The Failure of 'Dark' Fantasy

[briankoontz]

Cynicism that passes for "realism" is nothing new. It offers ignorant people who believe they are sophisticated by "knowing how the world really works" the pleasure of consuming media (Game of Thrones, Deadwood, Breaking Bad classic examples) that "know how the world really works". Meanwhile, the actual world works very differently.

Let's call a spade a spade here, and say that "realistically dark" depictions in media are actually part of a genre known as cynicism, not of realism.

The typical cynical viewer of media believes he has the world all figured out, and now just has to consume media that is up to his standards of awareness.

Not only is it nothing new, it will likely become worse in a world where fear drives people to their sofas instead of actually learning about the world.

 

[Treeberry]

In all honesty I find "darkness" more equated with atmosphere than content. It's why I can't exactly call Dragon Age, Game of Thrones, or even The Witcher dark fantasy. The closest I've seen to dark fantasy in videogames is Dark Souls and that's mostly due to the thick, oppressive sense of dread dripping from the game.

I agree with you on this. I'm also one of those foul abominations who doesn't care about ASoIaF though - I kept wondering what the obsession with urinating, nipples on armour (flashbacks to Smough >.>), and long-winded descriptions of food and retinues was about.

Urinating? I understand where you're coming from with everyone comparing something useless to nipples on an armor plate, and the never-ending descrption of food(though that's mainly in the fifth book, and I find it strange that you've gotten that far if you dislike the series), but I don't remember any particular aggravating passage on urinating. Could you please submit some of the occurences?

When I first started the series I thought the books were amazing. I was soured by A Feast For Crows. I can't remember exactly where it kept appearing but I remember getting infuriated by a few references to 'making water' although my mind may have been playing tricks on me regarding the frequency as I was also infuriated by other things in the series.

 

[Jon Shannow]

EDIT: And I'd like to say as much as I love the series... George R. R. Martin gets some facts about medieval life dead wrong. During the actual war of the roses, for which the current conflict in the series is loosely based on, both sides agreed to avoid burning villages to the ground and engaging in rape and pillaging on the mass scale we see in the series, if only because no one wanted to rule over ashes.

So in one war they decided not to burn villages and that means GRRM is getting medieval life "dead wrong"
It doesn't have to be event for event copy of the WOTR - during the 100 years wars burning villages was what The Black Prince and his Dad spent most their time doing

 

[Vivi22]

EDIT: And I'd like to say as much as I love the series... George R. R. Martin gets some facts about medieval life dead wrong. During the actual war of the roses, for which the current conflict in the series is loosely based on, both sides agreed to avoid burning villages to the ground and engaging in rape and pillaging on the mass scale we see in the series, if only because no one wanted to rule over ashes.

I suppose this is getting a bit off topic, but I'm not sure why you would think that medieval life in the real world is all that relevant to a work of fiction. It may serve as inspiration, but that doesn't make him beholden to historical accuracy.

 

[Ishal]

Fantasy needs to step away from the medieval setting all together.

And go where?

Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, and maybe dragons are a well trodden and boring path for some. I get that. I don't think they really enriched the setting of the Dragon Age games all that much. But where are we going beside the medieval era?

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Very impressive, and I respect your studies. But that doesn't mean you can make sweeping statements about every work in the genre such as:

I would disagree, a fantasy world can be both. Or neither, depending on how rigidly you choose to define "fantasy". But in my experience good stories usually have characters grow organically out of their environment in some way. Including in fantasy.

Interesting, I'd read that Tolkien had been acquainted with MacDonald's work in childhood but suppose I was misinformed.

I haven't studied this as deeply as you obviously, but it seems apparent to me that the moral dualism of Tolkien and Lewis has its roots in their religious convictions about the existence of an absolute good and evil. After recovering a bit from the shock of war, tales of heroic fantasy could serve as a wish fulfillment to see absolute good. And to see it triumph.

With people today more secularly-minded it's not surprising that they're more inclined towards gray morality, and see less and less merit in clean cut good vs. evil in fiction generally.

It is entirely possible Tolkien read MacDonald's fairie stories as a child, don't get me wrong. It is just that MacDonald did not become a major influence over Tolkien -at least consciously- until adulthood, when Lewis and another friend introduced him to MacDonald's poetry and essays on forming a fantasy world, which were obviously heavily influential on Tolkien. So, we could both be right on this.

Tolkien and Lewis are far more morally complex then all that, though judging from the people that often invoke their work, I might be easy to judge them guilty by association. Take MacDonald's "My Two Geniuses," a poem written about the conflict between MacDonald's spirituality and his opium addiction. MacDonald suffered from tuberculosis, and one of the few effective treatments for the coughing fits he suffered was opium. This eventually lead him into addiction, understandably. Though it really did not seem to effect MacDonald's family life or career negatively, he still struggled with it. At the time they were maturing as writers, there was a great apologetic movement for the tragedy of WWI, usually invoking the "complexity" of politics and morality. The seeming simplicity of Tolkien and Lewis' morality is something of a retort to that, saying: Even if politics are complex, sometimes morality itself is simple, and there is often clearly right and clearly wrong. Many brilliant writers came out of WWI, Hemingway -for example- found brilliance, but also in the end, suicide and despair. Tolkien and Lewis found something else, something more beautiful, and that is what I find so fascinating about them.

What...you may dislike the game because it is well written and politically complex?

No, I am saying that what many often think is complex and well-written sometimes just isn't quite enough for me. Though from what I have heard here, it is likely I will give Witcher a try.

What makes it harder to talk about 'Dark' fantasy and 'Dark' games in general is how different people perceive 'Dark' to mean different things.

You are correct. I am aware that "dark fantasy" is what is called an "empty signifier." Meaning, it does not really have a definition, and people tend to fill in their own definitions when they hear the term, depending on their ideology and discourse. But I did not want to get too deep into that here, because I could go way off topic talking about that haha. Thanks for bringing it up.

That's good to hear! ^.^

I think another thing that seperates the Witcher from other "dark fantasy" settings is the fact that, well, there are still good people in spite of their being some really terrible people as well. Hell, even characters that have a lot of flaws and could be seen on the darker side of things occasionally display some good traits.

Interesting. Skyrim -which is about as 'dark' as I can go without my stomach turning- was a decent game, though I am not as big a fan as some others. One thing I was disappointed in was the whole 'civil war' storyline, where you got to pick between the lesser of two evils, between people trying to stomp out religious freedom, and people who are kinda racist jerks. So, Witcher seems -from what you say- more up my alley in that regard. In Skyrim, I just ended up with the thieves guild, playing at being Robin Hood. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, though they don't let you give away money very easily in that game.

Cynicism that passes for "realism" is nothing new. It offers ignorant people who believe they are sophisticated by "knowing how the world really works" the pleasure of consuming media (Game of Thrones, Deadwood, Breaking Bad classic examples) that "know how the world really works". Meanwhile, the actual world works very differently.

Often true. A wise man once said: "Cynicism is not a sign of intelligence."

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

Fantasy needs to step away from the medieval setting all together.

And go where?

Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, and maybe dragons are a well trodden and boring path for some. I get that. I don't think they really enriched the setting of the Dragon Age games all that much. But where are we going beside the medieval era?

I think maybe it's more-so that fantasy settings need to rely a little less on certain medieval trends. Monarchies for instance are used far far more than they need to be, and seldom does a setting include Republics or Democracies, almost as though they were purely "modern" incarnations. There's also other subgenres available too, such as contemporary fantasy... but I've rarely seen that done in a solid and mature fashion.

Also, dare I say it, theocracies aren't very common either (where some sort of a cult-like priest class might rule the land or whatever (and no, the Dragon Age Chantry doesn't count).

As for the OP, the dark fantasy genre isn't all about realism. I know that gets convoluted within the gaming community, but it's not. Dark fantasy settings are something of an deviated approach from earlier fantasy settings of the early-mid 20th century, with far less of an emphasis on cliche and idealistic themes. Sometimes that approach steers towards a cynical and pretty rotten world, other times it steers towards dire and gloomy circumstances (such as what Dragon Age attempted to lean towards).

I think this more-so represents a problem with the current gaming industry than the genre itself. Publishers, and to a point some developers, are frankly clueless about science fiction and fantasy settings. It's the same with the studios and the movie industry. They know the popular trends, sure, but only so far as they can follow the money. And that's why you cannot condemn an entire genre, because the genre isn't what fails to deliver, it's the people and companies making the games that are failing.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Fantasy needs to step away from the medieval setting all together.

And go where?

Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, and maybe dragons are a well trodden and boring path for some. I get that. I don't think they really enriched the setting of the Dragon Age games all that much. But where are we going beside the medieval era?

I don't know... Space? Or somewhere else that isn't medieval Europe. One of the first big fantasy novels was John Carter of Mars. One of my favourite games is Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee. A game with wholly unique fantasy setting, and a pretty dark one at that.

 

[Mahoshonen]

This is a great thread, and I appreciate the OP posting it.

Personally, I see this 'dark phase' gaming is going through (and not just for the fantasy genre) is just part of the growing pains. Its like when I was a kid and thought that stuff like Beavis and Butthead constituted mature material. The same thing happened to the film industry. After the Hack Codes were lifted you saw an explosion of films that covered really dark themes. And while there are definitely some great films in there, a good chunk of it was just miserable (and later went on to be fodder for MST3K and rifftraxs.)

Still, it does feel like the gaming industry has been wallowing in this stage for a while now.

 

[Muspelheim]

Fantasy can be dark, or rather, be fantasy with dark elements. Like most well executed fictional universes should have.

The dark elements lose their meaning if they are the only present trait, like in most productions suffering from Grimderp. If it's just shallow misery, bloodshed and corruption for its own sake, it just comes off as flat and unengaging. Of course, the light and hopeful elements lose their meaning if there is nothing sinister giving it some meaning.

Poorly executed dark fantasy is just as stale and generic as poorly executed light fantasy, I'd say. As long as the end result is interesting on its own merits and above all on its own soul, dark or light doesn't really matter much.

A mix, as is often the case, is preferable.

Fantasy needs to step away from the medieval setting all together.

And go where?

Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, and maybe dragons are a well trodden and boring path for some. I get that. I don't think they really enriched the setting of the Dragon Age games all that much. But where are we going beside the medieval era?

I don't know... Space? Or somewhere else that isn't medieval Europe. One of the first big fantasy novels was John Carter of Mars. One of my favourite games is Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee. A game with wholly unique fantasy setting, and a pretty dark one at that.

I'd love to see a fantasy setting poised on their timeline's equivolent of the Great War. Mechanized and industrial armies forming titanic powerblocks led by people with their mind still in a simpler time oblivious to the sheer power of the new century's war machines.

It'd be interesting to see a scene in where the familiar valiant templar paladin sort of hero leads a charge in his armour of gilded angels on his battle unicorn. And then he and his order is massacred by two hundred drafted commoners with machine guns.

Not to mention, plenty of "mages but evil" factions tend to come off vaguely like terrorists. Imagine necromancers in ski-masks and with submachineguns taking over some sort of international sport event, and the special taskforce, trained in counter-sorcercy, sent in to stop them.

I don't mind the standard medieval Europe setting too much. In fact, if it presents itself right, I can still love it. My long affair with Nirn from the Elder Scrolls series proves that much. But there are so many other glorious things one could do with a fantasy setting.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

1) The term Realistic Fantasy is clearly an oxymoron.

You might enjoy this video, it speaks directly to the games and topic under discussion.


I can't speak as to whether or not you'd enjoy Witcher 2, but the way it approaches "realistic" or "dark" fantasy is very, very different from the formula employed in the Dragon Age series.

 

[gargantual]

One of my pet peeves in gaming is the trend towards what is often called 'dark' fantasy, meaning a fantasy setting with a strong visceral feel and often including or tackling subjects like sexuality, gore, murder, and even sometimes rape. I will admit, it is difficult to explain what turns me off about dark fantasy, so I hope we can explore the subject here a bit more.

I did not like Dragon Age: Origins --though that puts me in the minority here-- so my response to my friends when they told me about how bad they felt Dragon Age 2 was ran something like: "Well, considering how bad DA:O was, what did you expect?" Among the multitude of things I disliked about Origins was a scene at the beginning of the game, if you started with the Human Noble, like i did. You are asked to clear some rather large rats out of a pantry, and after, your character is splattered with enough blood to just be simply laughable. I turned the blood-effect off afterwards, but my misgivings about the game remained. Essentially, the game seemed to contain what it thought was 'dark' story elements in a way that would make it seem more mature to the player. This, as opposed to a more organic approach to its story and contents.

I have thought about getting the Witcher games on Steam and giving them a try, though I fear they may have much the same attitude as Dragon Age to their own content. Basically, if you add content in that is designed to shock or awe the player just for the that sake, then you have a long way to grow as an artist.

I suppose dark fantasy's main idea is to embrace 'realism,' but one interesting point is that the more qualified and educated a person is concerning Medieval culture, society, and literature, the less inclined they are to write "dark" fantasy. Tolkien was a professor of Medieval studies and literature and even fluently read and translated Medieval texts. Montey Python -Jerry Jones in particular- is tremendously well-versed in the subject. Jones even co-wrote a book detailing and offering theories on the death of Geoffry Chaucer. George R.R. Martin, on the other hand, has his degree in Journalism. So, much like modern military shooters, we see a trend towards "realism" from people that know very little about the reality of their subject.

I for one am weary of the way that fantasy -once a vibrant genre- is being treated lately in games and other mediums like literature. But, what are your thoughts?

Damn. Then as far as books are concerned I guess Brandon Sanderson doesn't count huh? The very reason I started playing and reading fantasy was because it showed it's 'ghetto' side son.

I mean look at the period fantasy is based on. Ain't no sunshine and rainbows in the middle ages that I know of. Jus' sayin

 

[Scars Unseen]

There is nothing wrong with dark fantasy as a sub-genre.

For further clarification to the actual problem, see Sturgeon's Law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law].

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I'd say that the problem with DA:O's darkness, to me, was that it felt like it was trying to be dark just for the sake of being "mature".

The world seemed more brown because "OOOOOOOOOH SO REAL" it seemed more gory because "GORE. GUTS. RAAAAAAAAAAWR." And so on.

What makes the Witcher 2 a good game, in my opinion, is that the darkness is not so overbearing that it inhabits every facet of life in the witcher universe, plus not every choice is a "UBER GRITTY. SO REAL." type decision. It is possible to bring a little more good into the world as a witcher. Heck, what sets Geralt apart from most "dark" fantasy heroes is that he's honestly trying to do good. Hell, one of the most interesting aspects of Geralt is he never wants to choose between "lesser or greater evil", in his own words "evil is evil", and he outright refuses to be a part of it.

As a Witcher, you can give money to the poor. You can cure people afflicted by terrible curses. You can bring hope into the world and offer peace and protection to all people. The witcher world isn't ugly and brown, it's beautiful, it's vibrant, and while some people are evil they don't have some "instant immunity to everything" with each struggle seeming hopeless.

If anything, what makes Witcher "more real" or "more dark" is the fact that the evil doesn't just "go away" if you decide to save one person over another. You're a hero, but you can't be everywhere at once and sadly even when you try your damnedest to do good a few people can get away free.

Playing as The Witcher, it is possible to be a good guy, to get a "good ending", but to vanquish all evil? Not exactly. Still, you have a silver sword and a steel one, while some claim the silver is meant for monsters and the iron meant for men... don't be mislead, both swords are meant to be used against monsters.

EDIT: And I'd like to say as much as I love the series... George R. R. Martin gets some facts about medieval life dead wrong. During the actual war of the roses, for which the current conflict in the series is loosely based on, both sides agreed to avoid burning villages to the ground and engaging in rape and pillaging on the mass scale we see in the series, if only because no one wanted to rule over ashes.

That was very well put sir and have made my life to write something similar easier since you already said it so well.

Dark Fantasy genre can still work if done well (Witcher franchise). The typical Bioware tropes of Mass Effect/Dragon age of good/bad must be changed or we will fall into a stagnation of big proportions.

Good things we have games like Project Eternity, Torment Tides of Numenara and Witcher 3 on the horizon to look forward to that will (hopefully) change this monotony.

 

[Muspelheim]

[Snip]

Damn. Then as far as books are concerned I guess Brandon Sanderson doesn't count huh? The very reason I started playing and reading fantasy was because it showed it's 'ghetto' side son.

I mean look at the period fantasy is based on. Ain't no sunshine and rainbows in the middle ages that I know of. Jus' sayin

Well, the middle ages were dramatically less shit than we imagine them. It was not the best time to be alive for many, many people, but it didn't all resemble a Monty Python sketch.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well, the middle ages were dramatically less shit than we imagine them. It was not the best time to be alive for many, many people, but it didn't all resemble a Monty Python sketch.

These are still fantasy stories, loosely modeled after a historical epoch. I don't think they're meant to be 1:1 representations of the Middle Ages. I'm not sure anyone would really appreciate playing a game or reading a book in which the protagonist quietly farmed barley before dying at age 44 of typhus.

 

[Drizzitdude]

I am not really sure why you call fantasy a "failure" when even you yourself admit your opinion on the game you chose to make an example of was part of a minority. Fantasy has a tendency to drift towards darker and more mature setting just do prevent itself from being completely silly in nature. If you were to talk about a light-hearted universe, with elves, pixies, goblins and trolls people would laugh at you for playing "Mother Goose: The Game". The fact of the matter is that with the sheer amount of fantastical elements in....err...fantasy, we need something to tone to bring it all down to earth and give us a reason to want to like, invest and care about their characters. Dragon age was a darker game in the sense that it did not decide to hold back story elements for the sake of holding them back; racism, classism, political scheming, massive casualties, war torn families and the like are all very much prevalent in the universe and it only added more detail to it in the end. They wanted you to make tough decisions, they wanted you to look at the warped forms the archdemon created and really understand why this creatures were supposed to be terrifying, the only complaint I have about the game at all was that the after battle blood effect was just plain silly. I feel like I should also mention that the lord of the rings books were very doom and gloomy about the final confrontation and hordes that awaited them. Wasn't just all happy hiking and bread, as I said before without a bit of gritty realism, it makes it hard to connect or care about the characters at all.

Lets use another game as an example: Kingdoms of Amalur, if you want high fantasy on a light setting this is pretty much it. There never appears to be any stakes, characters never seem to care about what happens and you develop very little emotional attachment to the people and their problems. Everyone goes about their daily lives and nothing you seem to do really matters. Don't get me wrong, it was a fun game. But you get no emotional investment in it whatsoever because the connections you can draw to it are very few and far between.

Also witcher is dark fantasy, they take a light hearted approach to it because Geralt is a cynical badass who makes most scenes funny. Really though the setting is pretty grim, monster are everywhere, murdering people all over the place, political pigs ruins villages for money, whores are everywhere in the witcher 2, hell the first area has a crime boss who practically has a harem. But the overall setting isn't really happiness and rainbows.


You wanna talk dark, lets talk warhammer 40k, they pretty much explain to you in every single book and media outlet humanity is fighting battle, people are corrupted by chaos, entire planets are wiped out and enslaved on daily only to have its denizens tortured by skin peeling and organ/limb removal until they basically learn to like it or die. Hell even the people we are suppose to be rooting for have to sacrifice thousands of people daily just to keep their emperor alive.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Fantasy needs to step away from the medieval setting all together.

And go where?

Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, and maybe dragons are a well trodden and boring path for some. I get that. I don't think they really enriched the setting of the Dragon Age games all that much. But where are we going beside the medieval era?

I don't know... Space? Or somewhere else that isn't medieval Europe. One of the first big fantasy novels was John Carter of Mars. One of my favourite games is Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee. A game with wholly unique fantasy setting, and a pretty dark one at that.

As people often say: there is no cure for idiocy. I appreciate your point that fantasy as a whole has stagnated, and I largely agree with you, but would changing the environment and removing some of the tropes really make it that much better? Honestly, I doubt it, because it speaks to a deeper issue in the games industry and writing in general that is more fundamental than mere setting.

I mean look at the period fantasy is based on. Ain't no sunshine and rainbows in the middle ages that I know of. Jus' sayin

That is part of my point, that the middle ages were not nearly as dark or oppressive and many people think that they were. In fact, Roman antiquity and the Renaissance were far darker times for peasants, and women and ethnic minorities in particular.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The Witcher 2 is much better in terms of it's "Dark Fantasy", compared to Dragon Age Origins. That being said, TW2 also has some 'dark for the sake of dark' in there. Luckily it's pretty sparse though. The only thing I had a problem with were some of the sex scenes.

Spoiler

Like when you have to find a flower to make a special potion out of it to resist the poison from the kraken-like beast. (Forgot the name) You just happen to fall into an old chamber from the ruins you're on top of. Then you have to fight another witcher guy. And then, out of the blue, instead of deciding to get on with your mission, Gerald decides to have sex with Trish. I mean...what? After the mission, sure. But right there in the ruin, while skinny dipping in a pool? That's just a sex scene for the sake of a sex scene, to make it more 'mature'.

To be fair, that scene you mention is optional and only results if the player chooses to spend their time doing something other than finding a way out.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Have to agree with the OP, I am tired of dark fantasy, and I do not think that The Witcher series does it well either.

The character still speaks as if he smokes 40 a day, is constantly frowning(in fact, a lot of characters only ever frown, aside from Dandelion and maybe a few dwarves), all of the women in the game are sexualised to one degree or another, if not also abused.

Oh, and the constant swearing.

It just becomes jarring and ultimately boring to have such a bleak world, yes, I understand that the "your role in the grand scheme of things is tiny anyway" thing is done well, but that doesn't add into a game being a good 'dark' fantasy, but it having a more realistic outlook on things.

All the other thematic elements still feel juvenile, even if there are in-lore justifications for it.

To be honest, I felt that Dragon Age 2 was done better at least in theme than Dragon Age Origins: the addition of the glib remark, Varic, Merill, Isabella, Aveline acting like a schoolgirl when trying to romance someone, those were all welcome additions to the game, as they made it less boring than its predecessor. DA:O did have its moments with the mabari, Alistar, Morrigan, Oghren and Shale, but they were few and far between(especially when Alistar started being all sad about his heritage). Also, the world was a bit too grim-dark at times too.

I personally think that Game of Thrones does it best because it paces itself a lot better, and that it still doesn't go completely grim-dark(there are some genuine moments of joy and a sense of "maybe things aren't as shit as they seem"), or rather it manages to balance things better.

Or maybe its just Tyrion.

Yeah, it's because of Tyrion.

Spoiler