The Failure of 'Dark' Fantasy

[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

 

[deathbydeath]

personally what annoys me the most is how they think "dark" and "mature" means misery porn
dark souls being the worst offender to me here
it's so "dark" it feels like abad grimdark fanfiction
like warhammer 40k but taking itself way more seriously

I find this interesting because I just watched this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcBCCVGbVfA] earlier today.

Actually OP, the term "Dark Fantasy" (according to Wikipedia) is just a subgenre of fantasy that has elements of horror incorporated into it. Nothing about the subgenre brings along implied claims of "maturity" you (and everyone else who thinks like you) are just making those up. In fact, Charles Grant coined the term as "a type of horror story in which humanity is threatened by forces beyond human understanding".

I guess the moral of this thread is to not assume what words mean by connotation alone.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

personally what annoys me the most is how they think "dark" and "mature" means misery porn
dark souls being the worst offender to me here
it's so "dark" it feels like abad grimdark fanfiction
like warhammer 40k but taking itself way more seriously

I find this interesting because I just watched this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcBCCVGbVfA] earlier today.

Actually OP, the term "Dark Fantasy" (according to Wikipedia) is just a subgenre of fantasy that has elements of horror incorporated into it. Nothing about the subgenre brings along implied claims of "maturity" you (and everyone else who thinks like you) are just making those up. In fact, Charles Grant coined the term as "a type of horror story in which humanity is threatened by forces beyond human understanding".

I guess the moral of this thread is to not assume what words mean by connotation alone.

OK. Look, don't insult me. I have my degree in Literature, and have forgotten more than most people will ever know about words and their definitions. The definition you gave is pointless, because we have a common discoursal signified. I would explain what that is, but since you insulted me, I don't think I need to bother. Intellectually speaking, you just tried to act all high and mighty, but you just shot yourself in the foot.

Also, when speaking of literary studies, Wikipedia is often either incorrect or grossly oversimplified. This is why college professors usually do not allow it as a source in academic papers past a certain point.

 

[Bombiz]

One of my favourite stories is Dark Fantasy (Berserk), but the genre can be prone to indulgence. Just as cyber- or steampunk can go overboard with their concepts.

And actually I'd say Tolkien is the reason Fantasy has stagnated, or should I say, the fans of Tolkien. Dragon Age: Origins can feel painfully generic at times, because it goes so unashamedly for that Lord of the Rings setting. Fantasy needs to step away from the medieval setting all together.

you know what we need more of in fantasy. Rome.
i honestly don't know why more fantasy stories take place in a Roman like setting.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

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.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Tolkien wasn't trying to be realistic. His work was based on the stories and mythology of the periods he studied. Thus claiming his credentials have anything to do with the genre of fiction he wrote is absurd.

Your issue appears to be with the fact that there are two genres of fantasy - High Fantasy and Low Fantasy.

Tolkien wrote High Fantasy, a sub-genre of fantasy characterized by many varied and fantastic races, extensive powerful magic, and epic battles between good and evil.

Sapkowski, author of the Witcher novels (upon which the games are based), wrote Low Fantasy, a sub-genre of fantasy characterized by a few more realistic races (or just humans), weak or dangerous magic, and complex battles involving shades of gray. The Conan the Barbarian novels are another example of Low fantasy.

Dragon Age was heavily inspired by the Witcher novels and other low fantasy fiction. It is a work of Low Fantasy. It isn't trying to be anything other than low fantasy. The Elder Scrolls is also a fairly low-fantasy setting.

If you dislike Low Fantasy works, that's fine. But don't get upset with Low Fantasy for not being High Fantasy. It's like being upset with a Space Opera for not being Steam Punk - they're two different sub-genres.

 

[JazzJack2]

personally what annoys me the most is how they think "dark" and "mature" means misery porn
dark souls being the worst offender to me here
it's so "dark" it feels like abad grimdark fanfiction
like warhammer 40k but taking itself way more seriously

Huh that?s odd because Dark Souls is one of the first games I'd think of when it comes to a good Dark Fantasy game, and 'grimdark' (and by that I assume you mean edgy or try hard) is certainly the last the thing I'd call it.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

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.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Tolkien wasn't trying to be realistic. His work was based on the stories and mythology of the periods he studied. Thus claiming his credentials have anything to do with the genre of fiction he wrote is absurd.

When did I ever say Tolkien was trying to be realistic? you are misunderstanding my point. Besides, Genre study is a completely corrupt field, and I never take genre into account because it is often co-opted by marketing. Really, there are only three true genres, the fiction, the memoir, and the biography. This is a much more classical and accurate definition of genre.

 

[Albino Boo]

I think it's only natural for fantasy to begin incorporating darker themes and creating a more realistic portrayal of a medieval setting. Remember, Tolkien was pretty much the architect of the fantasy genre as we currently know it, but he wrote his books in the 1930s and 40s, a time when not just fantasy, but most literature was written in a very "clean" way. I doubt that Tolkien wrote his books the way he did because he was trying to make them realistic, but rather because he was trying to make something that was entertaining and that would sell, and at the time fantasy sold mostly to children, and so he wrote in a way that wouldn't seem offensive to children. It's hard to write something grimdark when it's meant to be for children, especially in the 1930s.

Now that fantasy is more accepted by adults as being for adults authors like to include things that they perceive to be more adult in nature. In video games this can tend to get a little over the top, and does anything "adult" but I wouldn't say this is a failure of the fantasy genre as a whole, or a reason to say that "dark" fantasy doesn't work, it's basically a problem of an industry still trying to cater to children and adults at the same time, which waters tends to water down any adult elements in the work and makes them somewhat cartoony instead.

I would like to point that by the time that the Hobbit was published DH Lawrence was already dead and works like 20,000 streets under the sky were mainstream novels. Writing was not "clean" in the 1930s by any means.


You have to remember that Tolkien convinced of hobbits while in the trenches of WW1 and wrote the Hobbit in the midst of the great depression. Most of the Lord of the Rings was written to the sound of German bombers on they way to Coventry and Birmingham. The real world was a very dark place and some escapist fantasy was the order of the day.

 

[deathbydeath]

OK. Look, don't insult me.[sup]1[/sup] I have my degree in Literature[sup]2[/sup], and have forgotten more than most people will ever know about words and their definitions[sup]3[/sup]. The definition you gave is pointless[sup]4[/sup], because we have a common discoursal signified. I would explain what that is, but since you insulted me[sup]5[/sup], I don't think I need to bother[sup]6[/sup]. Intellectually speaking, you just tried to act all high and mighty[sup]7[/sup], but you just shot yourself in the foot[sup]8[/sup].

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for a footnote party.

1: I never insulted you; all I said was that you and people who thought the way you did were basing your arguments on assumptions, which you haven't really denied (you just said the definition I brought up was pointless). I do apologize if you felt slighted by my post though, as I did not intend for that to happen.

2: Awesome, you have a degree in something you capitalized incorrectly [http://www.pdx.edu/university-communications/editorial-style-guide-capitalization]. You're filling me with faith, boss.

3: Okay cool, but why did you forget these things? Did you not study enough, are the courses you went through so rigorous your brain couldn't contain every single definition thrown at you, or has it simply been a long time since you got your degree? More to the point, how does you forgetting all of these definitions win you the argument? Also, isn't that logic an argumentum ab auctoritate or an argumentum ad verecundiam?

4: Not necessarily, because even though you were generalizing the conversation that doesn't disallow me from bringing it up in discussion. In fact, I can even think of ways where it can be used to bolster your point. I will confess that my I was largely thinking of the posts replying to yours when I composed my post, but I do not feel that doing that is cause to dismiss my point entirely. Again, feel free to dissuade me if you want to.

5. See number one.

6. I feel like there should be something called a "Canadian Girlfriend Argument" and it should refer to logic like this.

7. You are incorrect. I never claimed to be superior in any way; in fact you started the trend of "high and mighty" by flashing your Literature degree around. Pointing out the flaws in something does not mean that person is claiming to be above them.

8. Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no lead to be found in my feet. Next time, maybe?

 

[Ryan Hughes]

1: I never insulted you; all I said was that you and people who thought the way you did were basing your arguments on assumptions, which you haven't really denied (you just said the definition I brought up was pointless). I do apologize if you felt slighted by my post though, as I did not intend for that to happen.

2: Awesome, you have a degree in something you capitalized incorrectly [http://www.pdx.edu/university-communications/editorial-style-guide-capitalization]. You're filling me with faith, boss.

3: Okay cool, but why did you forget these things? Did you not study enough, are the courses you went through so rigorous your brain couldn't contain every single definition thrown at you, or has it simply been a long time since you got your degree? More to the point, how does you forgetting all of these definitions win you the argument? Also, isn't that logic an argumentum ab auctoritate or an argumentum ad verecundiam?

4: Not necessarily, because even though you were generalizing the conversation that doesn't disallow me from bringing it up in discussion. In fact, I can even think of ways where it can be used to bolster your point. I will confess that my I was largely thinking of the posts replying to yours when I composed my post, but I do not feel that doing that is cause to dismiss my point entirely. Again, feel free to dissuade me if you want to.

5. See number one.

6. I feel like there should be something called a "Canadian Girlfriend Argument" and it should refer to logic like this.

7. You are incorrect. I never claimed to be superior in any way; in fact you started the trend of "high and mighty" by flashing your Literature degree around. Pointing out the flaws in something does not mean that person is claiming to be above them.

8. Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no lead to be found in my feet. Next time, maybe?

Yes, you are insulting me. First off, why do you even think I put the word "Dark" in quotations in the title of this thread, said that "it was often called" Dark Fantasy? Because I have serious problems with that term, but considering the common discourse here, I did not think it important enough to bring up, because it would make me sound asinine if I did. That is just one of the reasons that the definition that you brought in is pointless, and designed just to insult and make you feel superior, not add anything of value to this conversation. Yes, it is Literature with a capital L in most formats, but again, I am not asinine enough to care.

Anyway, have a nice life, because I cannot bring myself to spend any more time arguing with you.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

The trick to playing anything that falls within the limits of Dark Fantasy is to unhook your brain and generally accept that this subgenre comes from a ton of fairly worn-out clichés. The main misunderstanding I see others fall prey to is in assuming that stuff like Dragon Age is "mature". It isn't, seeing as it'll flip-flop between racial exclusion issues and... witch-requisite Boob Windows. See Flemeth and Morrigan for examples.

Dark Fantasy isn't mature, it's more the byproduct of someone's attempt at slapping pseudo-adult themes onto a universe that's still generally filled with whimsical cop-outs or "Get out of Jail Free" cards. In this case, consider Menzoberranzan and how there's absolutely no context given for Drizzt Do'Urden's fairly sensitive personality. He emerges out of the Underdark's shadows as a fully-formed and empathetic individual, when even with Zaknafein's involvement, he should have turned pretty shy of Malice's generally despicable nature. He's the one Drow whose State of Nature seems to be a generally kind person, when a tiny bit of research in sociology tells us that if anything, most people are pushed by nature to be greedy and opportunistic assholes. It's that kind of dichotomy that really kills the whole Dark Fantasy angle.

Dragon Age is guilty of the same general problems. It'll spend the series showing you that being one of the Dalish means you're set up for a pretty shitty lifestyle, only to let you rise out of that cesspool and oppose hope to the series' beloved sense of helplessness. Whenever you approach something that resembles conflict resolution, the scenario then pushes you deeper into its general negativity.

The long and short of it is that most forms of Dark Fantasy are forced. The best and extreme example of this would be Warhammer 40K, in which there's absolutely no effort whatsoever that's being undertaken to try and end this "grim darkness". After a few playthroughs of Dawn of War II, I mostly just didn't care about the setting anymore - not when the very concept behind the Imperium of Man feels like the work of a twelve year-old who's out to prove to an English teacher that he can tackle "grown-up" emotional angles.

On the other hand, series like the Elder Scrolls and the Witcher carry some darkness in themselves, but these dark spots feel like they belong. They're *part* of their universe's ecosystem and aren't uselessly magnified to give the overall package a grittier feel. Despite the threat of the dragons and the brewing civil war, you get the sense that life goes on in Skyrim. Mothers aren't clutching starving infants and you aren't beset with the sight of burning villages every few feet. The same could be said of the Witcher, as the dark parts are rooted in the world's lore and politics; as opposed to being painted on so things look "serious".

 

[Nieroshai]

I think the problem is that you aren't letting a story be a story. The moment you label it, you have expectations, and if you disappoint easily, it will spoil just about anything.

 

[Theminimanx]

This, so much this. It's almost become engraved in modern people's minds that fantasy is a medieval only setting. They can comprehend that there could easily be modern fantasy. Shadowrun has modern fantasy and it is awesome combining magic powers with guns.

I might have to play that now. What's the gameplay like?

Edit for extra value:
I don't have a lot of experience with dark fantasy, mainly because I don't watch things that don't have an end in sight. I took a brief look at the witcher 1 & 2, and my immediate thought was: Why should I care about any of these people (especially the "Oh noes! Someone got killed. Now you must care." characters, such as the king). And if I don't care, why don't I just leave this hellhole of a country?

Anyway, my main problem with fantasy in general is that it limits itself to elves and dwarves in a medieval setting. Why can't we have a story set in, say the ottoman empire. Or a story in which fallen london is now in a cavern the size of europe, and populated with devils, mummies, octopus man and things that sound like the come from a Lovecraft novel. Oh wait, we do. www.fallenlondon.com
Why can't we have more of this?

 

[Elfgore]

This, so much this. It's almost become engraved in modern people's minds that fantasy is a medieval only setting. They can comprehend that there could easily be modern fantasy. Shadowrun has modern fantasy and it is awesome combining magic powers with guns.

I might have to play that now. What's the gameplay like?

Picture Counter Strike with Trolls, Dwarfs, Elves, and Humans. Each race has different abilities, I can't remember any since it has been a long time sine I played it.

Here is a gameplay vid, sorry about the quality. It was all I could find.


It's also only available on PC and 360 and it came out in 2007. The servers may be dead.

 

[Theminimanx]

This, so much this. It's almost become engraved in modern people's minds that fantasy is a medieval only setting. They can comprehend that there could easily be modern fantasy. Shadowrun has modern fantasy and it is awesome combining magic powers with guns.

I might have to play that now. What's the gameplay like?

Picture Counter Strike with Trolls, Dwarfs, Elves, and Humans. Each race has different abilities, I can't remember any since it has been a long time sine I played it.

Here is a gameplay vid, sorry about the quality. It was all I could find.


It's also only available on PC and 360 and it came out in 2007. The servers may be dead.

Meh, doesn't look like it has much of a story focus. Shame.
Besides, there's not much point if the servers are dead.

 

[Bombiz]

This, so much this. It's almost become engraved in modern people's minds that fantasy is a medieval only setting. They can comprehend that there could easily be modern fantasy. Shadowrun has modern fantasy and it is awesome combining magic powers with guns.

I might have to play that now. What's the gameplay like?

Picture Counter Strike with Trolls, Dwarfs, Elves, and Humans. Each race has different abilities, I can't remember any since it has been a long time sine I played it.

Here is a gameplay vid, sorry about the quality. It was all I could find.


It's also only available on PC and 360 and it came out in 2007. The servers may be dead.

Meh, doesn't look like it has much of a story focus. Shame.
Besides, there's not much point if the servers are dead.

i don't think that's the one he's talking about.

heres the one he was talking about

This, so much this. It's almost become engraved in modern people's minds that fantasy is a medieval only setting. They can comprehend that there could easily be modern fantasy. Shadowrun has modern fantasy and it is awesome combining magic powers with guns.

I might have to play that now. What's the gameplay like?

Edit for extra value:
I don't have a lot of experience with dark fantasy, mainly because I don't watch things that don't have an end in sight. I took a brief look at the witcher 1 & 2, and my immediate thought was: Why should I care about any of these people (especially the "Oh noes! Someone got killed. Now you must care." characters, such as the king). And if I don't care, why don't I just leave this hellhole of a country?

Anyway, my main problem with fantasy in general is that it limits itself to elves and dwarves in a medieval setting. Why can't we have a story set in, say the ottoman empire. Or a story in which fallen london is now in a cavern the size of europe, and populated with devils, mummies, octopus man and things that sound like the come from a Lovecraft novel. Oh wait, we do.
Why can't we have more of this?

or a story set in Roman Times or during the bronze age's.
also the link you posted is broken. just fyi.

 

[Isra]

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.

It doesn't seem all that off topic to me... I mean if you're going to say dark fantasy has failings then we should at least define what dark fantasy is, right? And it's true that it is a broad label and can be applied to many very different works, but dark fantasy does actually have a clear definition. It is fantasy that is deeply rooted in horror. Sexuality, gore, rape and murder can exist outside of the horror genre quite happily, so these elements alone don't make something dark fantasy. They must be conveyed in such a way as to unnerve or invoke fear.

The original Diablo would be a good example of a dark fantasy game. We follow our hero's descent into hell both physically and psychologically. Our hero is not a highly empowered one but rather is an ordinary warrior on the defensive in dealing with something unknown and supernatural appearing in a quiet town. It's a game with realistic depictions of naked and dismembered human bodes, satanic rituals and spells, claustrophobic corridors, a disturbingly insane human antagonist and a few psychological twists. It's suffocating, frightening, unnerving and weird (at least it was at the time, a modern gamer would probably have zero emotional response just from overexposure). And it has a decisively bad ending for both our hero and the prince he intends to save. It's very much a work of horror.

As for Witcher and DA:O, I really disagree that they're dark fantasy at all. Neither have strong horror elements. They simply don't set out to disempower, unnerve and scare us. In fact in both games we are empowered with both knowledge and innate superhuman skills, we have the upper hand and no real reason to feel primal fear. We are set on a quest with tangible goals and milestones rather than plunged into the unknown for a single, almost hopeless purpose.