Am I crazy? DA2

[Avilan the Grey]

Because a tragedy is a very different thing from a terrible news story. Tragedy - at least the classic Greek formulation - is all about the cathartic resolution of the protagonist's destruction. 'Pity and horror' as Plato put it. Then we feel good because all that terrible stuff didn't happen to us.

But that is not how I react. My reaction is the same as when I watch a "Kringe Comedy", aka I do not find the "humor" funny because I feel too sorry for the protagonist being made a fool of in embarassing ways.

I don't get the "I feel good because it didn't happen to me"; I feel AWFUL because it happened to ANYONE. How can that be entertaining at all?

Edit: I think there are (at least) two types of audiences: the one that has strong oppinions about story and writing and doesn't really care about what the writing is about, and the one that has strong oppinions about content.
I have this argument a lot with one of my best friends, who insists that I should watch Breaking Bad, The Wire etc. and when I say I cannot enjoy it because of the subject matter he just doesn't get it. He is of the former category. I am of the latter category; I cannot stommach anything with a (true) villain protagonist unless they get severely punished by the end of the story. I prefer comedy over drama and will much rather watch badly written comedy over decent written drama.

I never really got why people were so convinced the Dragon Age games were dark fantasy in the first place. Too many player heroics by half for that.

And why would you go play a game you know you hate? Suffering through the thing won't make you get any more value out of the pre-order. Given it's an entertainment product, I'd rather think it gives even less value for the money.

I don't care much for labels, but I fail to see how a game with no heroics in it of any kind would be fun. Unless it's a simulation game of course (Sim City, Rollercoaster Tycoon, The Sims).

And I want to play it because I pre-ordered the digital collector's edition and it is constantly bugging me that I have not finished it.

[Kish]

I know, I'm in a minority here,

Not at all. Avilan is.

[Avilan the Grey]

Not at all. Avilan is.

Indeed so

[warty goblin]

But that is not how I react. My reaction is the same as when I watch a "Kringe Comedy", aka I do not find the "humor" funny because I feel too sorry for the protagonist being made a fool of in embarassing ways.

I don't get the "I feel good because it didn't happen to me"; I feel AWFUL because it happened to ANYONE. How can that be entertaining at all?

Edit: I think there are (at least) two types of audiences: the one that has strong oppinions about story and writing and doesn't really care about what the writing is about, and the one that has strong oppinions about content.
I have this argument a lot with one of my best friends, who insists that I should watch Breaking Bad, The Wire etc. and when I say I cannot enjoy it because of the subject matter he just doesn't get it. He is of the former category. I am of the latter category; I cannot stommach anything with a (true) villain protagonist unless they get severely punished by the end of the story. I prefer comedy over drama and will much rather watch badly written comedy over decent written drama.

That's definitely a matter of taste. In which case I suggest you don't play tragedies. Which shouldn't be hard, there's maybe one game that could loosely qualify made a year, if that. Personally I love a good tragedy, they're just not particularly common.

The other problem is that games suck at tragedy, probably worse than they suck at most other forms of narrative which is really saying something. It's hard to marry the catharsis of watching a character you identify with fail horribly and be utterly destroyed with the nonstop power fantasy that games are really set up to provide.

I don't care much for labels, but I fail to see how a game with no heroics in it of any kind would be fun. Unless it's a simulation game of course (Sim City, Rollercoaster Tycoon, The Sims).

Heroics was possibly the wrong word. What I mean is that thing where you show up, everybody instantly decides you are the most important thing in town, and sets up opportunities for you to go around being awesome and feeling good. It's kinda hard to really do the dark thing when you're still bopping about rescuing grandmothers and finding ancestral armors. The monsters are just a bit uglier is all.

And I want to play it because I pre-ordered the digital collector's edition and it is constantly bugging me that I have not finished it.

Speaking as somebody who pre-ordered the physical collector's edition of Elemental: War of Magic, I strongly recommend not playing it if you don't enjoy it. You won't somehow get more value out of your purchase by dragging yourself through an experience you hate, so don't do it. The money will be just as wasted either way; only difference being that not playing it saves you about sixty hours.

This is also why I don't pre-order stuff anymore.

[Mx.Silver]

I never really got why people were so convinced the Dragon Age games were dark fantasy in the first place.

I think it's because Bioware seem insistent that's what they are. It's the question of whether you class something as part of the style it's trying to be, even if it isn't doing a good job of it.

The other problem is that games suck at tragedy, probably worse than they suck at most other forms of narrative which is really saying something. It's hard to marry the catharsis of watching a character you identify with fail horribly and be utterly destroyed with the nonstop power fantasy that games are really set up to provide.

See, I wouldn't say games are set-up to provide power fantasies so much as they are expected to provide power fantasies. See, mechanically there's not really much about games that prevents them from avoiding empowerment (with the exception of RPG mechanics, although it's possible to work around that) it's just that a lot of people playing them expect them to cater to this and get cranky when they don't (expect to see cries of 'railoding!' and other nonsense). This may change depending on how the 'which games are really games' argument ends though*.

This can be worse in some genres than others, and again western RPGs are pretty bad for this. The reason DA2 comes across as being interesting is because it's actually trying to avoid being the standard big power-fantasy (I'm hesitant about calling it a tragedy, because its overall narrative isn't actually that tragic). The problem was, as I've said before, that it was titled as a direct sequel to Dragon Age Origins, which is probably the single biggest power-fantasy game Bioware have produced to date. Hence why playing as Hawke, a character who is competent but limited in terms of power and influence, didn't sit well with some fans of the previous game.





*a funny little irony I've seen here is that a fair few people calling for splitting videogames into 'games' and 'not-real-games' are the same people who strongly objected to accepting a definition of 'art' that would have counted some but not all games as art.

[Avilan the Grey]

*a funny little irony I've seen here is that a fair few people calling for splitting videogames into 'games' and 'not-real-games' are the same people who strongly objected to accepting a definition of 'art' that would have counted some but not all games as art.

Never understood why the same thing can be valid for games as for any other media: It CAN be art but it doesn't HAVE to be art. Like movies, music etc. Beethoven is art. Jedward is not.

[warty goblin]

I think it's because Bioware seem insistent that's what they are. It's the question of whether you class something as part of the style it's trying to be, even if it isn't doing a good job of it.

Point. In which case they're terrible dark fantasy. Probably better off leaving them at with bog standard fantasy.

See, I wouldn't say games are set-up to provide power fantasies so much as they are expected to provide power fantasies. See, mechanically there's not really much about games that prevents them from avoiding empowerment (with the exception of RPG mechanics, although it's possible to work around that) it's just that a lot of people playing them expect them to cater to this and get cranky when they don't (expect to see cries of 'railoding!' and other nonsense). This may change depending on how the 'which games are really games' argument ends though*.

Most gameplay is centered around competition, and specifically around killing lots of things to get what you want. It's pretty hard to not end up some sort of power fantasy with this sort of set-up. Not impossible, but very, very hard.

This can be worse in some genres than others, and again western RPGs are pretty bad for this. The reason DA2 comes across as being interesting is because it's actually trying to avoid being the standard big power-fantasy (I'm hesitant about calling it a tragedy, because its overall narrative isn't actually that tragic). The problem was, as I've said before, that it was titled as a direct sequel to Dragon Age Origins, which is probably the single biggest power-fantasy game Bioware have produced to date. Hence why playing as Hawke, a character who is competent but limited in terms of power and influence, didn't sit well with some fans of the previous game.

That seems an altogether reasonable hypothesis. I know I can't really stomach Bioware games anymore. Not because the power fantasy is too blatant, but because the attempt to dress it up as something else is simultaneously so transparent and glaringly bad.

Never understood why the same thing can be valid for games as for any other media: It CAN be art but it doesn't HAVE to be art. Like movies, music etc. Beethoven is art. Jedward is not.

I've never seen any cohesive argument as to why 'art' is a meaningful term to begin with. Mostly it seems to be a way for folks to arbitrarily elevate some things and not others, but based on no set of remotely sensible standards that I can see.

So I've started to read the word to mean 'a thing made with skill for aesthetic purpose and/or emotional impact.' So far it works really quite well. As a side benefit allows me to ignore a lot of really stupid things people claim as art, apparently because they were made by sufficiently pretentious people.

[Zevox]

I've never seen any cohesive argument as to why 'art' is a meaningful term to begin with. Mostly it seems to be a way for folks to arbitrarily elevate some things and not others, but based on no set of remotely sensible standards that I can see.

Yeah, I think that's part of why I can't bring myself to care about the whole "are games art?" argument. With no consistent, widely agreed-upon definition to the term, it is essentially meaningless. It comes across as just a nebulous concept that some gamers are trying to use to get video games as a medium to be more respected by non-gamers.

[Avilan the Grey]

Yeah, I think that's part of why I can't bring myself to care about the whole "are games art?" argument. With no consistent, widely agreed-upon definition to the term, it is essentially meaningless.

Basically the only definition of art that works is "if anyone think it is art, it is art".

As for it's impact on the game industry: The only difference I can see is that developers can rebrand themselves as artists, and that certain publications might start reviewing games.

Oh and Roger Ebert will have to accept it

[Othesemo]

Basically the only definition of art that works is "if anyone think it is art, it is art".

Fun fact (if slightly tangential)- for most of history, the word 'art' carried none of the connotations that it does today. The word denoted skill in a craft, essentially. You might react similarly to a painter, and a man who paints houses (Oh, you're the one I pay to come in and make my house look nice! Have a gold piece, and be on your way, peasant)(Oh, you wanna live next to that guy- he gives you colored paper to hang on your walls | Oh, you wanna live next to that guy- he makes shoes). Still relevant to the modern era is the phrase 'there's an art to _____.' It wasn't until the 17th century or so that it grew distinct from science or crafts, and at that point, everyone's head just exploded from the abstraction. We haven't heard the end of the bickering yet.

Generally speaking, a given definition of art is both arbitrary and none-too-subtly linked to whatever product that definer is currently attempting to sell.

[Ronnoc]

As far as DLC recommendations both Legacy and Mark of the Assassin were leaps and bounds ahead of the main game in terms of gameplay mechanics. Legacy edges out Mark of the Assassin in terms of story although I found both to be quite enjoyable.

Disclaimer: I liked a lot of things about the main game that you apparently didn't (characters in particular). That said I was happy with it when I was operating under the assumption that there would either be an expansion or that DA3 would be continuing Hawke's story. As things stand the game feels unfinished and that has led to a somewhat soured opinion on my part.