have good hearts, their lives matter". The hacks who call themselves game writers simply have nothing to draw on. I'll try giving a real example next time, of how worldbuilding can be approached better.
IncendiaryDevice
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
I only know of one game that has ever done this...
Which one is it? I know of at least two. And I can think of at least two more, which have some variation of this trope.
IncendiaryDevice
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
...
...
No... they... don't. Some do. Those who wish to appeal to the D&D market... duh. The D&D market is the cRPG genre... duh. Plenty of non-D&D related games do exist in the cRPG genre... duh. Even the games where you bemaon the stereotypes, you choose to ignore any features of originality they provide... duh. A game could be completely abstract from both Tolkien and D&D but have an Orc in it and it would go on your shit list. And this is where it's a fucking nightmare talking to someone like you, because you don't actually talk about games, you talk about generalisations, all of which are bollocks without actual reference to what fucking games are pissing you off so much in their lack of originality and to what extent those games represent 'developers'.
IncendiaryDevice
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
Well name them then dickhead.
Dragon Age - three games, here!
Any game where characters constantly exclaim "Magic must be to blame!", "You see what foul magic brought to us!?" They just have the race "elves" substituted for the societal group "magic practitioners". This includes BGII and a host of others.
How about PoE? "Hurr, durr, animancy is bad!" Obsidian have tried to give animancy a more nuanced outlook where the player decides for himself how bad is it, but ultimately Sawyer acknowledged that they have portrayed them as evil too often and as benign too rarely.
Your turn now, "dickhead".
Any game where characters constantly exclaim "Magic must be to blame!", "You see what foul magic brought to us!?" They just have the race "elves" substituted for the societal group "magic practitioners". This includes BGII and a host of others.
How about PoE? "Hurr, durr, animancy is bad!" Obsidian have tried to give animancy a more nuanced outlook where the player decides for himself how bad is it, but ultimately Sawyer acknowledged that they have portrayed them as evil too often and as benign too rarely.
Your turn now, "dickhead".
IncendiaryDevice
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
Dragon Age - three games, here!
Any game where characters constantly exclaim "Magic must be to blame!", "You see what foul magic brought to us!?" They just have the race "elves" substituted for the societal group "magic practitioners". This includes BGII and a host of others.
How about PoE? "Hurr, durr, animancy is bad!" Obsidian have tried to give animancy a more nuanced outlook where the player decides for himself how bad is it, but ultimately Sawyer acknowledged that they have portrayed them as evil too often and as benign too rarely.
Your turn now, "dickhead".
Dragon Age - 3 games... all in the same contextual universe, so, duh, they maintain their coherence = 1 example.
BG2 - oh, look Bioware again. So not 'developers', still just 1 example.
Poe? Animancy? What the fuck has that got to do with any of your previous points? And anyway, it's a spritual successor to... A Bioware game...
Wow, such strong detail arises when you actually have to provide examples...
You mean... "I don't like Bioware's interpretation of cRPGs", yeah, no shit sherlock. But Bioware /= "developers".
Iznaliu
Arbiter
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,686
In my playthroughs, I largely viewed specific animancers, not animancy as a whole, as the problem.
kris
Arcane
I disagree. I could come up with five ideas for a world/setting in a few minutes and then make them coherent with some more work (how you want the world to be and make some history that lead to that point). While the gaming industry isn't exactly full of great creative minds, I do find it unreasonable to say there is none available to do something similar for them. I mean they have months to do that, all they need is a vision for how the world should connect with the gameplay. Magic in particular is important there as it open up options for how to build up gameplay.
As for the topic I agree. Cultures is a little bit to much tropes, to little "being different" and seldom thought out well enough. When setting creators use our history to create cultures they take the incorrect approach. they directly use aspects of real world cultures to build one; When in reality they should build the culture from the real world factors that built those cultures they copy. Trade, religion, biome; things like that. Race, what place does the race have in the world?
Last edited:
Complete bullshit, doesn't merit an answer.Dragon Age - three games, here!
Any game where characters constantly exclaim "Magic must be to blame!", "You see what foul magic brought to us!?" They just have the race "elves" substituted for the societal group "magic practitioners". This includes BGII and a host of others.
How about PoE? "Hurr, durr, animancy is bad!" Obsidian have tried to give animancy a more nuanced outlook where the player decides for himself how bad is it, but ultimately Sawyer acknowledged that they have portrayed them as evil too often and as benign too rarely.
Your turn now, "dickhead".
Dragon Age - 3 games... all in the same contextual universe, so, duh, they maintain their coherence = 1 example.
BG2 - oh, look Bioware again. So not 'developers', still just 1 example.
Poe? Animancy? What the fuck has that got to do with any of your previous points? And anyway, it's a spritual successor to... A Bioware game...
Wow, such strong detail arises when you actually have to provide examples...
You mean... "I don't like Bioware's interpretation of cRPGs", yeah, no shit sherlock. But Bioware /= "developers".
IncendiaryDevice
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
Care to provide some actual offenders that meet the requirement of "creators" (as in getting away from your 'everyone' generalisation)?
kris
Arcane
You mean people that really create something "different"? And in games?
(I dont know enough of all the RPG settings to give many examples (and so many of them are FR)) (as for books I could obviously come with many examples)
I'd hate to give any praise to Bioware about a setting which mostly do not get away from generalisation, but the Qunari did. They built that race on a set of beliefs seemingly grounded on their isolation from other parts of the world. So why only Quanari? Likely they were scared about scaring away customers and took "safe" recognisable bets on the rest of the setting.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.