Burgers2013 said:
This. I actually loved Sonic Adventures 1, Sonic Adventures 2: Battle, and Sonic 2006. Were they good games? I would argue that SA2 was the strongest, but they all had huge amounts of bugs/camera issues/jerky controls/terrible voice overs/etc. All kinds of problems. I still loved them. For SA2 in particular, the various challenges for each level, grinding real fast on rails in space, the occasional Knuckles/Rouge stage, and the Chao mini-games were really fun. I may have played that game more than any other game on the Gamecube. I went back and played SA (DX Director's Cut version) once I had finally gotten bored of SA2. SA1 was not as fun, but I really liked the out-of-level exploration areas.
I actually rate SA1 above SA2. SA2 makes some improvements to the gameplay (e.g. the rails), but I felt in SA1 I had more control over the characters (especially Knuckles), and better designed levels (again with Knuckles compared to Knuckles/Rouge). Likewise, in SA2 I had to deal with the mech levels, which weren't bad, per se, but not nearly as fun as the Sonic ones. In SA1, I get a plenthora of Sonic levels, but the Tails, Knuckles, Amy, and even Gamma levels tend to be fun. Except Big. Screw Big.
Also, there's the story. In a sense, both SA1 and SA2's stories are similar - tragedy happened in the past, has come full circle in the future, Chaos Emeralds must be collected to either enable or prevent said tragedy. However, I feel SA1 is far more subtle (e.g. Chaos vs. Shadow), and far more poignent in how it handles its aspects. SA1, I'd argue, is a tragedy in the literary sense (a character being trapped by circumstance), whereas SA2, not so much. Shadow has false memories of Maria, but is otherwise fully in control of his actions.
Not that SA2 is bad at all - I certainly like the game, but SA1 does manage to edge it out in my mind.
DoPo said:
Locations, its inhabitants, its perils, its features - they are all part of a bigger story. You can see what shaped the civilisations that lived there. Or what destroyed them. Or, perhaps, why there wasn't a civilisation that inhabited this part in the first place. It's like archeology seen first hand. Well, there is less digging involved. But the ruins that dot the land, for example, can tell a lot of what was there before - when was the before and why is it not here in the present are the most obvious things we can gather, but there is also things we can gleam about the purpose and nature of the time from before the fall. in Diablo 1, rooms painted in blood or strewn with corpses in bizarre but definitely present pattern tell tales of what kind of evil we are facing. In Diablo 2, the ruins of Tristram serve as a bridge to the first game and inform the player of exactly what kind of destruction awaits the entire world.
I really don't want to criticize anyone for reading into something and garnering conclusions, but, well...
Okay, take Torchlight 1. I've mentioned the 'civilization thing' I got from it, but is there really anything else? Syl mentions the "Elurians" (sp?) in the Atlantis-esque ruins, and how advanced they were (which would both fit and decry my 'passage of civilization' theory, given the goblins), but we otherwise learn nothing about them. Or the dwarfs, or the goblins, or the...things, that exist at the very bottom (demons, maybe?). No history, no culture, no nothing. The history is only something I can infer, but the rest are inseprable from the monster designs themselves (I can conclude that the dwarfs relied on mechanical things in their warfare, and that the goblins are probably a low-brow, warlike race), but this isn't much, and pretty much taken from tropes anyway.
Moving onto Diablo I (bearing in mind the line you quoted was exclusively referencing Torchlight), you mention the corpses being strewn around. Now, it's true that D1 does have a 'descent into Hell' thing going on. We go from the cathedral, to the catacombs, to Hell itself, and it's at least inferred, if not outright stated that this is a case of Hell 'spilling over' into Sanctuary. However, are the corpses really telling us anything? Maybe "demons are bad." Okay, but we knew that from the moment we encountered them in the game. In Doom we see marines impaled on spikes in the Hell sections of the game. Is a statement on demon culture being made in either case? Because impaling corpses on items as a form of ritualism or psychological warfare isn't unheard of in human history.
Moving onto Diablo II...well, of the three mentioned so far, this is the only example where outdoor areas are encountered, so let's look at them. Act I, we're in Khanduras. The ruins of Tristram are indeed encountered, but that only really tells us about Tristram - I don't really see it as being symbolic of anything else. Now, along the Blood Moor you do come across a few ruined and/or abandoned dwellings, that COULD be attributed to demons, that COULD be attributed to a statement along the lines of "look how bad things have got, they're going to get worse," that COULD be taken as a sign of storytelling...or it could be that this regions of Khanduras is just that buggered. Bearing in mind that people were in Khanduras long before Leoric came, that Khanduras had to deal with Leoric's 'mad years,' and that even further back there was the Countess. Or maybe I'm reading far too much into things. I can certainly see the possibility of this being the case, but I'm still wary because a) those ruins could be attributed to anything, and b) based on everything that's known of Diablo II's development, Blizzard North more or less subscribed to the John Carmack school of thought when it came to story in a game.
So, moving onto Act II, we come across the ruins of Aranoch. Ruins that are dated at a thousand years old. This is a bit iffy, because Fara mentions the Sin War ravaging Aranoch 1000 years ago, while the Sin War has since gone from being the overall term of a continuous conflict, to a very specific moment in history that occurred 3000 years ago in the setting. We also know from lore that came after D2 that regardless of whatever happened 1000 years ago, it was Rakkis's crusade that truly buggered Ivgorod's hold on Aranoch. But fine, let's say that solely within the context of the game, Aranoch is meant to be indicative of the fate that awaits Sanctuary's civilizations if the minions of Hell go unchallenged - not too farfetched based on what we know of the Dark Exile.
Act III, there's no ambiguity. It's stated outright that the jungle consuming Kurast/Travincal is due to Mephisto's corruption. We see it affecting both cities. I'm not sure if this is indicative or any broader theme ("sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," as the saying goes), but fine, I can live with that interpretation.
Act IV, we have Hell. A barren wasteland. I...really don't see much here. We know from later lore that a good portion of the Hell locations in D2 occur in the realms of Hatred and Destruction, so I can wrangle the idea that because of what happened to the demons that followed the Primes, there aren't that many left in these areas...maybe? That maybe Hell is symbolic of what awaits Sanctuary if the demons succeed in...whatever their goals are (yes, I know what their goals are, but they're never stated in D2 itself).
Come Act V, don't see much. Harrogath is under siege, people are in the background suffering...yeah. Not much to analyze.
So, out of all five acts, I'd say there's three cases of locations telling the story at most. If I stretch it, maybe, MAYBE, I can accept Hell being the final act of symbolism (the wasteland), but that still makes Act V the odd one out. I can lend credence to the idea of the acts being symbolic of Sanctuary's possible fate, but I'm not 100% onboard.
Funny how this goes really, since in D3, my reading is that the span of Acts I-V all touch on the same theme (humanity), yet Act V actually does the inverse of the Act I-IV take on the theme. But that's another matter, since your points only addressed Torchlight, D1, and D2. And Path of Exile. Speaking of which:
Burgers2013 said:
In Path of Exile, the areas you go through tend to be grim but they can't really hold a candle to Piety's [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-TUWPJKV3E4/maxresdefault.jpg] laboratory [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ocBwBMpIN64/maxresdefault.jpg]. On the second one, the red thing on the side of where the tiles are is blood. Lots and lots of blood. Casually looking through that level, you should be able to tell that there have been experiments going one, gruesome, at that, and they've exhausted quite a lot of...well, raw material (see first picture). Yet aren't likely to stop. It allows us to understand quite a lot more about the single person who is behind all of this. It speaks volumes, ones that you don't need people explaining you. Heck, most people in game are reluctant to talk about Piety and you can clearly understand why when you see her lair.
Again, have to take your word for it, but I'd agree that's a case of environment giving us insight into a character.
Burgers2013 said:
Oh gods, where do I begin here. OK
- the player characters aren't bad people.
I never said they were. I said that they weren't nice. That's not the same thing as being bad. Looking at them:
-Marauder: "I am a warrior, raised to honour my Ancestors, to die with a weapon in my hand and the Karui Way in my blood."
The Marauder was in chains, but still a Karui warrior, following the "Karui Way." Which, from what we learn of the Karui, basically means invading, pillaging, etc. The Karui aren't a nice people. Not that Oriath is any better, but that doesn't make the Karui saints.
-Duelist: "He had it coming. Was I supposed to bear such insults with inaction, simply because of his high birth? That lord sang a different tune with six inches of steel in his guts. Now they call me a criminal for defending my honour. I'd do the same again to anyone who crossed me."
So, not only did he kill someone for insulting him, but he expresses no regret for his actions. Now I'm not saying the guy he killed was any better, but this is a clear indication of sociopathy.
-Ranger: "No life can be owned. Not a deer's. Not a rabbit's. And not mine. Every creature has a birth-given right to live however it will. However it can. My right is to hunt. To feed off the wilderness in the understanding that, one day, will feed off me. The fat lords of Oriath have no such understanding. They call me 'poacher' and 'thief'. Clap me in irons and haul me like cargo into exile. No matter. I'll make the forests and mountains of Wraeclast my new home. My freedom and my bow... that's all I need."
The Ranger is certainly better than the others so far, since her only crime is poaching, at least by her own account. I hesitate to call her "good," but I'll willingly take her out of the "not nice" category.
-Shadow: "A flicker of movement, a knife from the dark. By the time you've seen him, it's already too late. The Shadow kills silently, without hesitation, without mercy. He is versed in many weapons, but prefers ambush and subterfuge. Hundreds have met their deaths shrieking in his traps. The Shadow has come from the Guild of the Night in Oriath for one purpose: to inflict pain and suffering on anyone who's wronged him. Exile is merely an inconvenience."
So, he's killed hundreds of people. His intro text (not the one above) doesn't express any regret. Now, I'm not claiming that the people he killed were paragons, but that doesn't make him a hero even if they weren't. He's an assassin, one who reflects "a simple job, I was told. Silence a big mouth. Get a big payout. And no one was going to be the wiser. Tidy. Except for one loose end. Me." He's betrayed, sure, but again, paid assassin.
Witch: "They were right to fear me. If only they had listened to their cowardice. Had they not taken my home with fire, I would not have taken their children."
Fun fact, I actually wrote a story based on the witch's backstory (see https://www.fanfiction.net/s/9019880/1/ by way of a shameless plug), but that aside, the witch isn't nice. Hard done by? Sure. Murderer of children, or something similar? Yes. In essence, not nice.
Templar: ""I fought, wept and bled for God and the Order. I would have died for my Templar brothers, every single one. And how do they reward my piety, my devotion? They exile me to the land of the damned. To Wraeclast."
The Templar is probably the only example of a "good" character I can name, since he's devout, understands his breathren are enthralled, etc. So fine. He's "nice."
-Scion: "There seems to be no limit to what I can do, no walls containing my talents. To my parents, I was a raw nugget to be battered and moulded into a prize for admiration, for envy... for sale. That life died on a wedding bed in Theopolis.
Today, Wraeclast offers me a new life, written not by birth, nor family, nor society. This life will be written to answer but one question: Who am I?"
The scion is a bit iffy - we know she murdered her husband, but have no idea of the circumstances. She doesn't express regret, but again, unlike say, the duelist or shadow, she didn't have a choice, at least as far as marriage went. So I'll put her in the same category as the ranger.
So, by that, we have one "nice" character (the templar), two "maybe" characters (ranger, scion), and four "not nice" characters (duelist, shadow, marauder, witch). That's still a clear majority of "not nice" in my books, and that potentially goes up to six. The ranger and scion aren't nice. Not malignant, but not nice. Far as I can tell, the entire setting of PoE is based on misery. Oriath sounds like a shithole, the Karui are warmongerers, and Wraeclast...well, Wraeclast is Wraeclast. I won't dismiss your idea that the unifying idea is freedom, but my reading is more along the lines of "we're all shits, but some people are smaller shits than others." Ideally put more eloquently than that, but go figure.
Burgers2013 said:
Hope you don't mean me, as I've not actually said that. People on this forum have a strange habit of not being able to actually read instead imagine words I've written.
No, that was a reference to another forum discussion I had years ago, back around when D3 first came out. It's why I put the exact words, so you'd know that it wasn't you (as you never used said words).
