Sign in to follow this  
itsamoose

Dishonesty in Storytelling

Recommended Posts

I recently had a little break from work and finally had a chance to sit down and play Dragon Age: Oranges Origins and am really torn about it.  First off I generally like the game, but mainly because there is just so much there and I'm particularly drawn to things with a lot of hidden depth that you can really sink your teeth into.  Since i'm rather late to the party on this one, I've had the opportunity to go around the internet and see what others thought of this game, and the general feeling I get is that the combat system worked for certain people, but the story elements are almost universally loved.  In my mind the problem with the combat mechanics is that they seem to be indifferent to the fact the game takes place in a 3D world (magic spells go through walls, characters must be at a very precise distance away to melee attack, etc), but the system I believe is competent enough for it to be fun.

My big problem with the game so far isn't necessarily in the action of the story, but in the way thematic elements are presented.  Bioware seems to have this desire to have some meaningful allegory to the real world in its story, but since virtually everything is also folded into the combat system and world I can't see it as anything other than a dishonest or perhaps juvenile representation of the real world.  Take the mages for example.  For those that don't know, in this world certain people are born with some kind of magical ability, and are generally feared or outright loathed.  This seems to be where the writers at Bioware want to talk about Racism/homophobia/other horrible things, but they have an extreme divergence from the real world.  First off, homosexuals (at least to my knowledge) cannot launch fireballs from their hands.  Neither can african, asian, native american or any other people.  In the real world this discrimination is based on irrational fear, but in the game it is based on an entirely rational one, and the conflation of the two really irks me.  Another example is the game allowing the player to make atheistic or agnostic statements about the in world religion.  However throughout a few points in this game you come across the physical manifestation of these religious elements.  You actually speak to the equivalent of Jesus' disciples, artifacts of this religion actually, explicitly, cure disease.  Imagine if the shroud of turin was able to consistently cure cancer, or if we had hard evidence that the holy grail imbues everlasting life.  To be an atheist in this world is more akin to being a holocaust denier than a principled thinker.

 

I've noticed this kind of thing in games before (mostly Bioware games, to be honest) but it has never bothered me until playing through DA:O.  I like the idea of games tackling some of these more difficult subjects, but I can't help but feel like we've always gone about it the wrong way.  I also came across a quest last night where one character is facing old age, but rather than simply present an old woman dealing with the approaching end of her life they felt the need to make it the result of some spirit's meddling.  Is it just me, or is the explicit systemization of thematic elements in games just a bad idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the religion note, while you do come across the founder of the game's main religion, you are never actually given hard evidence of the Creator she worships. You know that magic and the Fade exist for sure, but the question of whether there is divine intent behind them is left open. It's as though you met Jesus, but still had to take him on his word that he was the Son of God.

 

I won't argue that it's a particularly nuanced take, but there it is. I agree that the use of wizards/elves/dwarves to discuss real-world issues is a bit hamfisted. However, I don't think that Dragon Age handling these things poorly means that games can't handle them at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I don't think that Dragon Age handling these things poorly means that games can't handle them at all.

 

I'd actually prefer to see games handling these kinds of topics, I just don't see the need to tie them in to the game's systems.  To me, that is where you start to run into weird thematic issues that only exist because the designers make an attempt to quantify ideas like love, faith, and happiness (usually represented as some kind of progress bar).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be where the writers at Bioware want to talk about Racism/homophobia/other horrible things, but they have an extreme divergence from the real world.

 

I think this is you ascribing a correlation that Bioware wouldn't necessarily agree with. Certainly discrimination, in the abstract, is something they want to address, but for all the reasons you point out, I think they'd agree with you that there is not a one to one match with homosexuality or race. I don't think there's dishonesty there.

 

Having said that, the point of fireballs (or demonic possession) in the abstract is that mages present a legitimate danger to themselves and others. While this, again, does not map to race or homosexuality, it does, for instance, map to the ways in which, say, mental health issues are stigmatized (note that the way in which being made Tranquil is portrayed echoes the side effects that are commonly attributed to mood stabilizing drugs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a juvenile representation of the real world.

That's BioWare for you.

 

Is it just me, or is the explicit systemization of thematic elements in games just a bad idea?

I don't think you can make a general statement that it's bad, but if you systemise something you are making a statement about it. That's something games should do more and be more conscious of, because it's a way of expressing things to the audience that's unique to games. What you mentioned is an example of everyone's favourite concept, ludonarrative dissonance; the explicit narrative is telling you one thing and the game systems another. It's a problem with the execution, not the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racism is in the game, but it's not represented with the relationship between mages and templars. I see the mage/templar thing being much closer to a discussion about the relationship between personal liberties and public safety.

As far as the religion goes, the Chantry is not necessarily the source of the magic, they are just the leaders who determine how magic is allowed to be used (they also organize enforcement of those rules). There is a lot of implication that there are different rules and rulers of magic in far off places. A real-world equivalent would be drug-use in the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, the point of fireballs (or demonic possession) in the abstract is that mages present a legitimate danger to themselves and others. While this, again, does not map to race or homosexuality, it does, for instance, map to the ways in which, say, mental health issues are stigmatized (note that the way in which being made Tranquil is portrayed echoes the side effects that are commonly attributed to mood stabilizing drugs).

 

 

While that comparison does make more sense on the surface, going a little deeper I still feel it has the same problem.  That is to say, having the ability to use magic (read mental health issue) is almost seen as a benefit.  To me this prevents the game from saying anything substantial about mental health issues if, in fact, it has this kind of idea about them.

 

Racism is in the game, but it's not represented with the relationship between mages and templars. I see the mage/templar thing being much closer to a discussion about the relationship between personal liberties and public safety.

 

This makes more sense to me, but I have a hard time saying anything definitive since I don't know the intentions of the writers.

 

Edited for clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The religion thing is something that always fascinated me about D&D - in a world where praying to you God can give you material and immediate benefits, why would you ever not be religious? Like you said, it basically flips the current real-world view on religion. On planet Earth, religion is a matter of faith. But if your faith is confirmed by hard fact, the atheists out there are maybe representing their faith that there is nothing? or unwillingness to devote their life to one thing, even if you could literally talk to a diety? It's a weird kind of contradictory view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The religion thing is something that always fascinated me about D&D - in a world where praying to you God can give you material and immediate benefits, why would you ever not be religious? Like you said, it basically flips the current real-world view on religion. On planet Earth, religion is a matter of faith. But if your faith is confirmed by hard fact, the atheists out there are maybe representing their faith that there is nothing? or unwillingness to devote their life to one thing, even if you could literally talk to a diety? It's a weird kind of contradictory view. 

 

Yes, but that's not how it works in Dragon Age. Whether or not a deity or deities exist is left unanswered. There's is an ethereal world and there are creatures native to it, but questions about how that world or the corporeal one were created are still questions of faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could easily come to the conclusion that Andraste is just some sort of control-demon that has changed its name and gained unprecedented power. It's kind of like the entire egyptian god roster being a small group of extra-terrestrial colonists or the polytheism in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that's not how it works in Dragon Age. Whether or not a deity or deities exist is left unanswered. There's is an ethereal world and there are creatures native to it, but questions about how that world or the corporeal one were created are still questions of faith.

 

I don't think the actual existence of the deity is the issue, rather that the belief in the deity gives (as bkbroiler put it) immediate and material benefits.  Imagine if simply being a Christian made you run faster, jump higher, or have a higher IQ than people with other belief systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The religion thing is something that always fascinated me about D&D - in a world where praying to you God can give you material and immediate benefits, why would you ever not be religious? Like you said, it basically flips the current real-world view on religion. On planet Earth, religion is a matter of faith. But if your faith is confirmed by hard fact, the atheists out there are maybe representing their faith that there is nothing? or unwillingness to devote their life to one thing, even if you could literally talk to a diety? It's a weird kind of contradictory view. 

 

Well in a pantheistic system, I think the unwillingness to devote yourself to one thing could have its advantages. The gods are frequently at odds with one another so being "atheistic" in that sense would be like being the Switzerland of faith.

 

edit: Not getting the benefits from one god also means not catching a lot of shit from opposed gods. see: Odyssey/Iliad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The religion thing is something that always fascinated me about D&D - in a world where praying to you God can give you material and immediate benefits, why would you ever not be religious? Like you said, it basically flips the current real-world view on religion. On planet Earth, religion is a matter of faith. But if your faith is confirmed by hard fact, the atheists out there are maybe representing their faith that there is nothing? or unwillingness to devote their life to one thing, even if you could literally talk to a diety? It's a weird kind of contradictory view. 

Well in a pantheistic system, I think the unwillingness to devote yourself to one thing could have its advantages. The gods are frequently at odds with one another so being "atheistic" in that sense would be like being the Switzerland of faith.

 

edit: Not getting the benefits from one god also means not catching a lot of shit from opposed gods. see: Odyssey/Iliad.

 

In most Dungeons & Dragons settings, atheism does exist, but is based on the belief either that the gods are assholes and don't deserve to be worshiped or that worship is meaningless when it comes with material reward. It's a pretty interesting stance and one that characters in the Dragon Age franchise could adopt to good effect.

 

Of course, Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer shows that, in the Forgotten Realms setting, atheism is punished by being absorbed into the wall separating the afterlife from the rest of reality. It's a horrifying death and makes atheism much less defensible as an ideology.

 

Yes, but that's not how it works in Dragon Age. Whether or not a deity or deities exist is left unanswered. There's is an ethereal world and there are creatures native to it, but questions about how that world or the corporeal one were created are still questions of faith.

I don't think the actual existence of the deity is the issue, rather that the belief in the deity gives (as bkbroiler put it) immediate and material benefits.  Imagine if simply being a Christian made you run faster, jump higher, or have a higher IQ than people with other belief systems.

 

I don't know about you, but I think a lot of the logical basis for atheism is negated by the existence of the supernatural. If there are unknowable and uncontrollable powers outside of natural law, then certainly it's a force that deserves some kind of respect if not worship. It's a matter of giving the right name to a god, not whether one exists.

 

I'm not sure how this observation dovetails into itsamoose's initial post, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about you, but I think a lot of the logical basis for atheism is negated by the existence of the supernatural. If there are unknowable and uncontrollable powers outside of natural law, then certainly it's a force that deserves some kind of respect if not worship. It's a matter of giving the right name to a god, not whether one exists.

 

I don't believe in the Daedric Princes.  I'm sure there is a rational, scientific explanation for why I can leave lettuce, yarn, and a soul gem at a shrine, hear a disembodied voice, and then receive a Wabbajack out of thin air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the actual existence of the deity is the issue, rather that the belief in the deity gives (as bkbroiler put it) immediate and material benefits.  Imagine if simply being a Christian made you run faster, jump higher, or have a higher IQ than people with other belief systems.

 

But once again, that's not how it works in Dragon Age. Mages can cast fireballs whether or not they believe in the Chant.

 

Gormongous: I guess that depends on how you define "supernatural." Magic and the Fade in Dragon Age are taken to be part of the natural world. They are wierd and do crazy stuff, but they are observable and measurable. Similarly, quantum physics is weird and hard to understand, but you wouldn't say it's supernatural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Is it just me, or is the explicit systemization of thematic elements in games just a bad idea?

 

I definitely think that you've put your finger on some problems with DA:O, but it seems to me that these are just examples of poor execution, and not of an inherent flaw in systemizing thematic elements.

 

For example, if you're an atheist (as I am), you might make a game in which you could pray to God/gods, and even have npcs encourage you to do so, but make prayer have no impact whatsoever except waste your time. This would be a systemic statement that's an honest reflection of a certain world view (even if this isn't an accurate reflection of the nature of the world as such). There are a bunch of great examples of using systems well to communicate a point. Look at Rod Humble's independent games. Look at Cart Life. 

 

Here's a great analysis of two games about Depression in which systems do a majority of the heavy lifting in the story/theme department:

 

 

it's a way of expressing things to the audience that's unique to games

 

Yep. It seems to me that not using systems in games to communicate thematic points would be like using movie theaters to show books scrolling across the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a bunch of great examples of using systems well to communicate a point. Look at Rod Humble's independent games. Look at Cart Life. 

 

I haven't played any of Rod Humble's games or Cart Life, but from what I understand they use mechanics to support the theme rather than the other way around.  The characters' starting states, for example, are based on their life experiences rather than some statistic or racial identity.  When developers start trying to have the theme of a game inform it's mechanics, problems seem to arise, except in rare cases where the theme and mechanics overlap (Bioshock, Spec Ops: The Line, etc) which seem to be exceedingly rare.

 

But once again, that's not how it works in Dragon Age. Mages can cast fireballs whether or not they believe in the Chant.

 

Perhaps I was jumping to conclusions with that explanation, I'm only 1/4 to 1/3 of the way into DA:O so far (I think).  Although something like this exists in a number of games in things like priest/cleric classes or some in-world objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played any of Rod Humble's games or Cart Life, but from what I understand they use mechanics to support the theme rather than the other way around.  The characters' starting states, for example, are based on their life experiences rather than some statistic or racial identity.  When developers start trying to have the theme of a game inform it's mechanics, problems seem to arise, except in rare cases where the theme and mechanics overlap (Bioshock, Spec Ops: The Line, etc) which seem to be exceedingly rare.

 

I don't think I understand what you mean by having  a theme inform mechanics as opposed to the reverse.

 

Anyway, I think that modifying mechanics for thematic reasons is a great way to use systems to make a point: for example, you could have a game that involved, say, dealing pot in New York. You could make the difficulty change solely based on the race of your character, so that non-white characters are stopped by police at a higher rate than white characters, all other things being equal.

 

If the thing you want to make a point about is itself systemic (e.g. prejudice, differences in outcomes for children based on parents' wealth, etc.), shouldn't a systemic representation be the best possible way to get people to experience that system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the thing you want to make a point about is itself systemic (e.g. prejudice, differences in outcomes for children based on parents' wealth, etc.), shouldn't a systemic representation be the best possible way to get people to experience that system?

 

Bogost seems to think so.

 

 

(context)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I understand what you mean by having  a theme inform mechanics as opposed to the reverse.

 

What I meant by this is essentially what is the basis of the design and what is the result of it.  Do you start with a set of mechanics, and then try to fit some theme to them, or the other way around.  For example you could take a brawler of some description and simply change the health bar to a "happiness meter" and the health pickups to SSRIs, but that doesn't make the game about depression (and is quite crude and gross, I'm certainly not suggesting anyone do this).  All you have really done is taken a set of mechanics that can exist independent of a theme, and applied some arbitrary theme to them.  This is, in my opinion, what leads to clashes between a game's theme and mechanics where that conflict need not exist.  On the other end of the spectrum you could say I'm going to make a game about depression, then implement mechanics that fit as opposed to some pre-defined system, as seen in Depression Quest.  I would imagine most games are somewhere between these two extremes.

 

Anyway, I think that modifying mechanics for thematic reasons is a great way to use systems to make a point: for example, you could have a game that involved, say, dealing pot in New York. You could make the difficulty change solely based on the race of your character, so that non-white characters are stopped by police at a higher rate than white characters, all other things being equal.

 

This is a great example of the latter version.  The idea of a game where you have a theme, and then apply whatever mechanics to it that make sense.  Maybe the distinction here is ultimately useless because mechanics are so malleable, and the kind of problems I'm complaining about can only be seen when the overall implementation is poor.

 

If the thing you want to make a point about is itself systemic (e.g. prejudice, differences in outcomes for children based on parents' wealth, etc.), shouldn't a systemic representation be the best possible way to get people to experience that system?

 

I agree that if the point you want to make is a systemic one, then make it systemic, but more often than not I think this particular aspect is rather one dimensional.  Also I don't hope to have any conclusions drawn from this, its something I've been thinking about recently (particulary with regard to long form RPG systems) and wanted to get some other opinions on it.  Thanks to everyone for the input so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I think that modifying mechanics for thematic reasons is a great way to use systems to make a point: for example, you could have a game that involved, say, dealing pot in New York. You could make the difficulty change solely based on the race of your character, so that non-white characters are stopped by police at a higher rate than white characters, all other things being equal.

 

The Assassin's Creed games have actually started doing something like this: if you're playing as Aveline, a mixed-race woman adopted by a rich family, what makes people suspicious is determined by what you're wearing. If you're wearing fancy clothes, you're given a pass on a lot more low-profile activities but you're far more suspicious if you start running around. If you're playing as Adewale, a former slave turned assassin, there are slavers who will always treat you as suspicious. If you're playing as Edward, who's Welsh, you're only suspicious if you do assassin-y things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I see what you mean now, and it turns out I agree. It reminds me of a book I read a while back, whose name/author I can't remember, which talked about a theoretical Tetris game "about" the Holocaust in which the blocks are contorted people that you're trying to pile into a gas chamber - if you pack them in close enough, they aren't able to escape and will die, but if they aren't packed in close enough they start to become harder to manage and can eventually reach the top and escape and you lose. The obvious point being that this game is in no real sense about the Holocaust. It's a mechanical re-skin.

 

My only (minor) disagreement would be that your take doesn't allow for serendipitously finding a theme that fits your mechanics without planning them around it from the start. I think it probably has more to do with how thoughtfully it gets implemented than with when the decision is made to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clint Hocking's GDC talk about mechanics, dynamics and theme has a similar hypothetical game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this