The Failure of 'Dark' Fantasy

[dyre]

Which scene was it cuase I know plenty of scenes in witcher 2 that pissed me off

It involved King Henselt doing certain things to some of my friends...

 

[sumanoskae]

I'm not really clear on what your problem with Origins is; the only example you sited was that the persistent gore effect looked silly.

So, since DA:O is one of my favorite games, I obviously disagree with you regarding it's content, so there isn't much to say regarding that subject.

However, you seem to have mistaken an attempt at dark fantasy for the genuine article; Dark fantasy is not about shock value or "Realism", (Which has been a woefully misused word as well, as of late) a work of fantasy is dark because of it's themes.

Fable, for example, is a highly violent game set in a fantasy universe full of all kinds of very naughty things (Like gay people and sex), but it does not qualify as Dark Fantasy because it's story is grounded in an optimistic concept of good VS evil.

At the risk of a tangent I will explain. What we refer to as High Fantasy is defined by the manner in which it's fantastical elements are portrayed. IMO, the essence of High Fantasy is the externalization of good and evil as tangible forces that wield physical power; what is right and what is wrong is clear to the viewer (If not the characters.

In essence, high fantasy uses magic and unreal things to make the world more binary and ethically simple.

Dark fantasy is the opposite.

Knights of the Old Republic II is a T rated Star Wars game with nary a second of nudity or drop of blood spilled, and yet it is Dark fantasy because the metaphysical insights granted to force users serve to make even the simplest moral conundrum a point of ethical and philosophical debate. KOTOR II may be bloodless, but it explores the worst human nature has to offer.

Dark fantasy makes use of it's fantastical elements to emphasize the moral complexity of it's setting; it introduces magic and other elements into a world that is still inhabited and controlled by flawed human beings, who fight over, obsess over and misuse magic just like everything else.

Dragon Age and The Witcher are dark fantasy, they also happen to be rather explicit; these two things do not equate each other.

No, these two games are Dark Fantasy because of their themes; injustice; betrayal; oppression; entropy; hubris.

Having lots violence and sex in your game does not make it mature, nor does it make it immature; it's a superficial design choice and we seriously need to get over it. Dismissing a game for being explicit is just as shallow as buying it because it's explicit.

Everyone gets fixated on the superficial tendencies of violent and explicit games; people often become so fixated on dismissing these things as juvenile that they ignore all the games other content.

Everybody got up in arms about how Isabella from DA:II didn't wear pants and had big tits and how immature her design was, as if that fact alone had a bearing on the quality of her character. (In the interest of full disclosure: I think DA:II had a much weaker cast in general, but that wasn't because everybody was Bi or because one character had large breasts)

Your opinion on Origins is your own, but I don't think blood and tits are a good reason to reach any sort of conclusion on a game, good or bad. Just saying.

 

[endtherapture]

Your suspicions about the Witcher are basically the same as what I thought after playing it for a couple of hours. I kept hearing how mature it was only to see the game trying so hard to be "adult" that it was actually quite funny (and disappointing, considering what I was expecting.) It's clearly aimed at a teen market. Nothing wrong with that, but certainly not what I expected. Games like Skyrim seem far more mature to me than Witcher did. When darker things happen in Skyrim, it's just a part of the world instead of feeling incredibly forced.

As I just posted, I agree. Too much random sex, death, and hate, all trying to scream "look at me! Im a mature game!" Also, I feel like Witcher 2 would not be as a popular game (game mechanics are shallow, Questing is annoying, Map and pathing is buggy) if it wasn't for the sex scenes, which is really disappointing since now other developers are going to think "sex scenes are better then gameplay".

Only thing I will disagree with though, is that Skyrim's "dark" scenes are not forced per say, but scripted. Its definitely more mature in the sense that the world is put together better.

You clearly haven't played The Witcher 1/2.

I have a girlfriend. I don't need to play a game for 3D characters having sex. I play The Witcher for it's complex and intruiging political storyline set to the backdrop of Geralt's quest for self discovery.

If you think people play this game for sex you're kidding yourself. It's not some Japanese dating simulator. The sex is literally 1% of the game experience.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well...there's a few reasons for this.

Firstly, people trying to make things more "adult" by upping the rating. Duke Nukem3D was an adult games, right, lots of strippers and stuff? You wouldn't let a kid play that, so it must be a mature game...

Secondly, for a long, long time, too much fantasy was written by people who thought they were Tolkien (only instead of taking inspiration from what inspired Tolkien, they copied his stuff)...and it led to endless interchangeable books full of boring blather.

When people got fed up with that, they decided to do the opposite, and you got lots of people who thought they were the anti-Tolkien and it led to endless interchangeable books full of boring blather, but with more rape.

Nowdays, people seem to be going the "it's realistic route"...fantasy books have to be about straight white heroes and women that get raped, because otherwise it's unrealistic, according to people who know nothing about historical reality they didn't learn from fantasy books full of rape. Also, dragons, which should be a giveaway that thing aren't realistic.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

It's kinda just pendulum swinging isn't it? I mean look at the dc movies lately, they can't put a hero on the screen unless it's gritty and 'dark'. I'm sure in a few years the backlash to all the grittiness will push us somewhere else, maybe abstraction or something weird

Not anymore, thanks to the nihilistic nature of our youth we can only see more depressing or gritty stuff unless it is from Japan, but who likes Japanese games anymore anyway?

People don't want to escape to fantasy, they just want to escape from the dreariness of life by validating their own pathetic existence.

 

[mindfaQ]

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.

They can thematize pretty much everything they want and how they want. Only the target audiences will be different. Obviously they won't explore too freaky themes, as almost noone will be interested in it.
You throw in some senseless violence? Probably a game for teens.
You throw in violence that makes sense inside of to the story, exploring the darker sides of some humans? Probably not a game for teens.
The problem you seem to have is that you play games that want to catch immature audiences as well AND a medium that is still in its infancy when it's about deep, engaging story, as it always needs to be adjusted to gameplay (if you have gameplay). Look at some book series, some handle with those darker themes alright.
I think it is perfectly fine to not like dark themes personally or not like the immature renditions of the themes in games, but I don't think there is something innately wrong with those themes or even the games you mention. They are just made for a different target audience.

 

[MindFragged]

I understand your grievance, but dark fantasy can be done right. Dark fantasy may be particularly disposed towards the flaw you've identified of confusing mature content with maturity, but this problem permeates a lot of videogames, so try to keep an open mind I guess.

As a side note, Terry Jones also wrote a book on Chaucer's Knight and directed The Holy Grail along with Terry Gilliam.

 

[Grace_Omega]

The whole "dark fantasy" thing really bugs me, especially in writing. It's this painful irony that many M-rated games like God of War fall into of trying to be mature by stuffing themselves with juvenile content like gore, swearing and sex. The strong tendency for works like this to be hyper-sexist male power fantasies doesn't help, although they're hardly alone on that.

That said, I don't actually know that I'd classify Dragon Age as being in the same category as, say, Game of Thrones. It's got a lot more blood than is average for RPGs, but the story itself didn't seem to be going for the same EDGY, MAN, EDGY territory that are hallmarks of the sub-genre. If you stripped away the blood and boobs it would pretty much just be fairly standard fantasy, with maybe a little bit more cynicism in its world.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I have a girlfriend. I don't need to play a game for 3D characters having sex. I play The Witcher for it's complex and intruiging political storyline set to the backdrop of Geralt's quest for self discovery.

If you think people play this game for sex you're kidding yourself. It's not some Japanese dating simulator. The sex is literally 1% of the game experience.

Then why is it there? If it's not really part of the game, why include it?

Actually, I kind of disagree with the notion that it's not integral. Geralt's endless quest for the hairy triangle is pretty well integrated into the story in the Witcher 1. It colours the interaction with numerous NPCs, many of whom are essential to the plot.

And it's interesting how much it's haunted the series, because I own the Witcher 2 and I have never installed it because I can't get over this internalized prejudice that I loathe the main character, because I did grow to loathe Geralt in the Witcher 1.

But more than that, I grew to loathe whatever writer decided to make every female character randomly throw themselves at this obnoxious smirking prick who, as far as I could see, has no personality beyond being the protagonist and playing the aloof outcast from society cards despite the fact that everyone in society wants to bang him because he's the protagonist. It directly undermines the conditions which we must accept in order for the story of the game to work.

I didn't even get into the political conflict. I just didn't care. I could see what the game was trying to do with its dramatically realistic approach to storytelling and shades of grey conflict, but none of it matters if you intensely dislike the character you're supposed to identify with. There's a difference between dramatic flaws and plot-convenient inconsequential bastardry.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

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.

And then you see one of your good friends after they've been horribly burnt in an "accident" at your workplace in real life in a supposedly first world country, which is the direct result of deliberate acts of criminal negligence done by your cheapskate bastard employer. You get to watch as the employer gets away with almost killing someone because a literal arm's worth of grafted skin is considered to be cosmetic damage, and nothing much will come from it because the eventual size of the pay out is likely to be dwarfed by the legal fees.

Then you realise that you can only rely on the world to be as good to you as you afford it to be.

So look, no offense mate, I don't begrudge you if your life has been kinder on you than others. But I do begrudge the fact that you seem willing to just shit over other people because they've lived the sort of rough life that would leave you with a cynical perspective on things.

 

[The Youth Counselor]

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 rather enjoy him, but he would see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes."

It's not entirely realistic, hence the fantasy designation. But G.R.R.M. and others like him such as Neal Stephenson and Terry Pratchett have read a lot on their subjects attempt to inject aspects of historical fact that are usually whitewashed to further immerse the readers. Sometimes it may seem excessively cruel, but history was like that.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

It's interesting that you think that. I'm graduating from a Christian college where we discuss in great detail the middle ages and what they were (and weren't) like. It's on the rosy side definitely, but I for one have always been OK with that because I'm sick of people blaming the "Church" for all the ills of the time.

It was confusing and scary. Like most periods in history.

Yeah. I am really sick of people blaming the "dark ages" for many of the ills of society, rather than taking action to correct those ills. In reality, Medieval times were just like any other era, and for women especially, they were often kinder than the preceding Roman Antiquity and subsequent so-called European Renaissance.

I understand your grievance, but dark fantasy can be done right. Dark fantasy may be particularly disposed towards the flaw you've identified of confusing mature content with maturity, but this problem permeates a lot of videogames, so try to keep an open mind I guess.

As a side note, Terry Jones also wrote a book on Chaucer's Knight and directed The Holy Grail along with Terry Gilliam.

My problem is not so much about a 'genre' of Dark Fantasy, but against the attitudes and ideas that people more often then not use to approach creating works. So, it is not really that 'dark fantasy is bad,' rather that dark fantasy is often a symptom of a poor or bankrupt creative process. In a sense, you are right on the point that it can be done quite well. But, I think I am still justified in being doubtful about the movement as a whole.

Yeah, Mr. Jones also co-wrote a book that is rather controversial among medievalists about the death of Geoffry Chaucer. This is why I brought him up in the first place: he is one of the most intelligent and well-qualified people to have ever made a film concerning medieval culture.

 

[HemalJB]

My problem is not so much about a 'genre' of Dark Fantasy, but against the attitudes and ideas that people more often then not use to approach creating works. So, it is not really that 'dark fantasy is bad,' rather that dark fantasy is often a symptom of a poor or bankrupt creative process. In a sense, you are right on the point that it can be done quite well. But, I think I am still justified in being doubtful about the movement as a whole.

But that is the main problem when writing "Dark" fiction of any genre.

Take Superheroes. It is possible to make a great dark superhero story done well(The Dark Knight, the graphic novel version of Watchmen) but because a lot of imitators are making superheroes go dark for no good reason (new 52, Man Of Steel) many people, especially here on The Escapist, feel that trend of dark superhero movies are awful.

I think if you are going to go dark, you must have a good core reason to do so, and not just to add sex and violence to a story. Take "Spec Ops: The Line". It is a typical military shooter, but by portraying the horrors of war and the moral ambiguity within it it gave us an awesome dark story. Or even "Dark Souls", which isn't about power fantasy but the struggle to survive in an uncaring world uses dark themes to its full advantage.

So really, the lesson is to go dark for a very good reason, else you're better off going lighthearted.

 

[Pseudonym]

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.

And then you see one of your good friends after they've been horribly burnt in an "accident" at your workplace in real life in a supposedly first world country, which is the direct result of deliberate acts of criminal negligence done by your cheapskate bastard employer. You get to watch as the employer gets away with almost killing someone because a literal arm's worth of grafted skin is considered to be cosmetic damage, and nothing much will come from it because the eventual size of the pay out is likely to be dwarfed by the legal fees.

Then you realise that you can only rely on the world to be as good to you as you afford it to be.

So look, no offense mate, I don't begrudge you if your life has been kinder on you than others. But I do begrudge the fact that you seem willing to just shit over other people because they've lived the sort of rough life that would leave you with a cynical perspective on things.

The problem with cynicism is not that it is just a negative perspective on the world but a lazy negative perspective. The cynic often believes that the world is a shitty place but he doesn't inquire very far into why the world is like that or what might be done to change it. Realising the world isn't all rainbows and chocolate rivers is not an accomplishment but your average cynic seems to think it is which makes them annoying and pretentious. Did your friend get screwed? Certainly but who in the world doesn't have friends or family that got screwed one way or the other. It's no excuse for acting all high and mighty like you know how the world works just because you don't believe the world is a magical wonderland full of honour and glory. Just to make it clear, I am not saying that you fit into the category of cynic I've just described, just that I believe that was what briankoontz was getting at when he complained about cynicism. (well, I obviously don't know briankoontz so maybe it wasnt what he meant at all but that was what I got out of his post) In stories this often translates in nasty events which serve no purpose in the story other than to show off how the writer knows nasty events occur.

I didn't feel like Game of Thrones was a very big offender here. Personally I was especially annoyed by GTA V, a game in which pretty much every single last person is some kind of asshole, moron, weirdo or otherwise dislikable person. Now assholes, morons and weirdo's exist. Criminals, sadists, dirty cops, spiteful TV personalities and superficial dipshits all exist but making a city which is exclusively populated with those kind of people serves no purpose except for advertising the fact that you dislike certain things. GTA V is also game in which serious political issues are mentioned even though it is clear rockstar doesn't give a fuck about these issues. The ingame description of facebook calls it 'life invader' and a 'data mining service'. Also the game has a facebook app. There are commercials on the ingame radio which advertise courses on sucking dick. There is also a minigame in which the player can touch strippers when the bouncer isn't watching. It also doensn't help that much of the supposed social commentary is voiced by Trevor often in throw away comments which are never mentioned again. The most annoying part was the torture scene where first the game goes into great detail showing how torture works, then Trevor makes some shallow comments about why torture happens ripped off straight from 1984 and then the story forgets about it and goes on to different issues. It all felt like it was there to be there because the setting had to be as unpleasant as possible and not because it served any purpose in the story. That's the kind of cynicism that annoys me. It's not about realising the world is sometimes an unpleasant place, it's about not even trying to understand why it is this place or what might be done about it.

On topic, this isn't just a problem with fantasy. Look at games like gears of war for example or the above mentioned GTA. Many writers and developers seem to think that showing horrible violence will make an impact even though things like pacing,charactars and tone are much more important in that regard. For example, when I played GoW2 at some point there was a guy who was captured by the enemy. We later found him in a torture cell with horrible scars and once we helped him out he killed himself. However, at that point I was already so numb from cutting space lizards into bits it hardly made an impact. Yeah, your friends, and that one guys' wife died, but that only works if murder, torture and absurd bloodshed haven't been integral parts of the story from the get go.

Similarly with sex. It isn't a problem if sex has a logical place in the story. I will defend game of thrones in that sense that most of the sex in it has a role in the overall story. It playes a part in the political intrigue and in the development of the charactars. The prostitutes are used to gather information for their employer. Cercei thinks of her sexuality as a weapon. Tyrion's sexuality is one of the reasons people don't take him seriously. These charactars don't just have sex so there can be sex in the story. It's an integral part of the story and the charactars. In many stories the sex is just there to be there.

In the case of game of thrones what ruined it for me was not the sex and the violence or even the pessimistic approach to the middle ages but the fantasy elements. I liked the intrigue and the politics and I liked how the charactars where varied and some where smarter than others because the writer intended certain charactars to be dipshits. (AHEM John Snow AHEM) I liked the fact that the unscupulous and powerful Lannisters could win of the Starks in spite of the fact that the Starks were nicer people. But all that got ruined for me when some naïeve powerless seventeen year old girl who should be happy she isn't dead suddenly got dragons. Why? What does this add? Where did this come from? Why is this girl getting dragons and an army through sheer luck. And then the Stark kid is suddenly a magician and gets to go with another magician to a special place: a school for wizards and witches where he meets his friends Ron and Hermione. All of the magic seems to follow no rules at all and breaks the internal logic of the events for me.

 

[endtherapture]

I have a girlfriend. I don't need to play a game for 3D characters having sex. I play The Witcher for it's complex and intruiging political storyline set to the backdrop of Geralt's quest for self discovery.

If you think people play this game for sex you're kidding yourself. It's not some Japanese dating simulator. The sex is literally 1% of the game experience.

Then why is it there? If it's not really part of the game, why include it?

Actually, I kind of disagree with the notion that it's not integral. Geralt's endless quest for the hairy triangle is pretty well integrated into the story in the Witcher 1. It colours the interaction with numerous NPCs, many of whom are essential to the plot.

And it's interesting how much it's haunted the series, because I own the Witcher 2 and I have never installed it because I can't get over this internalized prejudice that I loathe the main character, because I did grow to loathe Geralt in the Witcher 1.

But more than that, I grew to loathe whatever writer decided to make every female character randomly throw themselves at this obnoxious smirking prick who, as far as I could see, has no personality beyond being the protagonist and playing the aloof outcast from society cards despite the fact that everyone in society wants to bang him because he's the protagonist. It directly undermines the conditions which we must accept in order for the story of the game to work.

I didn't even get into the political conflict. I just didn't care. I could see what the game was trying to do with its dramatically realistic approach to storytelling and shades of grey conflict, but none of it matters if you intensely dislike the character you're supposed to identify with. There's a difference between dramatic flaws and plot-convenient inconsequential bastardry.

It's there because having wenches and whores adds flavour to the world. It makes it feel like a medieval world. If there's a dirty world full of racism and political strife and rape and murder, having sex adds to the world you've built. You might know this, but sex is an important part of relationships. Hence why it's a key part of Geralt and Triss' relationship. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

How is it integral to the plot? The plot is about Geralt trying to get back his memories and the stolen Witcher chemicals against a backdrop of political strife in Temeria. In TW1 Geralt gets the choice between Shani and Triss. I went with Triss since she seemed more pragmatic and as a sorceress she could look after Alvin and deal with his unpredictable powers more than Shani good. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

You clearly have never played or understand the world. You may not be aware of this but in medieval Poland, there is no contraception. There's no pill, no morning after bill, no implants and no condoms. You might also not know since you obviously haven't paid attention to the game, that Witchers are STERILE and IMMUNE TO DISEASES. This means having sex with a Witcher, such as Geralt, won't make women pregnant, or at risk of STDs such as syphilis. That's why women are throwing themselves at Geralt. That's not even adding in that Geralt just kills whoever he wants and can offer protection to women and acts chivalrously whilst most other men are misogynists. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

 

[Terminal Blue]

If there's a dirty world full of racism and political strife and rape and murder, having sex adds to the world you've built. You might know this, but sex is an important part of relationships. Hence why it's a key part of Geralt and Triss' relationship.

Yeah, it's also an important part of Geralt's relationship to just about every female character he meets in that game. Frankly, I didn't even pick up that there was anything particular about Geralt's relationship to Triss. She just seemed to be another random woman who inexplicably wanted Geralt's pasty cock for no discernible reason.

But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

Nope. I played the Witcher 1, which was the game I was talking about (and the game I assume we're still talking about now). I may wish I hadn't, but I certainly did.

How is it integral to the plot? The plot is about Geralt trying to get back his memories and the stolen Witcher chemicals against a backdrop of political strife in Temeria. In TW1 Geralt gets the choice between Shani and Triss. I went with Triss since she seemed more pragmatic and as a sorceress she could look after Alvin and deal with his unpredictable powers more than Shani good. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

No. I'm afraid I played that. I went with Triss as well because it seemed more canon, but at that point I didn't really care because I had no sense of who the character I was playing actually was beyond blandness and nobbing.

And yes, I know Witchers are meant to have diminished emotional affect. Don't even get me started on that and how much of a lame copout it is.

As for the amnesia.. Jesus. I'm not saying amnesia is off limits or that it can't possibly be done well (KOTOR) but if you're going for a journey of self-discovery it kind of helps if you put something in there to discover. Simply giving your protagonist amnesia to justify them having to learn a bunch of stuff or to justify why they're not the amazing badass everyone thinks they are is not a story of self-discovery, it's just lazy metagame bullshit.

Did I express myself badly or something, because I'm pretty sure it should have been obvious that I played the game. I said that I haven't played the Witcher 2, but that's only because the Witcher 1 really bothered me. How would it have bothered me if I hadn't played it?

There's no pill, no morning after bill, no implants and no condoms. You might also not know since you obviously haven't paid attention to the game, that Witchers are STERILE and IMMUNE TO DISEASES. This means having sex with a Witcher, such as Geralt, won't make women pregnant, or at risk of STDs such as syphilis. That's why women are throwing themselves at Geralt.

You and I live in a world in which everyone can be effectively immune to pregnancy and to many STDs. Does this mean we are sexually indiscriminate?

There was contraception in medieval Poland. Nature has generally been pretty generous when it comes to distributing natural abortificants, and as a result there has been contraception (well, technically abortion) for about as long as there have been human beings. These methods could be unreliable and unpleasant, but we know they were used very routinely.

And if abortion failed, there was always infanticide.

However, in medieval Poland (and indeed in medieval Europe more widely) there was also a complex system of really screwy logic around sex, and around the status of men and women. People simply didn't think of sex and sexual desire in the same humanist way we do today. Sexual fantasies, for example, could be understood by the people having them as a form of demonic influence or possession.

A story set in a "realistic" medieval society would actually make almost no sense to a modern reader in almost any aspect, and sex would certainly be no exception, so no. I'm not buying the realism card.

That's not even adding in that Geralt just kills whoever he wants and can offer protection to women and acts chivalrously whilst most other men are misogynists. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

..and of course, everyone wants to bang the guy who just kills whoever he wants..

..what happens if you (the person he's banging) do something he doesn't like?

Why are all the other men in this setting nasty to women? Generally, it's because they want sexual access to women. Geralt always has sexual access to women (through his amazing protagonist powers), and therefore never has to use force or violence to get what he wants. If he did though, does he strike you as the kind of person who would hesitate. After all, he kills whoever he wants, right?

I get that the "benevolent patriarch" character has a lot of traction in fantasy, but I think it's probably time to start questioning it.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

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?

This seems ill-informed and pretentious.
Firstly, if you think that shock has no place in art, then you have a long way to go as a consumer of art. True, there is such a thing as pointless shock tactics that serve no purpose (marylin manson's whole shtick), but plenty of art pushes the viewer's level of acceptability to make a point.
Second, you make a claim about behavior that you have no way of verifying and seems to serve no other purpose than telling us "By the way, I'm SO SMART you guys, I know about the REAL stuff!". Tolkien was NOT a fantasy author. He was a linguist and historian who invented a world that contained the languages he invented. He also wrote a fantasy series that is FILLED with "dark fantasy" paraphernalia, and if you read the books more carefully, you might remember that. The REASON the journey of the fellowship is so heroic is that it HAS NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS. Creatures who only wish to maim and devour all life are flooding the land, evil wizards and knights roam the country on mounts of the greatest power, unfathomable horrors wait just below the surface of the world, a dark god is reforming his seat of power and prepares to declare war on -and enslave- the entire world, we see a creature who is the spawn of a monster who ate some of the goodness out of the world, the party is torn about by ambition and resentment, two world leaders nearly ruin everything because they despair at the enemy they face, and its a quest to destroy an artifact that rots your soul with its very presence! Yeah, really upbeat, man.
Next up, "Terry" Jones of "Monty" Python has made a lot of work, and almost none of it is relevant to your case. His fiction is almost wholly for children anyway.
Now, let's tackle your actual objections. You are not objecting to the darkness of the fantasy, you are objecting to the "low" fantasy elements. Extreme violence, pointless sex, that sort of stuff, is "low fantasy", a genre we like to pretend died out when Gor and Conan fell out of fashion. And it's perfectly fine to not like that. But the problem with high fantasy (like eragon) is that it lacks substance for many people. As an example, I'll use the Inheritance Cycle. The first books are extremely light and sanitized (save one mention of rape thrown in by a teenager trying to be OMG SO GROWN UP) and the deaths and consequences of the events of the novel are kept far out of frame. Then, in the last two books, suddenly there is more danger and visceral action. It keeps us, the reader, grounded in the fact that people, regardless of intent or personal caliber, are prone to the same failings as the rest of us, and can be vulnerable. This allows the stakes to be felt more clearly than "There is an evil king and he is bad, so we will slay him and good will triumph over evil!"
Now, to be clear, I don't have a PROBLEM with high fantasy, and I have read stupidly huge amounts of it. But some people want the WORLD involved, and not just the hero.
Now, I still haven't read Martin's work, so it might be a giant pile of shit, but you can't attack an author's ability based on their degrees. Especially since journalism is (supposedly) about detail and critical thinking, and the man is writing a series about politics.
Oh, and the people that hated Dragon Age 2 were pissed because it WASN'T like the first game.

So, to sum up, you don't understand the difference between dark and low fantasy, fail to realize that different genres exist for different groups with different tastes, and throw up examples to try to sound learned on the topic but instead serve only to expose your lack of experience.
If you want to be "weary" of fantasy, try doing what I did and reading enough of it that it becomes difficult to find quality or original thought in the genre, because that's a damn good reason to be weary of something.

Meanwhile, I'm going to track down a copy of the last Wheel Of Time book so i can finally be done with that series

 

[InfinityX]

As I just posted, I agree. Too much random sex, death, and hate, all trying to scream "look at me! Im a mature game!" Also, I feel like Witcher 2 would not be as a popular game (game mechanics are shallow, Questing is annoying, Map and pathing is buggy) if it wasn't for the sex scenes, which is really disappointing since now other developers are going to think "sex scenes are better then gameplay".

Only thing I will disagree with though, is that Skyrim's "dark" scenes are not forced per say, but scripted. Its definitely more mature in the sense that the world is put together better.

You clearly haven't played The Witcher 1/2.

I have a girlfriend. I don't need to play a game for 3D characters having sex. I play The Witcher for it's complex and intruiging political storyline set to the backdrop of Geralt's quest for self discovery.

If you think people play this game for sex you're kidding yourself. It's not some Japanese dating simulator. The sex is literally 1% of the game experience.

Yes, I played Witcher 2 (havent got around to the first one though)

Have you seen any of the many reviews on the Witcher 2? (hint, almost all of them talk about the sex scenes) have you seen that any game that tries a sex scene gets compared to Witcher 2 scenes? How often when Witcher 2 is mentioned, that people talk about its sex scenes? its a lot more then 1%. Just because you and I don't need/like it, doesn't mean there are many others who do. It may not be as extreme as other games, but its still a heavy influence and selling point.

Also, there wasn't much self-discovery for Geralt, until the very end (even then not much was revealed). Most of the time, you were helping others with their politics and issues then your self-discovery. Personally, I don't find Geralt very interesting. He's bland, emotionless, yet perfect with whatever he does. Many times in the game I thought "Man, I would more interested in [x] if I was playing my own character, instead of this old lifeless man"

snip

It's there because having wenches and whores adds flavour to the world. It makes it feel like a medieval world. If there's a dirty world full of racism and political strife and rape and murder, having sex adds to the world you've built. You might know this, but sex is an important part of relationships. Hence why it's a key part of Geralt and Triss' relationship. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

Having sex adds to the world you've build? (also, that would be MUCH more then 1%) Its not that the sex is bad, its that there is sex everywhere. If sex is so valuable and important the Geralt and Triss, why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he find? dosn't that kinda makes the meaning of sex LESS valuable?

Also, why in this world full of racism, political strife, and murder, is Geralt the only good person? seems very out of place to me.

How is it integral to the plot? The plot is about Geralt trying to get back his memories and the stolen Witcher chemicals against a backdrop of political strife in Temeria. In TW1 Geralt gets the choice between Shani and Triss. I went with Triss since she seemed more pragmatic and as a sorceress she could look after Alvin and deal with his unpredictable powers more than Shani good. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

It was? funny, I thought the plot was with the Scoia'tael and Vernon Roche with everything you do to progress requires their approval.

As for the first Witcher, I can't really comment on it, but I'm not talking about Witcher 1 anyway.

You clearly have never played or understand the world. You may not be aware of this but in medieval Poland, there is no contraception. There's no pill, no morning after bill, no implants and no condoms. You might also not know since you obviously haven't paid attention to the game, that Witchers are STERILE and IMMUNE TO DISEASES. This means having sex with a Witcher, such as Geralt, won't make women pregnant, or at risk of STDs such as syphilis. That's why women are throwing themselves at Geralt. That's not even adding in that Geralt just kills whoever he wants and can offer protection to women and acts chivalrously whilst most other men are misogynists. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

Not paid attention? or Not proving well enough information/significance? Maybe we did hear about it, but why would we care?

Again, this goes back to the point of "more then 1% sex scenes" So now we have a man, that any women in this world dream of having, cannot get pregnant or STDs from, and happens to be the "protecting" man in a world where others treat women as crap. Women throwing themselves at Geralt. think about that sentence. You sure that the game wasn't focusing on fantasy sex?

Its a fantasy sex game, not a dark, mature game.

 

[endtherapture]

As I just posted, I agree. Too much random sex, death, and hate, all trying to scream "look at me! Im a mature game!" Also, I feel like Witcher 2 would not be as a popular game (game mechanics are shallow, Questing is annoying, Map and pathing is buggy) if it wasn't for the sex scenes, which is really disappointing since now other developers are going to think "sex scenes are better then gameplay".

Only thing I will disagree with though, is that Skyrim's "dark" scenes are not forced per say, but scripted. Its definitely more mature in the sense that the world is put together better.

You clearly haven't played The Witcher 1/2.

I have a girlfriend. I don't need to play a game for 3D characters having sex. I play The Witcher for it's complex and intruiging political storyline set to the backdrop of Geralt's quest for self discovery.

If you think people play this game for sex you're kidding yourself. It's not some Japanese dating simulator. The sex is literally 1% of the game experience.

Yes, I played Witcher 2 (havent got around to the first one though)

Have you seen any of the many reviews on the Witcher 2? (hint, almost all of them talk about the sex scenes) have you seen that any game that tries a sex scene gets compared to Witcher 2 scenes? How often when Witcher 2 is mentioned, that people talk about its sex scenes? its a lot more then 1%. Just because you and I don't need/like it, doesn't mean there are many others who do. It may not be as extreme as other games, but its still a heavy influence and selling point.

Also, there wasn't much self-discovery for Geralt, until the very end (even then not much was revealed). Most of the time, you were helping others with their politics and issues then your self-discovery. Personally, I don't find Geralt very interesting. He's bland, emotionless, yet perfect with whatever he does. Many times in the game I thought "Man, I would more interested in [x] if I was playing my own character, instead of this old lifeless man"

snip

It's there because having wenches and whores adds flavour to the world. It makes it feel like a medieval world. If there's a dirty world full of racism and political strife and rape and murder, having sex adds to the world you've built. You might know this, but sex is an important part of relationships. Hence why it's a key part of Geralt and Triss' relationship. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

Having sex adds to the world you've build? (also, that would be MUCH more then 1%) Its not that the sex is bad, its that there is sex everywhere. If sex is so valuable and important the Geralt and Triss, why does Geralt sleep with any/all women he find? dosn't that kinda makes the meaning of sex LESS valuable?

Also, why in this world full of racism, political strife, and murder, is Geralt the only good person? seems very out of place to me.

How is it integral to the plot? The plot is about Geralt trying to get back his memories and the stolen Witcher chemicals against a backdrop of political strife in Temeria. In TW1 Geralt gets the choice between Shani and Triss. I went with Triss since she seemed more pragmatic and as a sorceress she could look after Alvin and deal with his unpredictable powers more than Shani good. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

It was? funny, I thought the plot was with the Scoia'tael and Vernon Roche with everything you do to progress requires their approval.

As for the first Witcher, I can't really comment on it, but I'm not talking about Witcher 1 anyway.

You clearly have never played or understand the world. You may not be aware of this but in medieval Poland, there is no contraception. There's no pill, no morning after bill, no implants and no condoms. You might also not know since you obviously haven't paid attention to the game, that Witchers are STERILE and IMMUNE TO DISEASES. This means having sex with a Witcher, such as Geralt, won't make women pregnant, or at risk of STDs such as syphilis. That's why women are throwing themselves at Geralt. That's not even adding in that Geralt just kills whoever he wants and can offer protection to women and acts chivalrously whilst most other men are misogynists. But you wouldn't know, since you're pre-judging the game without playing it.

Not paid attention? or Not proving well enough information/significance? Maybe we did hear about it, but why would we care?

Again, this goes back to the point of "more then 1% sex scenes" So now we have a man, that any women in this world dream of having, cannot get pregnant or STDs from, and happens to be the "protecting" man in a world where others treat women as crap. Women throwing themselves at Geralt. think about that sentence. You sure that the game wasn't focusing on fantasy sex?

Its a fantasy sex game, not a dark, mature game.

Jehsus christ can someone who has played The Witcher tell this dude how wrong he is because I seriously don't know where to start on the amount of things that are wrong with his argument.

The Witcher 2 isn't based around sex. It's based around a political story and a quest for self discovery in a mature fantasy world. Unless you're 13, or some born again Christian who sees sex as the focus of everything whilst simultaneously condemning it, then you won't see it as a "fantasy sex game". You're literally insulting everyone who plays the game as some horny teenager virgin who only plays it to see 3D boobs...

Pathetic.

 

[InfinityX]

Jehsus christ can someone who has played The Witcher tell this dude how wrong he is because I seriously don't know where to start on the amount of things that are wrong with his argument.

The Witcher 2 isn't based around sex. It's based around a political story and a quest for self discovery in a mature fantasy world. Unless you're 13, or some born again Christian who sees sex as the focus of everything whilst simultaneously condemning it, then you won't see it as a "fantasy sex game". You're literally insulting everyone who plays the game as some horny teenager virgin who only plays it to see 3D boobs...

Pathetic.

No I just see people like you, who cannot make a good counter argument/discussion and instead of having a civil discussion, you instead go off on a tangent and start attacking the poster.

don't go out and say Witcher 2's sex is an important feature and is "world building" then go out and dismiss it saying you should ignore it. I know Sex isn't the main feature, but its a selling point. Its still a major feature of the game. While there is a political story, its (to me) muffled by the obvious, looming sex-fantasy, The very bland characters, and a poor character development. Its why I make my point that the Witcher's "dark" fantasy is poorly done.

You've explained why YOU like the game. YOU don't play it for the sex scenes, but YOU are just YOU. Unless you polled the entire playerbase that played the game, YOU cannot make the assumption that everyone plays it for a political story and ignores the sex scenes.

Also, I find "mature" is subjective and I wouldn't call Witcher 2 a "mature" game. Unless you're willing to debate what "mature" means (which I think some posters were doing).

If you like the game, more power to you, but don't go around saying that whoever disagrees with you is a 13 year old.

cause that what 13-year olds do.

Don't be a 13-year old.