IncendiaryDevice
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
Citation needed*
You're being dishonest for the sake of an argument - most RPGs praised on 'dex break at least a few of those paradigms or avoid the problem, even if they aren't simulation of medieval Europe.Basically every fantasy RPG I've played has:
I meant "Tolkien pastiche" high fantasy, i.e., something that could someone might casually describe as "medieval" as Azarkon did. Arcanum, PS:T, and MotB (to name just a few) are radically different from bland medieval settings (although overwhelmingly they, too, anachronistically use 21st century morality), to be sure, but since none of those settings are even colorably medieval, I thought we weren't talking about them.You're being dishonest for the sake of an argument - most RPGs praised on 'dex break at least a few of those paradigms or avoid the problem at all, even if they aren't simulation of medieval Europe.Basically every fantasy RPG I've played has:
Yes, PoE gets the Renaissance very wrong, just as other fantasy RPGs think of Medieval Times mostly in terms of bread bowls and jousting. But the historical era that PoE was meant to get wrong was the Renaissance, not the so-called Dark Ages. Basically no RPG other than maybe Darklands seems to make much of an effort at capturing anything about religious thought, probably because so few RPG makers are religious and those who are aren't religious in the way that folks were back then.PoE is certainly not Renaissance, it lacks one of the most important pillars of its thought - that the person is magnificence in God's creation and everything can be done and be known. The different eras aren't just technology levels, it's more important that they are philosophical ones. PoE is modern-day-like pseudo-medieval age-if-paganism-wasn't-ripped-from-society in that context, if that makes sense. Not to mention that paganism can't lead to the Renaissance (and it didn't, pagan cultures even now can't ever dream of achieving that), it lacks certain features and thought processes.
It's a good question. I'd have to do more research than I care to in order to figure this out. Overall, though, I think there has been a move toward "deep lore" across media -- TV shows like Lost and Game of Thrones and True Detective; movies like the MCU; games like Bioshock and Dragon Age: Origins. In general, I feel like people (audience and critics) have gotten really excited about this stuff. But you're right that this is very much a vague impression and not a, "Here is this review." That said, I bet a bajillion dollars I could go on Google and find some reviews to back it up, and then you'd rightly say I was cherry picking, and we'd go around in circles forever. :DYou state that writers create designs such as lore dumpsters because they are influenced by forces like market success and, presumably, reviewers. But then answer me this: where did the market, or the reviewers, specifically encourage this design element?
No need to go so far, the Codex encouraged developers to add walls of text, right up until it finally got them and suddenly developed a new appreciation for the cinematic voice acting of console RPGs
Back in 2011, we were all wondering if we'd ever see a game again that had a user interface that could physically display a lore dump. It was a beautiful thing to think of.
Basically every fantasy RPG I've played has: (1) rough male/female equality; (2) religious pluralism in which intolerance is exceptional and villainous; (3) fairly fluid social structures where the poor and the rich speak the same language more or less the same way and rich people are generally pretty attuned to what's going on with poor people; (4) cash-based economy; (5) basically wholesome cities and towns consisting of well-built buildings and well-paved streets; (6) fairly rationalistic worldview (esp. given that magic is real). I agree that fantasy RPGs feature Arthurian things like swords and castles and wizards and knights in shining armor, and we associate that kind of setting with the medieval era. But overall, I don't think people in fantasy RPGs behave anything like people in real world history, so the amount of history people are capable of recounting is just a pretty small divergence.
[EDIT: Put otherwise, a key anachronism that seems to suffuse fantasy RPGs is the assumption that what Lawful Good means in 21st century America is what Lawful Good meant at the Medieval Times restaurant. To me, that is perhaps the biggest point of departure.]
It's a good question. I'd have to do more research than I care to in order to figure this out. Overall, though, I think there has been a move toward "deep lore" across media -- TV shows like Lost and Game of Thrones and True Detective; movies like the MCU; games like Bioshock and Dragon Age: Origins. In general, I feel like people (audience and critics) have gotten really excited about this stuff. But you're right that this is very much a vague impression and not a, "Here is this review." That said, I bet a bajillion dollars I could go on Google and find some reviews to back it up, and then you'd rightly say I was cherry picking, and we'd go around in circles forever. :D
I don't know those guys, but I don't see how pushing an agenda is inconsistent with being hard working, thoughtful, or attentive to what people say. It's pretty clear that Beamdog did listen to what people said, and decided that they cared more about their agenda -- and incidentally, I think there is reason to wonder whether that agenda is itself an effort to pursue critical acclaim. You're of course right that they may be listening to people who praise them more than those that criticize them, but that doesn't prove your point, which was that the writers were lazy, incompetent, or detached from people playing the game. The Beamdog people seem to have worked hard at writing their stuff. And Avellone and Gaider both say it was amazing! Who am I, who haven't played the game and have never interacted with them, to assume that they're lazy or incompetent? I certainly think they have different axes to grind than I do, and are interested in lopping off different heads with those axes.
I don't think they write lore dumpsters because they're too lazy to put lore into the game in some other way; I think they believe it is the best way to present lore.
I don't think the lore is excessive because they are ignoring their player base's overwhelming complaints about too much lore, I think it is excessive because they are listening to the player base's fascination with setting lore in games, movies, books, TV shows, etc.
If anything, the agenda-pushing of Beamdog is probably something that I should tentatively praise in theory because I think it is an instance where the writers did something they believed was the Right Thing To Do, which might elevate their players rather than degrade them through pandering. (Whether in practice in it worth praise is a different matter.) I am tentative, though, because I think it is almost equally probable that they were just trying to catch the wave of rapturous praise that "socially conscious" games have received in the last few years, in which case I can't fault them, but I wouldn't praise them.
Your experience may be different, but I have seen lots of complaints about quest dispensers, life-story dispensers, and high-level magic item dispensers over the years I've followed RPG criticism, and I'm only just now seeing complaints about lore dispensers. It may be that PoE reached some critical mass of lore dumping that nothing else had ever done before, but I remember oodles of lore dumping in older RPGs (starting more or less around Ultima VII). It's true that I quit PoE within five minutes of completing character creation based on the lore (the faux-Welsh or whatever it was supposed to be, coupled with diarrhea as a plot hook, was enough to make me unwilling to tolerate the low FPS my computer could muster), but I dunno. I think people generally tolerate lore dispensers just fine. If they didn't, there would be more vocal criticism of them. It may be that the current crop of games has finally gone too far, but that doesn't mean that the mechanic is intolerable.But most of it being less obvious than a walking lore dispenser, and therefore more easy to tolerate.
But deep lore and lore dumps are often fellow travelers. For example, every Marvel movie has at least one and usually two or three lore exposition scenes. GoT had them all the time. Bioshock had it all over the place. You're right that they don't have the specific "1. Talk to me more about stuff that is irrelevant to gameplay" structure, of course.This particular design is what I find fault with, not the general principle of more detailed world building. I'm sure I've argued for the same in the past.
That's crazy talk. Their agenda may be wrong, and you may be entirely justified in pushing back against it or boycotting their game or certainly in disliking their game, but in what crazy universe shouldn't creators moralize through their creations? "I mean, Moby-Dick's not bad, but that agenda, and all the fucking lore dumping about whaling...." People may disagree, I guess, but to me the basic principle that all decent people should agree upon is that the moral duty of people creating culture is to foster people's better traits. You certainly can entertain them at the same time, but if you're moving them in fundamentally the wrong direction, or are just indifferent, that seems inexcusable to me. Of course I don't agree with the values of many people creating games, but I can't fault people for having values or trying to foster them.This also applies to the agenda pushing which is again not excusable
No one said that. I just said that I wasn't in a position to fault them, not having played the game. It is entirely possible that they are lazy and incompetent, but the most-praised RPG writer in history says they're awesome, they made a full-featured game that at least most players seem to have liked, and given my experience in game development, I see no wway they could've done that while being lazy. I might be wrong. And to be sure, they could be terrible writers. There are lots of bad writers in the world.Gaider & Avellone can have their own opinions, and you're right, Beamdog has the right to pay more attention to their criticism than mine or that of anyone from the Codex. But that doesn't mean, therefore, that when I call the writing bad, I cannot be allowed to fault the writers.
Who was blaming them?Blaming Gaider and/or Avellone for the end result is a terrible excuse
Maybe yes, maybe no. If the overwhelming majority of players like lore dumpsters, then they may be right. I don't particularly like the mechanic, but I haven't seen evidence that peopel dislike it. In fact, I've seen the opposite. I mean, people used to gush about the dumb books and stuff in Morrowind, which seem way worse than lore dumps, so I've given up trying to understand what people do and don't like.I don't think they write lore dumpsters because they're too lazy to put lore into the game in some other way; I think they believe it is the best way to present lore.
Then they're incompetent. I'm sorry, but there's just no way to excuse this. There are MANY ways to present lore other than a walking lore dispenser, and a video game writer/designer SHOULD know better.
Yes. If only someone had suggested pages ago that there was a vicious cycle where designers are trapped pandering to players' bad tastes rather than improving them.Is it the companies, which manipulate reviewers and black list critics? Is it the developers, who are content to exist in their own comfort zones and to surround themselves with sycophants? Is it the players, who tolerate the above behavior while throwing their money at shit games like Dragon Age Inquisition?
Maybe it is the system, which rewards all three, but that's a topic beyond this thread.
But deep lore and lore dumps are often fellow travelers. For example, every Marvel movie has at least one and usually two or three lore exposition scenes. GoT had them all the time. Bioshock had it all over the place. You're right that they don't have the specific "1. Talk to me more about stuff that is irrelevant to gameplay" structure, of course.
Maybe yes, maybe no. If the overwhelming majority of players like lore dumpsters, then they may be right. I don't particularly like the mechanic, but I haven't seen evidence that peopel dislike it. In fact, I've seen the opposite. I mean, people used to gush about the dumb books and stuff in Morrowind, which seem way worse than lore dumps, so I've given up trying to understand what people do and don't like.
That's crazy talk. Their agenda may be wrong, and you may be entirely justified in pushing back against it or boycotting their game or certainly in disliking their game, but in what crazy universe shouldn't creators moralize through their creations? "I mean, Moby-Dick's not bad, but that agenda, and all the fucking lore dumping about whaling...." People may disagree, I guess, but to me the basic principle that all decent people should agree upon is that the moral duty of people creating culture is to foster people's better traits. You certainly can entertain them at the same time, but if you're moving them in fundamentally the wrong direction, or are just indifferent, that seems inexcusable to me. Of course I don't agree with the values of many people creating games, but I can't fault people for having values or trying to foster them.
Yes. If only someone had suggested pages ago that there was a vicious cycle where designers are trapped pandering to players' bad tastes rather than improving them.
I guess I don't think of BG as having any particular legacy*, I don't care for the game, so maybe I'm less sensitive to these issues than you are. Given that it was David Gaider's creation, I'm somewhat skeptical that it is as devoid of agenda as you suggest. I suppose I do think that if you take over someone else's franchise, you should treat it with respect; but I don't think that means no agenda pushing. It might mean never taking over someone else's franchise, but wouldn't your theory also apply to an artist changing his agenda within his own franchise? Doesn't he owe the same obligations to his fans?It’s still very much Baldur’s Gate in every way that matters, and does a great job of narratively linking the first two games. ... On a wider level, the story is also well linked to the central themes of the series without simply rehashing them, and while the ending leaves a fairly major story element incomplete (unless I’m forgetting a plot point in Baldur’s Gate 2, which is possible!) it’s a very effective way of linking between games while still feeling like its own unique thing. ...
There are no long lectures here, no pointed quests about the subject (unlike, say, Dragon Age Inquisition’s very on-the-nose stuff with Dorian). Siege of Dragonspear makes no more particular fuss about anything than any other RPG that features quests where you do things like, say, try and understand complex issues before acting violently, bring together groups separated by ignorance or mistake, stand up for the weak… y’know, the horrible ‘SJW agenda’ which used to simply be called ‘being a fucking hero’. Oh, and also the kind of thing that’s been a stock part of the RPG genre since Ultima VI took on racism back in 1990.
Which isn’t to say that there aren’t actual issues with the writing. Mostly, it’s fine. Good even. I particularly like the ending sequence for how it factors in prior decisions and directly bridges the two games, and the villain, Caelor, for not just being another power-hungry Child of Bhaal or similar.
To jump back in here, I actually have a major problem with in-game lore books in RPGs as they are destructive to role-playing. Their existence implies that they are the method through which the player is supposed to learn the lore, which is fine, but they also imply that the player character is supposed to learn the same way. Therefore, I am denied the ability to make, say, an ivory-tower magic-user who spent his whole life reading books - a character type I enjoy playing. In P&P, I can say to the GM, OK, my character has an 18 INT, I am educated on this subject, tell me the answer. In a CRPG, it doesn't matter what your character's INT is; he has the education of a newborn baby until the player actually sits down and reads all the books. A good RPG allows the player to convincingly act as though his character already knows this stuff, even if he himself does not. On this basis, I submit that lore books are a bad way to deliver this kind of information to the player.I don't think you can equate exposition in movies and animated reels in Bioshock with Obsidian's talking lore dumpsters. That also applies to the various "history books" found in CRPGs, which nobody ever had a problem with, because they fit the context and were plausible artifacts of the world itself.
You're being dishonest for the sake of an argument - most RPGs praised on 'dex break at least a few of those paradigms or avoid the problem, even if they aren't simulation of medieval Europe.
PoE is certainly not Renaissance, it lacks one of the most important pillars of its thought - that the person is magnificence in God's creation and everything can be done and be known. The different eras aren't just technology levels, it's more important that they are philosophical ones. PoE is modern-day-like pseudo-medieval age-if-paganism-wasn't-ripped-from-society in that context, if that makes sense. Not to mention that paganism can't lead to the Renaissance (and it didn't, pagan cultures even now can't ever dream of achieving that), it lacks certain features and thought processes.
I remember oodles of lore dumping in older RPGs (starting more or less around Ultima VII).
Here, one felt no weight of the supernatural pressing on the human mind, demanding homage and allegiance. Humanity—with all its distinct capabilities, talents, worries, problems, possibilities—was the center of interest. It has been said that medieval thinkers philosophized on their knees, but, bolstered by the new studies, they dared to stand up and to rise to full stature.
1. It doesn't make any sense for random characters to go on an extended lecture about their culture & history at request. In fact it is doubtful that the average member of a society should even know that much about their own culture & history, much less string it together into a coherent narrative, especially in fantasy settings before the benefit of mass public education.
I've been fond of in-game encyclopedias for common knowledge ("King Haralus is the 43rd ruler of the Kingdom of Swadia. He was the cousin of King Esterich, Swadia 42nd ruler. He took power after declaring Esterich's daughter, Lady Isolla of Suno, to be unfit as a leader. His love of feasting is widely known."), thought they can be done really poorly.
They were making a sequel to an established franchise, while trying to appeal to nostalgia. In what world is it smart to push your own modern political agenda, however moral you believe them to be, in this situation? You can push your own agenda in your own franchise all you want, but don't shit on other people's legacy. Baldur's Gate is NOT a vehicle for LGBT feminism and I cannot respect developers who disrespect the material so much to make it so.
I really don't see a distinction here between consumer products and high art. There are very sophisticated plays and "masterpieces" of contemporary art that hold no interest for me because of their messages, and there are dumb consumer things like cartoons that really engage me because of their messages.When you're talking about a consumer product, sure, a developer may still be free to express himself and his biases as he wishes, but he does so at the risk of alienating a portion of his customers.
I'm not entirely persuaded that it's an anachronism problem, though the anachronism of ideology in RPGs does annoy me -- in part because I personally find it fascinating to try to get inside an alien world with alien values, so it's just less engaging to be in an alien world where people still think the way we do in Los Angeles.It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't heavy handed. I mean, I get it that certain ideas and philosophies spring up any time you have a group of people that must co-exist, but when you take concepts that are clearly a modern, current era Earth issue and try to shoehorn it into a society that is supposed to have evolved based on its own environment, various customs of its people, and the distilled effects of its own histories, it jarring as hell to see our own modern interpretations of social issues be shoved down our throats.
I'm not entirely persuaded that it's an anachronism problem, though the anachronism of ideology in RPGs does annoy me -- in part because I personally find it fascinating to try to get inside an alien world with alien values, so it's just less engaging to be in an alien world where people still think the way we do in Los Angeles.
There is probably going to be scant overlap between people who approve of Frazetta's messaging and people who approve of Beamdog's messaging, but I don't see why one is sillier than the other. Let a thousand flowers bloom!
To paraphrase Homer Simpson, why can't it be both, like the Ultima series?[If I do end up buying a product on the pretense of it being an amazing roleplaying adventure in a fully realized world and find that it's populated with lispy Ren-Faire actors saying or acting anachronistic bullshit that's clearly the developer's attempt to preach at me, I'm going to be pissed.
To paraphrase Homer Simpson, why can't it be both, like the Ultima series?[If I do end up buying a product on the pretense of it being an amazing roleplaying adventure in a fully realized world and find that it's populated with lispy Ren-Faire actors saying or acting anachronistic bullshit that's clearly the developer's attempt to preach at me, I'm going to be pissed.
I realize this is non-responsive, but you really did walk into it, since Ultima specifically invokes Ren-Fairs as the greatest of all things, and is famously the first RPG to preach at the player.