The writing for the upcoming story content - some thoughts on the latest news article

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I am old enough to have seen, at least in the US, the time when people were going 'don't put a label on me, I am a human not a pigeon, I don't fit into a pigeon hole!' to now where everything is hyper labeled and everyone has a whole laundry list of labels.
It annoyed me when the 'don't label me!' was taken to an extreme, and it annoys me now that many people seemingly want to shove others into a specific box and label it.
Which I think is part of what is going on. People want to have everything labeled in neat little boxes, so they know exactly how to react and what to expect. If you *don't* fit into that particular label, you HAVE to fit into a different label.

When did that start? Because I can say for sure that in my country, it hasn't been like that until 2017 or 2018 or so. It is a few years now (time flies...), but actually not a long time.

In any way, for someone who's also grown up with the sentiment that not labelling oneself or others is the thing we should strive for (because it means looking at people equally and openly without putting them into a clichéd box beforehand), it's a really weird shift to observe. And then some people amass 30, 40 or 50 labels for themselves as if they were collecting medals (with the difference that we earn medals and don't just give them to ourselves) - it somehow makes the impression that it's basically mostly about self-display, with some labels being "cooler" than others, as they seem to be used rather rampantly (which can be harmful for the people who actually have a condition and can't just cast it off when it's not "a quirky trend" anymore - look at how many people suddenly claim to have autism, for example; open 20 twitter pages, 19 will label as autists - how is that possible? It contradicts all medical facts).

I was also very astonished when I read few weeks ago that there are people who feel real distress about not finding the right microlabel for themselves or that the labels they chose might not be 100% accurate... Like: If it distresses you, why do you participate in that? Where does this sudden fear of ambiguity come from (Don't we recognize something there? The idea that things must be "either - or" and clearly defined, and there can't be exceptions or shades of grey - just like the writing that becomes ever more prevalent, that we criticize here)?

Generations of people could live without microlabels just fine. There's no need just that someone who just opened my profile page immediately knows every single of my ideas, interests or habits put into a code of keywords; and most of all, why would they even need to know about intimate facts like medical conditions?! (And just like that I don't want to know everything about a fictional character at first glance, I don't want an over-obvious cliché.) And if you tell them you reject labels altogether and don't use them - really, no labels at all - , sometimes you'll get the feeling their head explodes. Same thing a few month ago when someone asked me if I "identified as gay" and I told them, no, I do not identify as gay, I am gay - they were super confused, like the concept of actually being something (you know, as a simple fact about us, not as a label to present to who knows whom) was something completely foreign.

In any way you're right, and this is closer to topic again: Many people now seem to have an extremely strong need to put everything into neat little boxes; not only themselves, but also everyone else, including all characters both real and fictional (and with it comes very strong moral judging, it seems - either "good" or "evil", nothing inbetween)

Anyway, people can do whatever they want, but I am sceptical whether people putting themselves and everyone else into ever smaller microboxes really helps in seeing what unites as all: being human. (This is the central thing, actually: People, rejecting your label game does not mean I hate you or people of your labels, I just think that the label game is not the way to reach the societal ideal I strive for, which is equality and the end of clichés and prejudices. We might even be fighting for the same thing, I just don't believe in the same methods).

Instead, I see group-thinking everywhere, and related to it, of course, "us vs the other group", etc. Obviously, that even pertains to media we enjoy or even fictional factions or characters now. Which leads to the next topic...

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

As for the bit about them not even being able to imagine that other people might think differently, I think it is partly due to people being raised and taught to take everything to heart.

This is indeed something I wonder very much about: How emotional people get over fiction. Honestly, people can hate my favorite ESO characters as much as they like; if it makes you happy, go for it!

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I can't really give any examples, because it often veers too close to political, but I have seen a lot of people dismissing others criticism of something they like, using various labels, just because they feel that part of that media represents them, and the only reason they can think someone can possibly not like it is if they are whatever label they want to apply.

Indeed. A character belonging to a "minority" can just be badly written or just not our personal taste, and it should be fine to say that. Another thing that I feel is often ignored is that criticism towards a "minority" character can also come from actual members of that minority, who are not happy about the way their group gets portrayed.

TL;DR (sorry, I'm a bit sleep-deprived right now): There seem to be general societal tendencies to put everything in neat boxes, clearly assign them to "good/bad" categories, and also to want to recognize what a person/character "is" at first glance (thus: labelling). And all that we also see in the current style of writing.

I keep going back to this, but I think the whole microlabeling thing came about because a generation of kids grew up on various social media platforms. I can't pinpoint it exactly, because for me the years blur together.

They saw how much attention others who had all these labels got, and they didn't felt like they fit in or weren't heard, so they started looking for ways that they *could* fit in. That pet site I mention has this exactly. There are people who will have 10+ label images in their signatures or their bios, and if you don't explicitly label yourself, your opinion on anything related to that label is automatically dismissed.

I do think a happy medium exists, because humans tend to be visual creatures, so we can't really live completely without labels, but the whole 'every aspect of your entire being is now reduced to labels' is definitely not the way to go. One aspect of everything that neither extreme got right is that you have to be willing to change a label if it doesn't fit. IE, if I see someone and I give them a label in my head, that shouldn't mean that they are forever that label. That label can change as I get to know the person and realize that first impressions often aren't, and shouldn't be *lasting* impressions.

I also completely agree about the whole 'everyone has X' now. DID is supposed to be pretty rare, yet this pet site I mention has several people who supposedly have it and several more who want to use it as an excuse to multiaccount. Do they have it? Idon't have a clue. But it just seems strange to me that a diagnosis that, to my understanding, is hard to get and the illness itself is supposed to be rare, is suddenly everywhere.

I think that you hit upon the true harm of the microlabels: It easily allows an 'us vs them' mentality where anyone who isn't part of the 'us' is part of the 'them' and out to get 'us'.

This has led to a rise in echochambers, where the 'us' go and make sure no 'them' opinions can get into it. Without hearing opposing viewpoints, people can no longer truly grow. Because of this, in my opinion at least, it goes back to the bit about a generation growing up on social media, which is full of echochambers and is relatively easy to set them up, and not learning the skills to deal with conflict. So, when they reach the wider world, and suddenly they are faced with conflict, they ..don't know how to deal with it. So, they do what they did when they were younger, and basically cover their ears and try to drown out anything they don't want to hear.

Because of the echochambers, they often have a whole arsenal of reasons why their opinion is the 'one true opinion' and all others must bow down or simply cease to exist on the spot, but they still can't *defend* those reasons. They often just repeating the same things over and over again.

I admit I do get emotional over fiction. That is one reason I am not really fond of Oblivion. Every time I started to like a character, well, lets just say I was very lonely at the end of the game.

But, I also don't care what you do. If you want to hate Brother Martin, go ahead. I just won't discuss it with you, outside of learning your reasoning why you dislike him. (I don't always feel up to a debate, and I am not fond of when people try to invalidate how others feel about characters, so I won't try to change people's minds about how they feel about characters, unless it is based upon a misconception :P)

I also agree about the whole 'minority' characters can be written badly, or just not mesh with a person. As said in other threads, I do not like Tanlorin. They seem too cliched and the exact type of person that I can't stand to be around. It wouldn't matter whether they were male or female, if they had the exact same personality.

Anyway, yeah, it is time for me to go as well, I sadly don't see this trend going anywhere for a while, though the more pushback it gets, maybe soon the 'silent majority' won't be silent any longer.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

and if you don't explicitly label yourself, your opinion on anything related to that label is automatically dismissed.

Yes, I've also noticed that and I'm very critical of it. It can't be that it's awaited to disclose all kinds of personal info about oneself only to be allowed to speak on a topic. While I'm aware that there are people who blabber about things they don't have knowledge about, I'd usually expect people who participate in a discussion to have a good reason to do so, especially if it's a rather non-mainstream topic. I don't think it's appropriate to demand that users share in detail how a sensitive topic might affect them in person (or close relatives or friends, etc, who haven't consented about info about them being spread either), to total strangers in an online forum. Making this demand only leads to a new problem: People might have important information on a topic, but might never be heard because they don't want to disclose personal info, so they aren't allowed to speak. And on the other hand, someone giving some background story how they were involved with a topic isn't necessarily reliable either, because someone with bad intentions could just be lying. This can warp the whole picture, so, yes, from my point of view it would be much more reasonable to remain critical, carefully consider everything people write (check whether something sounds like someone actually has expertise, for example), instead of just blindly relying on labels and whether someone claims to be part of some demography or not. But of course, this isn't as fast and easy as just putting labels on everyone and everything.

And of course the same thing also contributes to the problem that writing might be horribly skewed if people rely on the "advice" of only a few loud individuals, which certainly makes no rounded picture.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Because of this, in my opinion at least, it goes back to the bit about a generation growing up on social media, which is full of echochambers and is relatively easy to set them up, and not learning the skills to deal with conflict. So, when they reach the wider world, and suddenly they are faced with conflict, they ..don't know how to deal with it. So, they do what they did when they were younger, and basically cover their ears and try to drown out anything they don't want to hear.

Even more: They don't just close their ears, they demand for the horrible uncomfortable thing to be removed. And we're in the middle of this thread's topic again.

colossalvoids

Syldras wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

My though was that the "deeper" community isn't even interested in ESO enough to begin with

They can choose to ignore it, of course, or deny that ESO is canon - but I'm quite sure that for Bethesda it is (the Oblivion Remake has also adopted some ESO lore); and I really hope that TES6 might not be a bad awakening for them then.

colossalvoids wrote: »

and this kind of stories and writing have no appeal to mass audience and that's just it. It should be digestible enough and easy in every aspect, maybe some obscure and smart words here and there for the atmosphere but nothing close to Sotha's monologue anymore or zones like said CWC that had pretty damn good writing and lore around it. When random factotum starts a delirious rambling about fires, death and crying you might not have context for it or any point of reference of what's going on but you can just feel that's there's something about it, a subtle depth added that's a pretty absent thing nowadays. It's pretty blunt or non existent nowadays, imo at least.

Sadly!

Because social media was being mentioned; That's another aspect I'd like to criticize: the writing incresingly often seems to rely on some current fleeting topic, or even memes. Things that might be funny at the moment because people know the context, but in 5 years, maybe even in half a year, no one will remember it anymore and it will have lost its meaning in ESO and only be bland or random to the players who read it then. Especially for an on-going online game that can last for another decade or longer I don't think that's a reasonable decision. I get of course that media always mirrors some contemporary sentiments, it has always been that way, but I have the feeling it has never been as extreme as it currently is.

Can only agree on a timeless aspect, or lacking of it nowadays. That's one of the recipes for a bland "dish" in my books. People love to criticise MK or other writers creative writing outside of games on the old Beth forums but even those small RP parts still bringing way more thought and are as relevant as ever for the lore and overall context. Personal canon for me luckily is picking the best rather than picking what's being only in official releases stamped by zenimax, so I'm good on that front personally, but still ESO can present more than it is doing, we already know it as they did so and still can leave good crumbs to chew on, at rare occasions.

metheglyn

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

This has led to a rise in echochambers, where the 'us' go and make sure no 'them' opinions can get into it. Without hearing opposing viewpoints, people can no longer truly grow. Because of this, in my opinion at least, it goes back to the bit about a generation growing up on social media, which is full of echochambers and is relatively easy to set them up, and not learning the skills to deal with conflict. So, when they reach the wider world, and suddenly they are faced with conflict, they ..don't know how to deal with it. So, they do what they did when they were younger, and basically cover their ears and try to drown out anything they don't want to hear.

Because of the echochambers, they often have a whole arsenal of reasons why their opinion is the 'one true opinion' and all others must bow down or simply cease to exist on the spot, but they still can't *defend* those reasons. They often just repeating the same things over and over again.

I have noticed a general increase in people not owning their opinions as just that--an opinion. They often don't even use "I messaging" when conveying their thoughts--they speak/write as if announcing the truth from on high.

Years ago on a different forum board (I think it was WoW), someone once posted the idea that "if enough people believe something, it becomes a fact." (This was in relation to someone else correcting them on something they had stated which wasn't true). At the time I laughed at the notion, because it was so absurd, but it did stick in my memory and I have noticed that mentality gaining traction. That, and a lot of times it seems like people are trying to "win" conversations. Frankly, it's exhausting, and one reason I tend to hang back and read the forums rather than participating very much in them.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

and if you don't explicitly label yourself, your opinion on anything related to that label is automatically dismissed.

Yes, I've also noticed that and I'm very critical of it. It can't be that it's awaited to disclose all kinds of personal info about oneself only to be allowed to speak on a topic. While I'm aware that there are people who blabber about things they don't have knowledge about, I'd usually expect people who participate in a discussion to have a good reason to do so, especially if it's a rather non-mainstream topic. I don't think it's appropriate to demand that users share in detail how a sensitive topic might affect them in person (or close relatives or friends, etc, who haven't consented about info about them being spread either), to total strangers in an online forum. Making this demand only leads to a new problem: People might have important information on a topic, but might never be heard because they don't want to disclose personal info, so they aren't allowed to speak. And on the other hand, someone giving some background story how they were involved with a topic isn't necessarily reliable either, because someone with bad intentions could just be lying. This can warp the whole picture, so, yes, from my point of view it would be much more reasonable to remain critical, carefully consider everything people write (check whether something sounds like someone actually has expertise, for example), instead of just blindly relying on labels and whether someone claims to be part of some demography or not. But of course, this isn't as fast and easy as just putting labels on everyone and everything.

And of course the same thing also contributes to the problem that writing might be horribly skewed if people rely on the "advice" of only a few loud individuals, which certainly makes no rounded picture.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Because of this, in my opinion at least, it goes back to the bit about a generation growing up on social media, which is full of echochambers and is relatively easy to set them up, and not learning the skills to deal with conflict. So, when they reach the wider world, and suddenly they are faced with conflict, they ..don't know how to deal with it. So, they do what they did when they were younger, and basically cover their ears and try to drown out anything they don't want to hear.

Even more: They don't just close their ears, they demand for the horrible uncomfortable thing to be removed. And we're in the middle of this thread's topic again.

Yeah, I was going to mention that it ostracizes people who have good insights because they don't want to disclose personal information, and just because someone says 'I am X' doesn't mean they are. (I have also noticed a raise in people just outright dismissing people who say 'I am X' when their opinions don't align with the person's opinion.)

Also, using a less sensitive example, take art. I have seen people say 'if you aren't an artist you can't criticize art'. Why? Just because I can't draw a straight line with someone guiding my hand, using two rulers clamped to a desk, doesn't mean I can't have some insights about art.

No, my opinions/insights about art wouldn't necessarily be the same as an artist (who might notice things more related to technical aspects of making the art) but I can still give opinions on what I see.

Another example would be writing (to try to bring this back around :P). I may not be a writer, but I am a reader, and so have insights on things that a reader might like, and what might work and what might not.

Outside perspectives can be helpful, because everyone has to deal with 'outsiders' IE, people who *don't* have their particular problems or skills.

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

This has led to a rise in echochambers, where the 'us' go and make sure no 'them' opinions can get into it. Without hearing opposing viewpoints, people can no longer truly grow. Because of this, in my opinion at least, it goes back to the bit about a generation growing up on social media, which is full of echochambers and is relatively easy to set them up, and not learning the skills to deal with conflict. So, when they reach the wider world, and suddenly they are faced with conflict, they ..don't know how to deal with it. So, they do what they did when they were younger, and basically cover their ears and try to drown out anything they don't want to hear.

Because of the echochambers, they often have a whole arsenal of reasons why their opinion is the 'one true opinion' and all others must bow down or simply cease to exist on the spot, but they still can't *defend* those reasons. They often just repeating the same things over and over again.

I have noticed a general increase in people not owning their opinions as just that--an opinion. They often don't even use "I messaging" when conveying their thoughts--they speak/write as if announcing the truth from on high.

Years ago on a different forum board (I think it was WoW), someone once posted the idea that "if enough people believe something, it becomes a fact." (This was in relation to someone else correcting them on something they had stated which wasn't true). At the time I laughed at the notion, because it was so absurd, but it did stick in my memory and I have noticed that mentality gaining traction. That, and a lot of times it seems like people are trying to "win" conversations. Frankly, it's exhausting, and one reason I tend to hang back and read the forums rather than participating very much in them.

I will admit I am one who tends to forget to put 'in my opinion' because most of the time the things I am typing are obviously some sort of opinion. (I mean, if I say 'Chocolate Cake is the best tasting Cake!' that is obviously an opinion, but you will still have people who get upset about my not saying 'I think chocolate cake is the best tasting cake!')

Which I think often goes back to media literacy again, and circles back around to why I feel that there are more and more people who simply cannot handle things they don't like in fiction.

Because they take everything literally. They don't see people as being able to give opinions or have multi-faceted opinions. Someone saying 'Chocolate Cake is the best!' means, to these people, that this person believes that all other cake is horrible and shouldn't be allowed to exist, because it is how THEY feel about the things they like and dislike.

They can't do like I have done with pineapple on pizza. I personally think pineapple on pizza is an atrocity. But, when the pizza place called me back and told me that they had ran out of pineapple for the pineapple and ham pizza I had ordered, instead of crowing about it, I then called my brother, who was in town and would be picking up the pizzas, that he might want to pick up a can of pineapples for *his* pizza. (mine was pepperoni :P) Because his liking pineapple and ham on pizza doesn't affect me as long as he isn't trying to make me eat it. (he wouldn't dare)

So, reading something like the Dunmer issues with Slavery, and NOT having it denounced makes them uncomfortable, because they take everything literally and as Gospel from on High. This author endorses slavery! They didn't make Dunmer despicable people who everyone hates!

metheglyn

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

This has led to a rise in echochambers, where the 'us' go and make sure no 'them' opinions can get into it. Without hearing opposing viewpoints, people can no longer truly grow. Because of this, in my opinion at least, it goes back to the bit about a generation growing up on social media, which is full of echochambers and is relatively easy to set them up, and not learning the skills to deal with conflict. So, when they reach the wider world, and suddenly they are faced with conflict, they ..don't know how to deal with it. So, they do what they did when they were younger, and basically cover their ears and try to drown out anything they don't want to hear.

Because of the echochambers, they often have a whole arsenal of reasons why their opinion is the 'one true opinion' and all others must bow down or simply cease to exist on the spot, but they still can't *defend* those reasons. They often just repeating the same things over and over again.

I have noticed a general increase in people not owning their opinions as just that--an opinion. They often don't even use "I messaging" when conveying their thoughts--they speak/write as if announcing the truth from on high.

Years ago on a different forum board (I think it was WoW), someone once posted the idea that "if enough people believe something, it becomes a fact." (This was in relation to someone else correcting them on something they had stated which wasn't true). At the time I laughed at the notion, because it was so absurd, but it did stick in my memory and I have noticed that mentality gaining traction. That, and a lot of times it seems like people are trying to "win" conversations. Frankly, it's exhausting, and one reason I tend to hang back and read the forums rather than participating very much in them.

I will admit I am one who tends to forget to put 'in my opinion' because most of the time the things I am typing are obviously some sort of opinion. (I mean, if I say 'Chocolate Cake is the best tasting Cake!' that is obviously an opinion, but you will still have people who get upset about my not saying 'I think chocolate cake is the best tasting cake!')

Which I think often goes back to media literacy again, and circles back around to why I feel that there are more and more people who simply cannot handle things they don't like in fiction.

Because they take everything literally. They don't see people as being able to give opinions or have multi-faceted opinions. Someone saying 'Chocolate Cake is the best!' means, to these people, that this person believes that all other cake is horrible and shouldn't be allowed to exist, because it is how THEY feel about the things they like and dislike.

They can't do like I have done with pineapple on pizza. I personally think pineapple on pizza is an atrocity. But, when the pizza place called me back and told me that they had ran out of pineapple for the pineapple and ham pizza I had ordered, instead of crowing about it, I then called my brother, who was in town and would be picking up the pizzas, that he might want to pick up a can of pineapples for *his* pizza. (mine was pepperoni :P) Because his liking pineapple and ham on pizza doesn't affect me as long as he isn't trying to make me eat it. (he wouldn't dare)

So, reading something like the Dunmer issues with Slavery, and NOT having it denounced makes them uncomfortable, because they take everything literally and as Gospel from on High. This author endorses slavery! They didn't make Dunmer despicable people who everyone hates!

I don't think you have to always add "in my opinion" because sometimes, as with your cake example, it's obvious. (At least to me). But, like you said, people get combative when they see an opinion they don't agree with and then feel like they must prove that opinion is 'wrong'. I understand that communicating via text only (a large part of the way people do talk these days) means that tone and body language are out of consideration for helping facilitate understanding, and emojis can only go so far, so misunderstandings are bound to arise. I've seen posts on this forum that to me seem to clearly be a joke, but then someone else thinks it was a serious statement and gets offended.

Anyway, to bring it back to the game: I've seen role-playing guilds advertise for new members to a Dunmer House based guild with slavery as part of the story, and the roles they had for people included playing one of the slaves. I admit the first time I saw it, I thought: who would ever want to play a slave? But after thinking about it some more, I thought that well, it's really just acting and actors take on all sorts of roles they either wouldn't or couldn't do in real life. And the game lore does support darker topics like that. So there are enough people able to separate fact from fiction to make up that guild. (Or there were, I have no idea if that guild still exists).

I also rarely see a lot of the consternation around topics in the forums reflected much in chat in the game. Plenty of people who play the game never come to the forums, or if they do don't post on them, and so what they think of the stories and the trend towards safer writing isn't known.

P.S. You're wrong about pineapple on pizza! It's awesome!

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

(I have also noticed a raise in people just outright dismissing people who say 'I am X' when their opinions don't align with the person's opinion.)

I noticed the same, and I also see this as a result of wanting to label everything. In the end, in many cases a "label" sadly has become nothing more than the good old cliché boxes (the one we wanted to abandon, you know); and in the minds of people who care very much for this, if you're put into "box X", but don't behave like they expect it from a "box X person", they'll be totally confused or outright refuse to believe it, yes. (Which makes me wonder whether that's also a reason some might not like non-cliché, nuanced characters in fiction, because that might be too strange or complicated for them?)

Totally fits my impression, of course, that society didn't get more diverse and open in the past few years, but more rigid again (compared to the decades before that were indeed an improvement), because having more boxes to choose from instead of just 1 isn't freedom, no matter if it's 2, 3 or 5, or even 10 boxes - freedom would be having no boxes. It's a bit worrisome that many seem to think now that it's the biggest freedom on earth to have 3 or 4 choices instead of 2 in a matter, not even able to imagine anymore that we could live without predefined boxes at all.

How does this relate to the writing of current media that I want to criticize? I also get the impression there that many people not seem to be able to see individuals as something beyond a member of their group or label anymore. And this leads to what I call clichéd writing: Instead of writing an individual, authors write a member of a group (or identity, or label, or whatever to call it). They write "the hero", "the baddie", "the scholar" (or their idea of what a scholar is, to be more precise), etc. I dread the day they don't write an interesting character who happens to be gay, but "the gay". Weirdly, by now, people seemed to have understood that writing a female character with the focus of writing "a woman" leads to bad clichés - but with other groups, they don't seem to have understood that yet.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I have seen people say 'if you aren't an artist you can't criticize art'.

All it needs to study art history, for example, is a brain. One doesn't even need to be physically capable of holding a pencil. Same goes for writing, of course. Or music. Or theater. Practising something oneself is very helpful, but not absolutely necessary to have knowledge. How many opera critics have participated in an opera themselves? In that case, many people seem to understand at least that it's not essential.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

So, reading something like the Dunmer issues with Slavery, and NOT having it denounced makes them uncomfortable, because they take everything literally and as Gospel from on High. This author endorses slavery! They didn't make Dunmer despicable people who everyone hates!

What they also don't seem to understand is that this is part of mimicking a feudal society and its sentiments and habits, just like having kings and castles in the game. It's a sad truth that slavery, serfdom or other similar concepts have been very common and people found it "normal" back then. And that goes for almost every culture on this planet, really, on every continent. Is it horrible from our today's morals (which base very much on the ideals of some philosophers of Enlightenment in the 18th century)? Of course. But in the Middle Ages (or another common example: Ancient Rome) people found it "normal", so if we write a story taking place in such a society, it would be strange of the people would object to it. Again, I think the problems are having no knowledge about history, lack of media literacy, and the inability to understand that people have and had different cultural ideas.

JemadarofCaerSalis

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

This has led to a rise in echochambers, where the 'us' go and make sure no 'them' opinions can get into it. Without hearing opposing viewpoints, people can no longer truly grow. Because of this, in my opinion at least, it goes back to the bit about a generation growing up on social media, which is full of echochambers and is relatively easy to set them up, and not learning the skills to deal with conflict. So, when they reach the wider world, and suddenly they are faced with conflict, they ..don't know how to deal with it. So, they do what they did when they were younger, and basically cover their ears and try to drown out anything they don't want to hear.

Because of the echochambers, they often have a whole arsenal of reasons why their opinion is the 'one true opinion' and all others must bow down or simply cease to exist on the spot, but they still can't *defend* those reasons. They often just repeating the same things over and over again.

I have noticed a general increase in people not owning their opinions as just that--an opinion. They often don't even use "I messaging" when conveying their thoughts--they speak/write as if announcing the truth from on high.

Years ago on a different forum board (I think it was WoW), someone once posted the idea that "if enough people believe something, it becomes a fact." (This was in relation to someone else correcting them on something they had stated which wasn't true). At the time I laughed at the notion, because it was so absurd, but it did stick in my memory and I have noticed that mentality gaining traction. That, and a lot of times it seems like people are trying to "win" conversations. Frankly, it's exhausting, and one reason I tend to hang back and read the forums rather than participating very much in them.

I will admit I am one who tends to forget to put 'in my opinion' because most of the time the things I am typing are obviously some sort of opinion. (I mean, if I say 'Chocolate Cake is the best tasting Cake!' that is obviously an opinion, but you will still have people who get upset about my not saying 'I think chocolate cake is the best tasting cake!')

Which I think often goes back to media literacy again, and circles back around to why I feel that there are more and more people who simply cannot handle things they don't like in fiction.

Because they take everything literally. They don't see people as being able to give opinions or have multi-faceted opinions. Someone saying 'Chocolate Cake is the best!' means, to these people, that this person believes that all other cake is horrible and shouldn't be allowed to exist, because it is how THEY feel about the things they like and dislike.

They can't do like I have done with pineapple on pizza. I personally think pineapple on pizza is an atrocity. But, when the pizza place called me back and told me that they had ran out of pineapple for the pineapple and ham pizza I had ordered, instead of crowing about it, I then called my brother, who was in town and would be picking up the pizzas, that he might want to pick up a can of pineapples for *his* pizza. (mine was pepperoni :P) Because his liking pineapple and ham on pizza doesn't affect me as long as he isn't trying to make me eat it. (he wouldn't dare)

So, reading something like the Dunmer issues with Slavery, and NOT having it denounced makes them uncomfortable, because they take everything literally and as Gospel from on High. This author endorses slavery! They didn't make Dunmer despicable people who everyone hates!

I don't think you have to always add "in my opinion" because sometimes, as with your cake example, it's obvious. (At least to me). But, like you said, people get combative when they see an opinion they don't agree with and then feel like they must prove that opinion is 'wrong'. I understand that communicating via text only (a large part of the way people do talk these days) means that tone and body language are out of consideration for helping facilitate understanding, and emojis can only go so far, so misunderstandings are bound to arise. I've seen posts on this forum that to me seem to clearly be a joke, but then someone else thinks it was a serious statement and gets offended.

Anyway, to bring it back to the game: I've seen role-playing guilds advertise for new members to a Dunmer House based guild with slavery as part of the story, and the roles they had for people included playing one of the slaves. I admit the first time I saw it, I thought: who would ever want to play a slave? But after thinking about it some more, I thought that well, it's really just acting and actors take on all sorts of roles they either wouldn't or couldn't do in real life. And the game lore does support darker topics like that. So there are enough people able to separate fact from fiction to make up that guild. (Or there were, I have no idea if that guild still exists).

I also rarely see a lot of the consternation around topics in the forums reflected much in chat in the game. Plenty of people who play the game never come to the forums, or if they do don't post on them, and so what they think of the stories and the trend towards safer writing isn't known.

P.S. You're wrong about pineapple on pizza! It's awesome!

I think that is why this type of things seems to be amplified. This goes back to social media somewhat, but also goes back even further to basically the advent of the internet: anonymity.

People like this might not want to be active in chat with their opinions, because they don't want it associated with their characters in game. Yet, on the forums, because the forums pull from all the platforms and potentially even people who don't play, it isn't an automatic 'hey, we know what this character looks like and we can block this person and/or kick them out of the guild or whatever' so they tend to be much more vocal on forums than they do in the actual game chat.

This is also a point towards Syldras' section about the writing of current media. People don't recongnize that there are people behind the accounts. They see a nonsensical Username on the screen and they don't necessarily connect it to 'hey, there is an actual living breathing person behind this UN', so it is much easier to dismiss the opinions of such people because they don't fit within the various boxes this person wants to deal with.

you like Pineapple on Pizza. Wrong opinion detected, opinion discarded /s :P

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

(I have also noticed a raise in people just outright dismissing people who say 'I am X' when their opinions don't align with the person's opinion.)

I noticed the same, and I also see this as a result of wanting to label everything. In the end, in many cases a "label" sadly has become nothing more than the good old cliché boxes (the one we wanted to abandon, you know); and in the minds of people who care very much for this, if you're put into "box X", but don't behave like they expect it from a "box X person", they'll be totally confused or outright refuse to believe it, yes. (Which makes me wonder whether that's also a reason some might not like non-cliché, nuanced characters in fiction, because that might be too strange or complicated for them?)

Totally fits my impression, of course, that society didn't get more diverse and open in the past few years, but more rigid again (compared to the decades before that were indeed an improvement), because having more boxes to choose from instead of just 1 isn't freedom, no matter if it's 2, 3 or 5, or even 10 boxes - freedom would be having no boxes. It's a bit worrisome that many seem to think now that it's the biggest freedom on earth to have 3 or 4 choices instead of 2 in a matter, not even able to imagine anymore that we could live without predefined boxes at all.

How does this relate to the writing of current media that I want to criticize? I also get the impression there that many people not seem to be able to see individuals as something beyond a member of their group or label anymore. And this leads to what I call clichéd writing: Instead of writing an individual, authors write a member of a group (or identity, or label, or whatever to call it). They write "the hero", "the baddie", "the scholar" (or their idea of what a scholar is, to be more precise), etc. I dread the day they don't write an interesting character who happens to be gay, but "the gay". Weirdly, by now, people seemed to have understood that writing a female character with the focus of writing "a woman" leads to bad clichés - but with other groups, they don't seem to have understood that yet.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I have seen people say 'if you aren't an artist you can't criticize art'.

All it needs to study art history, for example, is a brain. One doesn't even need to be physically capable of holding a pencil. Same goes for writing, of course. Or music. Or theater. Practising something oneself is very helpful, but not absolutely necessary to have knowledge. How many opera critics have participated in an opera themselves? In that case, many people seem to understand at least that it's not essential.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

So, reading something like the Dunmer issues with Slavery, and NOT having it denounced makes them uncomfortable, because they take everything literally and as Gospel from on High. This author endorses slavery! They didn't make Dunmer despicable people who everyone hates!

What they also don't seem to understand is that this is part of mimicking a feudal society and its sentiments and habits, just like having kings and castles in the game. It's a sad truth that slavery, serfdom or other similar concepts have been very common and people found it "normal" back then. And that goes for almost every culture on this planet, really, on every continent. Is it horrible from our today's morals (which base very much on the ideals of some philosophers of Enlightenment in the 18th century)? Of course. But in the Middle Ages (or another common example: Ancient Rome) people found it "normal", so if we write a story taking place in such a society, it would be strange of the people would object to it. Again, I think the problems are having no knowledge about history, lack of media literacy, and the inability to understand that people have and had different cultural ideas.

AS I have seen said, and said myself, nuance is dying. There have always been people who don't like nuance, because they see in shades of grey. Theft is ALWAYS bad, no matter the reason behind it. Even in a video game.

But, either those people are simply gaining better and better platforms and thus more coverage than they ever had in the past, or there are more and more of those types of people out there, who have better access to platforms and more coverage.

Which again, gives rise to the writing of caricatures instead of characters. As you said they write 'heroes' and 'villains' instead of a character who is a hero. They often don't even realize there is a difference between a 'hero' and a 'character who is a hero'. To them it is one and the same.

For me, the issue with the writing of women, though not in ESO, is that often they come across as 'okay, lets take a woman but make it so she isnt' the least bit womanlike' She can beat up 30 men in hand to hand combat, outswears sailors in casual conversation and so on. Basically they are writing the opposite of a woman to avoid writing cliches about a woman, which, to me, isn't any better.

I have seen this type of writing with other types of characters as well. The author wants to avoid cliches so much that they end up writing a caricature who is the opposite of the caricature they want to avoid, instead of writing a character.

Unfortunately, as we discussed Tanlorin in other threads, it seems like that sort of writing might be coming to ESO. With Tanlorin basically being the exact opposite of what you would expect an Altmer to be, it feels almost like someone went down a checklist of Altmer traits and went 'okay, haughty - nope, down to earth check!' 'Scholarly - nope trauma surrounding books and hates reading check!' 'Mage - nope, hates mage's guild Check!' and so on.

However, sadly, there are many people who will ignore writing like that if the character also fits into one of their preferred boxes, and doesn't have any negative traits that they can't ignore.

I know exactly what you mean about the historical bit. I do prefer fantasy, where as long as you are consistent with the rules, the story typically turns out good. But, I dislike it when someone decides to do a historical novel, and tries to tout it as a 'historically accurate' novel, but they decide to throw out bits they don't like. Such as making every character in the book an abolitionist with only the very evil characters being slave owners or even just not being abolitionists.

If you want to write historical fiction that makes no claims to historical accuracy? Go ahead, I might enjoy it (because they are often written more as 'in an alternate timeline' along the lines of steampunk rather than 'hey, this could have happened in OUR history), but if you are going to write something that is meant to be accurate to history? Be accurate to history...

Which, going back to the rules bit, For ESO, this means that the Dunmer have practiced slavery and will practice it again (if I recall my ES lore, been a while). There will be Dunmer who dislike that aspect of their own culture, but there will also be those that accept it, or even like it. THere is that one quest in Vvardenfall (that I haven't done yet, I may need to get on with finishing up that zone :P) that showcases that even non-Dunmer can embrace slavery, if it gets them what they want.

I think that there should be more of those types of quests. Do I like them? No, but that isnt' because they aren't well written, but because I can't truly give the responses I want, nor get the outcomes I want. But, that is part of playing a game someone else has written. Just like that one quest with the woman who fell in love with the noble in Stonefalls I believe.

But, as you noted, it seems like writing is moving away from that type of 'no good outcome' quests and 'yes, this is a dark topic, but it is consistent with the rules that the Elder Scrolls has' towards quests that are consistent with the rules of today's real world society. Where things that are deemed 'bad' must be universally condemned, or else whatever doesn't condemn it is now universally bad.

Freelancer_ESO

I think part of the issue people have with separating the author from the work is that many authors leak/release themselves into their work (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorTract) and at times this applies to the more sketchy aspects of their works.

For example, I read some Marion Zimmer Bradley as a kid and quit because parts made me seriously uncomfortable.

I later found out about what she and her husband did.

Needless to say, that rather strongly reinforced my view of if I'm seriously uncomfortable with a book it's best to just drop it rather than forging ahead.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

For me, the issue with the writing of women, though not in ESO, is that often they come across as 'okay, lets take a woman but make it so she isnt' the least bit womanlike' She can beat up 30 men in hand to hand combat, outswears sailors in casual conversation and so on. Basically they are writing the opposite of a woman to avoid writing cliches about a woman, which, to me, isn't any better.
I have seen this type of writing with other types of characters as well. The author wants to avoid cliches so much that they end up writing a caricature who is the opposite of the caricature they want to avoid, instead of writing a character.

While I know people who are men but 0% the cliché of men, and women who are 0% the cliché of women in real life (and honestly, often I also can't really guess whether some forum user is male or female - maybe because I don't care much, so I'm not used to looking for social clues about that), I think that most people are influenced by their societies ideas, and because of that they do show, at least particially, society's expected behaviour. Not everyone, but many. Doesn't only go for categories like sex or gender either, but also cultural notions (and there we have the slavery topic again - in a culture where it's deemed "normal", some individuals might question it, but the mainstream will not; same for Bosmer's cannibalism, or all other very varying cultural habits that every character in Tamriel has, from the Orc living in a stronghold to a small Argonian village). So, yes, just acting like cultural habits and ideals don't exist isn't realistic either, and harshly writing a character as the absolute opposite of their culture's norms doesn't seem believable either, it's indeed just a new cliché. There are always people who rebel against their society's norms, but that's an exception, still.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Which, going back to the rules bit, For ESO, this means that the Dunmer have practiced slavery and will practice it again (if I recall my ES lore, been a while)

Yes, it's common again in the Third Era; and honestly I'm not even sure right now whether the Dunmer who have returned after the Red Year in the early 4th Era (there are repopulation efforts, by House Telvanni mostly - they gave up the mainland, but they have rebuilt on Vvardenfell) might return to it once more, we don't know yet. If the writing habits stay like they are right now, I'd bet not. Although in hindsight it's actually very interesting to look at the timeline of TES, I mean the in-game chronicle of Tamriel, how cultures interacted and how everything evolved from the beginning to the 4th Era. There are clear movements, progresses and backlashes, etc. Not sure if many players care for that, but it's well-written and some aspects show insight.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

THere is that one quest in Vvardenfall (that I haven't done yet, I may need to get on with finishing up that zone :P) that showcases that even non-Dunmer can embrace slavery, if it gets them what they want.

Which was a good move, since it shows that it's not about race (inborn features), but about culture (cultural norms).

And as for roleplay, there are even people who played my prisoner. You know like rotting in a cell. Some people just enjoy playing psychological drama.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

For me, the issue with the writing of women, though not in ESO, is that often they come across as 'okay, lets take a woman but make it so she isnt' the least bit womanlike' She can beat up 30 men in hand to hand combat, outswears sailors in casual conversation and so on. Basically they are writing the opposite of a woman to avoid writing cliches about a woman, which, to me, isn't any better.
I have seen this type of writing with other types of characters as well. The author wants to avoid cliches so much that they end up writing a caricature who is the opposite of the caricature they want to avoid, instead of writing a character.

While I know people who are men but 0% the cliché of men, and women who are 0% the cliché of women in real life (and honestly, often I also can't really guess whether some forum user is male or female - maybe because I don't care much, so I'm not used to looking for social clues about that), I think that most people are influenced by their societies ideas, and because of that they do show, at least particially, society's expected behaviour. Not everyone, but many. Doesn't only go for categories like sex or gender either, but also cultural notions (and there we have the slavery topic again - in a culture where it's deemed "normal", some individuals might question it, but the mainstream will not; same for Bosmer's cannibalism, or all other very varying cultural habits that every character in Tamriel has, from the Orc living in a stronghold to a small Argonian village). So, yes, just acting like cultural habits and ideals don't exist isn't realistic either, and harshly writing a character as the absolute opposite of their culture's norms doesn't seem believable either, it's indeed just a new cliché. There are always people who rebel against their society's norms, but that's an exception, still.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Which, going back to the rules bit, For ESO, this means that the Dunmer have practiced slavery and will practice it again (if I recall my ES lore, been a while)

Yes, it's common again in the Third Era; and honestly I'm not even sure right now whether the Dunmer who have returned after the Red Year in the early 4th Era (there are repopulation efforts, by House Telvanni mostly - they gave up the mainland, but they have rebuilt on Vvardenfell) might return to it once more, we don't know yet. If the writing habits stay like they are right now, I'd bet not. Although in hindsight it's actually very interesting to look at the timeline of TES, I mean the in-game chronicle of Tamriel, how cultures interacted and how everything evolved from the beginning to the 4th Era. There are clear movements, progresses and backlashes, etc. Not sure if many players care for that, but it's well-written and some aspects show insight.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

THere is that one quest in Vvardenfall (that I haven't done yet, I may need to get on with finishing up that zone :P) that showcases that even non-Dunmer can embrace slavery, if it gets them what they want.

Which was a good move, since it shows that it's not about race (inborn features), but about culture (cultural norms).

And as for roleplay, there are even people who played my prisoner. You know like rotting in a cell. Some people just enjoy playing psychological drama.

Speaking of roleplay, I am doing that quest I mentioned, (and there is a bug in it, not sure I am going to be able to get past it without abandoning the quest and starting over *grrr*) and one part calls for an assassin. My knee jerk reaction was 'I am not an assassin' but after thinking about it, I realized, 'I AM an assassin! I just did the dark brotherhood story line, why am I denying it?' and so I went with the assassin route.

As for the cliche part, I am not saying that there aren't people who would fit that particular stereotype (of 0% the cliche of whatever attribute you are speaking of), just that it is often so over the top that they become cliches of the cliches they were trying to avoid.

As you said, most people are influenced, at least in part, by the society around them. Very few people, when rejecting the society they are a part of, will actually reject the entire society. They will reject the parts they don't agree with, but often will keep, sometimes without even realizing it, the parts they like.

Going through Vvardenfell, you can see that there, where you have some people just trying to live their lives, not caring about slavery, because their life is already hard enough, other people who are trying to help the slaves, and those who embrace the slavery because it benefits them in some way.

There was another part of that quest, but since I don't feel like spoiling anything, I won't talk about it here, but to me it highlights how people can use society and expectations to get what they want.

I remember in another thread, someone was complaining about some of the Orsinium quests and about one of the Markarth, I believe it was, quests, with orcs. Because Orcs have a specific set of beliefs, and those two quests were going against those beliefs, in their opinion, without really any justification. They just *did*.

The older writing also DID often account for society. I remember one or two quests where you met someone who was raised outside their 'own society' (think one was a khajiit, and one may have been an orc) and they couldn't fit back into that society, because they weren't raised in it, and had different cultural ideas. It showed that a lot of these things we see ARE more cultural rather than inborn.

But, again, more and more the writing is getting away from those thought provoking types of quests and writing, and going with the whole 'trying to get away from cliches by being a cliche' type writing and 'sanitized' writing.

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

I think part of the issue people have with separating the author from the work is that many authors leak/release themselves into their work (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorTract) and at times this applies to the more sketchy aspects of their works.

For example, I read some Marion Zimmer Bradley as a kid and quit because parts made me seriously uncomfortable.

I later found out about what she and her husband did.

Needless to say, that rather strongly reinforced my view of if I'm seriously uncomfortable with a book it's best to just drop it rather than forging ahead.

Oh I agree, the separating the art from the artist gets murky when you are talking about more contemporary artists, especially ones that may be still able to profit off the work.

I am also not advocating for people to read things that make them uncomfortable, or they just don't like, but there are a great many people who will dismiss authors simply because the author doesn't write views that align with them, even though the author is long dead and not profiting and is writing about things that happened in their time.

Frankly, I try not to look into the lives of authors and artists, because a great many of them DID have unsavory parts of their lives.

So, I do agree with you that there are artists who will allow themselves to leak into their work, and honestly some of them may endorse some of the things they write about.

BUT, without knowing that about the artist, my default position is not that 'this person writes about slavery, they must endorse it in real life and want to go back when keeping slaves was legal' but rather 'this person is writing about a time period/place where slavery is legal and is being consistent with the rules'.

However, it seems that more and more people's default position is 'the author wrote about this, they must endorse it'

metheglyn

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

I don't think you have to always add "in my opinion" because sometimes, as with your cake example, it's obvious. (At least to me). But, like you said, people get combative when they see an opinion they don't agree with and then feel like they must prove that opinion is 'wrong'. I understand that communicating via text only (a large part of the way people do talk these days) means that tone and body language are out of consideration for helping facilitate understanding, and emojis can only go so far, so misunderstandings are bound to arise. I've seen posts on this forum that to me seem to clearly be a joke, but then someone else thinks it was a serious statement and gets offended.

Anyway, to bring it back to the game: I've seen role-playing guilds advertise for new members to a Dunmer House based guild with slavery as part of the story, and the roles they had for people included playing one of the slaves. I admit the first time I saw it, I thought: who would ever want to play a slave? But after thinking about it some more, I thought that well, it's really just acting and actors take on all sorts of roles they either wouldn't or couldn't do in real life. And the game lore does support darker topics like that. So there are enough people able to separate fact from fiction to make up that guild. (Or there were, I have no idea if that guild still exists).

I also rarely see a lot of the consternation around topics in the forums reflected much in chat in the game. Plenty of people who play the game never come to the forums, or if they do don't post on them, and so what they think of the stories and the trend towards safer writing isn't known.

P.S. You're wrong about pineapple on pizza! It's awesome!

I think that is why this type of things seems to be amplified. This goes back to social media somewhat, but also goes back even further to basically the advent of the internet: anonymity.

People like this might not want to be active in chat with their opinions, because they don't want it associated with their characters in game. Yet, on the forums, because the forums pull from all the platforms and potentially even people who don't play, it isn't an automatic 'hey, we know what this character looks like and we can block this person and/or kick them out of the guild or whatever' so they tend to be much more vocal on forums than they do in the actual game chat.

This is also a point towards Syldras' section about the writing of current media. People don't recongnize that there are people behind the accounts. They see a nonsensical Username on the screen and they don't necessarily connect it to 'hey, there is an actual living breathing person behind this UN', so it is much easier to dismiss the opinions of such people because they don't fit within the various boxes this person wants to deal with.

Yeah, I agree that people might want to keep quiet in game chat so as to not bring anyone's negative attention on them for having voiced an opinion. I was mostly getting at the idea that, for all the people who play this game, we actually don't see a whole lot of feedback from them, so we don't know how they feel about the changes in storytelling we've all been talking about. Maybe they're frustrated by it; maybe they're fine with it, or like it; maybe they don't even really consider it at all. And then, for whatever reasons, they don't post on forums, or say anything about it, so ZOS doesn't get that information. What they know is people are still buying the game and completing the content.

But I'm going to keep hoping for a return to more interesting and complex storytelling. If nothing else, this thread has got me thinking about a lot of quests and stories in this game that I have really liked, so that's a bonus.

Also, I agree with the heavier points you and Syldras are talking about, but I don't have much to add other than, "Yeah!" So I've just been handing out insightfuls and agrees, help you rake in those precious forum points!

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

you like Pineapple on Pizza. Wrong opinion detected, opinion discarded /s :P

Lol, defeat accepted!

You know, related to nothing else at all in this thread, I once saw you in game, in Auridon, and thought, "Hey, that's JemaderofCaerSalis from the forums!" I almost waved and said hi, but talked myself out of it.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

As for the cliche part, I am not saying that there aren't people who would fit that particular stereotype (of 0% the cliche of whatever attribute you are speaking of), just that it is often so over the top that they become cliches of the cliches they were trying to avoid.

Oh, I wasn't talking about actively rejecting something, it was about just being born with certain character traits that may or may not fit society's current idea for that person defined by the social categories they belong in (although of course we could argue about the topic of nurture vs nature again now). There just are men who don't behave according to the current belief how a men should be, and there are women who have no interest in what they are supposed to think, like or do "as women" - according to the common steoreotypes. I honestly believe, but that's only my assumption, that without expectations, there would be not much of a natural difference between interests of male and female humans, if at all. But we'll never be able to verify or disprove that, because people are influenced by their surroundings from day 1. There is no completely free development, because every human interaction will shape us somehow. People react on us, they react positively or negatively on what we say and do, we learn about moral expectations, etc.

And these are all factors that would have to be considered if one wants to write a culture or individuals realistically.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Very few people, when rejecting the society they are a part of, will actually reject the entire society. They will reject the parts they don't agree with, but often will keep, sometimes without even realizing it, the parts they like.

Why should they reject it completely? I think every society has its positive and negative sides. I wish more people would be more critical and choose well: Accept the ones that seem reasonable, reject the rest. But often the questioning or rather not-questioning is already the problem.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

The older writing also DID often account for society.

I'd hope ESO returns to this, to a thoughtful, "realistic" (according to lore), and nuanced depiction of the world, their cultures and the individuals of these cultures.

JemadarofCaerSalis

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

I don't think you have to always add "in my opinion" because sometimes, as with your cake example, it's obvious. (At least to me). But, like you said, people get combative when they see an opinion they don't agree with and then feel like they must prove that opinion is 'wrong'. I understand that communicating via text only (a large part of the way people do talk these days) means that tone and body language are out of consideration for helping facilitate understanding, and emojis can only go so far, so misunderstandings are bound to arise. I've seen posts on this forum that to me seem to clearly be a joke, but then someone else thinks it was a serious statement and gets offended.

Anyway, to bring it back to the game: I've seen role-playing guilds advertise for new members to a Dunmer House based guild with slavery as part of the story, and the roles they had for people included playing one of the slaves. I admit the first time I saw it, I thought: who would ever want to play a slave? But after thinking about it some more, I thought that well, it's really just acting and actors take on all sorts of roles they either wouldn't or couldn't do in real life. And the game lore does support darker topics like that. So there are enough people able to separate fact from fiction to make up that guild. (Or there were, I have no idea if that guild still exists).

I also rarely see a lot of the consternation around topics in the forums reflected much in chat in the game. Plenty of people who play the game never come to the forums, or if they do don't post on them, and so what they think of the stories and the trend towards safer writing isn't known.

P.S. You're wrong about pineapple on pizza! It's awesome!

I think that is why this type of things seems to be amplified. This goes back to social media somewhat, but also goes back even further to basically the advent of the internet: anonymity.

People like this might not want to be active in chat with their opinions, because they don't want it associated with their characters in game. Yet, on the forums, because the forums pull from all the platforms and potentially even people who don't play, it isn't an automatic 'hey, we know what this character looks like and we can block this person and/or kick them out of the guild or whatever' so they tend to be much more vocal on forums than they do in the actual game chat.

This is also a point towards Syldras' section about the writing of current media. People don't recongnize that there are people behind the accounts. They see a nonsensical Username on the screen and they don't necessarily connect it to 'hey, there is an actual living breathing person behind this UN', so it is much easier to dismiss the opinions of such people because they don't fit within the various boxes this person wants to deal with.

Yeah, I agree that people might want to keep quiet in game chat so as to not bring anyone's negative attention on them for having voiced an opinion. I was mostly getting at the idea that, for all the people who play this game, we actually don't see a whole lot of feedback from them, so we don't know how they feel about the changes in storytelling we've all been talking about. Maybe they're frustrated by it; maybe they're fine with it, or like it; maybe they don't even really consider it at all. And then, for whatever reasons, they don't post on forums, or say anything about it, so ZOS doesn't get that information. What they know is people are still buying the game and completing the content.

But I'm going to keep hoping for a return to more interesting and complex storytelling. If nothing else, this thread has got me thinking about a lot of quests and stories in this game that I have really liked, so that's a bonus.

Also, I agree with the heavier points you and Syldras are talking about, but I don't have much to add other than, "Yeah!" So I've just been handing out insightfuls and agrees, help you rake in those precious forum points!

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

you like Pineapple on Pizza. Wrong opinion detected, opinion discarded /s :P

Lol, defeat accepted!

You know, related to nothing else at all in this thread, I once saw you in game, in Auridon, and thought, "Hey, that's JemaderofCaerSalis from the forums!" I almost waved and said hi, but talked myself out of it.

If you do see me, you will likely have to whisper me, because I tend to ignore people waving because I won't know you were waving at me! Just give me a quick reminder of where we know each other, because I am horrible with names :P (I have been using Jemadar for so long, I sometimes wonder if I would actually react to my OWN name being used )

I am currently running around Vvardenfell, but yeah, Auridon is the place I hang out for events that don't have specific quests that take me elsewhere.

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

As for the cliche part, I am not saying that there aren't people who would fit that particular stereotype (of 0% the cliche of whatever attribute you are speaking of), just that it is often so over the top that they become cliches of the cliches they were trying to avoid.

Oh, I wasn't talking about actively rejecting something, it was about just being born with certain character traits that may or may not fit society's current idea for that person defined by the social categories they belong in (although of course we could argue about the topic of nurture vs nature again now). There just are men who don't behave according to the current belief how a men should be, and there are women who have no interest in what they are supposed to think, like or do "as women" - according to the common steoreotypes. I honestly believe, but that's only my assumption, that without expectations, there would be not much of a natural difference between interests of male and female humans, if at all. But we'll never be able to verify or disprove that, because people are influenced by their surroundings from day 1. There is no completely free development, because every human interaction will shape us somehow. People react on us, they react positively or negatively on what we say and do, we learn about moral expectations, etc.

And these are all factors that would have to be considered if one wants to write a culture or individuals realistically.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Very few people, when rejecting the society they are a part of, will actually reject the entire society. They will reject the parts they don't agree with, but often will keep, sometimes without even realizing it, the parts they like.

Why should they reject it completely? I think every society has its positive and negative sides. I wish more people would be more critical and choose well: Accept the ones that seem reasonable, reject the rest. But often the questioning or rather not-questioning is already the problem.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

The older writing also DID often account for society.

I'd hope ESO returns to this, to a thoughtful, "realistic" (according to lore), and nuanced depiction of the world, their cultures and the individuals of these cultures.

Oh, I completely agree. I feel that there would be like maybe a .01% of differences between men and women without outside influences. But, as you said, there is no real way to test this, as we don't live in a vacuum, and what we see and hear and how people react and treat us all shape us.

That is what some people expect. That if you are going to reject a society, you do so completely. I was informed that what was here was NOT allowed, so removing it. Basically, it just was an example to reiterate how people feel you must reject everything to do with a particular society/group, and anything that you might keep from that group, the people will find ways to attribute that to anything BUT that group.

Most people DO realize that they can reject portions without having to reject everything.

Basically, a portion of society has forgotten what it means to 'not throw the baby out with the bathwater'. They just dump the whole washbasin, and forget that there are some aspects that might be beneficial to keep, others that might need a bit of tweaking, and then, yes, there are portions that should be rejected.

So do I. I think it would be interesting to learn more about lore. For instance, I do like Zerith's writing, because it gave insight into a section of history that we don't normally get to see. Most of the rest, while not bad, were all about current history (to ESO) and mores, because the people in them are 'modern' people who live in this time period. Zerith, coming from a different time, shows a bit of history we don't normally get 'current voices' about. We only have tomes, which can be edited throughout the years, or be completely biased from the start, or just be 'hearsay' written down, without first hand knowledge of the world.

I believe there were a couple of other quests in which we got to talk to fragments of the past and learn about them.

I would definitely want more of that type of writing, especially if it was showing how the past shaped the current.

I know we speculated about the whole 'This one' way khajiit speak, but I think it would be interesting to get another 'out of time' khajiit that maybe lived during the period where that started happening (doesn't even have to be an NPC, while I like the quest format, as it can go more indepth about this through dialogue, books, and showing it, for something like this a fragment of a diary could suffice)

We learned a bit about Bosmer history through a quest line as well, and that was interesting to me as well.

Basically, we already have a ton of NPCs and lore that is contemporary to ESO, and I think it would be interesting to have more information on HOW that lore came about. What is the reason for the way the various races are?

I love it when an author will give lore and then *stick* to that lore, and shape it, and show how it shaped their characters (not just in a 'this is how it shaped the characters' of course)

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Basically, it just was an example to reiterate how people feel you must reject everything to do with a particular society/group, and anything that you might keep from that group, the people will find ways to attribute that to anything BUT that group. Most people DO realize that they can reject portions without having to reject everything.

It's interesting actually that in TES lore, we see cases where cultures did not just reject the old, but reformed it. The Dunmer belief is an interesting example for that: First, the Velothi believed in the Good Daedra, then we had the rise of the Tribunal, where the Tribunal Gods were still considered the successors of the Good Daedra, with attributes of the Good Daedra assigned to them; and after the Tribunal, the Dunmer returned to the Good Daedra, but they did not reject the Tribunal totally either. They could have scorned them, or even gone the way to try to erase them from history (by trying to erase all records of them - in real world history such things happened in different cultures), but no, they acknoledged that they were taking their roles for the benefit for the Dunmer people, and declared them Temple Saints. In the 4th Era, they're still venerated, but now not as gods, but on the same level like, for example, St Felms, St Nerevar or St Delyn - mortals (or ancestors of the Dunmer people) to be honored for their deeds and so be regarded as an ideal to strive to.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Basically, we already have a ton of NPCs and lore that is contemporary to ESO, and I think it would be interesting to have more information on HOW that lore came about. What is the reason for the way the various races are?
I love it when an author will give lore and then *stick* to that lore, and shape it, and show how it shaped their characters (not just in a 'this is how it shaped the characters' of course)

I'd generally criticize that we see, for my taste, too little of actual "cultural" content. We see stories about the problems of individuals, but so often they're rather generic and it wouldn't really matter if they're Altmer, Khajiit or Bretons. I'm not saying that universal stories are bad - no, they can be really interesting, too. But still, I'd love to see more which is actually about the cultures that make Nirn and TES unique - because this is one of TES' strong points: the background lore we have, the already established fictional world we can now build upon. Including origin stories or deepening lore that had been rather vague before. Extending on subjects like they did with CWC, for instance. But also just stories that utilize the cultural background of characters to let us learn more about that culture.

And honestly, yes, I also want to see conflicts. It's a part of this fictional world. People familiar with the singleplayer TES games know that the first one was called Arena. Indeed, the name originally stemmed from the idea to make an arena fighting game (we can be glad it evolved into so much more). But while the concept idea changed drastically, they decided to keep the name but use it for something else, in lore: they made it a symbol for the world, Mundus. Mundus is the Arena. The place where empires rise and fall, Daedra and mortals battle, cultures emerge, split, sometimes grow extinct, sometimes only grow almost extinct but flourish once more,... Conflict is a central part of the cosmos. It would really be sad if this would be erased some day because someone took offense at it.

TaSheen

Syldras wrote: »

And honestly, yes, I also want to see conflicts. It's a part of this fictional world. People familiar with the singleplayer TES games know that the first one was called Arena. Indeed, the name originally stemmed from the idea to make an arena fighting game (we can be glad it evolved into so much more). But while the concept idea changed drastically, they decided to keep the name but use it for something else, in lore: they made it a symbol for the world, Mundus. Mundus is the Arena. The place where empires rise and fall, Daedra and mortals battle, cultures emerge, split, sometimes grow extinct, sometimes only grow almost extinct but flourish once more,... Conflict is a central part of the cosmos. It would really be sad if this would be erased some day because someone took offense at it.

This right here is the BEST post I've ever seen on this forum. Thank you Syldras, for putting into words a concept I've never really been able to articulate.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Basically, it just was an example to reiterate how people feel you must reject everything to do with a particular society/group, and anything that you might keep from that group, the people will find ways to attribute that to anything BUT that group. Most people DO realize that they can reject portions without having to reject everything.

It's interesting actually that in TES lore, we see cases where cultures did not just reject the old, but reformed it. The Dunmer belief is an interesting example for that: First, the Velothi believed in the Good Daedra, then we had the rise of the Tribunal, where the Tribunal Gods were still considered the successors of the Good Daedra, with attributes of the Good Daedra assigned to them; and after the Tribunal, the Dunmer returned to the Good Daedra, but they did not reject the Tribunal totally either. They could have scorned them, or even gone the way to try to erase them from history (by trying to erase all records of them - in real world history such things happened in different cultures), but no, they acknoledged that they were taking their roles for the benefit for the Dunmer people, and declared them Temple Saints. In the 4th Era, they're still venerated, but now not as gods, but on the same level like, for example, St Felms, St Nerevar or St Delyn - mortals (or ancestors of the Dunmer people) to be honored for their deeds and so be regarded as an ideal to strive to.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Basically, we already have a ton of NPCs and lore that is contemporary to ESO, and I think it would be interesting to have more information on HOW that lore came about. What is the reason for the way the various races are?
I love it when an author will give lore and then *stick* to that lore, and shape it, and show how it shaped their characters (not just in a 'this is how it shaped the characters' of course)

I'd generally criticize that we see, for my taste, too little of actual "cultural" content. We see stories about the problems of individuals, but so often they're rather generic and it wouldn't really matter if they're Altmer, Khajiit or Bretons. I'm not saying that universal stories are bad - no, they can be really interesting, too. But still, I'd love to see more which is actually about the cultures that make Nirn and TES unique - because this is one of TES' strong points: the background lore we have, the already established fictional world we can now build upon. Including origin stories or deepening lore that had been rather vague before. Extending on subjects like they did with CWC, for instance. But also just stories that utilize the cultural background of characters to let us learn more about that culture.

And honestly, yes, I also want to see conflicts. It's a part of this fictional world. People familiar with the singleplayer TES games know that the first one was called Arena. Indeed, the name originally stemmed from the idea to make an arena fighting game (we can be glad it evolved into so much more). But while the concept idea changed drastically, they decided to keep the name but use it for something else, in lore: they made it a symbol for the world, Mundus. Mundus is the Arena. The place where empires rise and fall, Daedra and mortals battle, cultures emerge, split, sometimes grow extinct, sometimes only grow almost extinct but flourish once more,... Conflict is a central part of the cosmos. It would really be sad if this would be erased some day because someone took offense at it.

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more of the individual cultures and what makes them unique and therefore the unique problems they have to face, I just meant that we have a lot of books and background already for the current era.

Basically, if it were *good* writing, stuff that I want to take slower and read and not get bored halfway through, then I don't care if it is about the past, present or future :P My preference is on the past, and seeing how it shaped the cultures to the point they are today, but I would take anything.

spartaxoxo

One thing I was really looking forward to and I don't think they've done enough of is embracing that this is a prequel. They can show us so much more of the groundwork of what players who have done the single player games will see in the future. Yes, they do some of that with like Vanus Galerian but so often the conflicts in this game are focused on the present and restricted to the Second era. Stuff they could have shown more light on, they picked a time where they didn't have to. Like the Mage's Guild is already founded and a big deal.

Let's set the stages better for some the later game's conflicts. My guy doesn't have to solve everything.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Basically, if it were *good* writing, stuff that I want to take slower and read and not get bored halfway through, then I don't care if it is about the past, present or future :P My preference is on the past, and seeing how it shaped the cultures to the point they are today, but I would take anything.

While we're at "good writing": I have the impression that, since a few years, they focus on "cool" writing too much (at least I always read about "this cool fan favorite" here and "that cool really really bad guy" there) - and there is a big difference whether you want to write a "cool character" or a plausible or interesting character. Throwing around quips, memes and tropes might be "cool" (in the eyes of some people - tastes differ, of course), but does it also make a story meaningful? Rhetorical question. But really, do most people just want some "cool" character throwing around random quips? In ESO or generally in a TES game? I'm not so sure about that.

And relying on "fan favorites" so much is another topic by itself.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Basically, if it were *good* writing, stuff that I want to take slower and read and not get bored halfway through, then I don't care if it is about the past, present or future :P My preference is on the past, and seeing how it shaped the cultures to the point they are today, but I would take anything.

While we're at "good writing": I have the impression that, since a few years, they focus on "cool" writing too much (at least I always read about "this cool fan favorite" here and "that cool really really bad guy" there) - and there is a big difference whether you want to write a "cool character" or a plausible or interesting character. Throwing around quips, memes and tropes might be "cool" (in the eyes of some people - tastes differ, of course), but does it also make a story meaningful? Rhetorical question. But really, do most people just want some "cool" character throwing around random quips? In ESO or generally in a TES game? I'm not so sure about that.

And relying on "fan favorites" so much is another topic by itself.

This, I feel, circles back around to the 'most people don't just want 'cool characters' or 'quips' they want meaningful characters but the vocal minority does, and they are the ones that are often seen and heard'.

So, recurring characters are popular, on the forums at least, but among the player base at large? That would remain to be seen.

You also have to take into account and many people DO get a thrill about seeing a favorite character show up, or get mentioned in a different context.

It just doesn't necessarily mean that they want that character to become a meme character or be bombarded by that character everywhere they go.

Same thing with the 'cool character throwing around quips', while I feel that the majority of the player base doesn't want this, there are enough vocal players who have grown up on characters such as that (you see them in a lot of western media, usually a side character who always has a handy quip ready) that they like them and like to see them included, and since they are vocal about it, they will give their appreciation about it.

metheglyn

spartaxoxo wrote: »

One thing I was really looking forward to and I don't think they've done enough of is embracing that this is a prequel. They can show us so much more of the groundwork of what players who have done the single player games will see in the future. Yes, they do some of that with like Vanus Galerian but so often the conflicts in this game are focused on the present and restricted to the Second era. Stuff they could have shown more light on, they picked a time where they didn't have to. Like the Mage's Guild is already founded and a big deal.

Let's set the stages better for some the later game's conflicts. My guy doesn't have to solve everything.

I would like to see this, too. Like we investigate the murmurings or hints of something that seems big, but we don't solve it. I do wonder how us seeming to fail would go over with people, though. Seems like people don't prefer open-ended stories or resolutions that aren't tidy.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

You also have to take into account and many people DO get a thrill about seeing a favorite character show up, or get mentioned in a different context.

There are characters I enjoy - as you know. And I also like it if I see them again - given the occasion makes sense and the writing is meaningful (or entertaining for longer than 5 seconds at least). I have the feeling though that there are some "official fan favorites" who get shoved into stories no matter what (and not just twice), whether it even makes sense that they're in that part of the continent or not at all. Also, those "favorites" are, albeit with some small differences, all very much the same writing direction: "flirty". A bit more variety would be nice.

Seeing some important Mages Guild charactes again in a Mages Guild centered story (as an example) is not what I mean. That absolutely makes sense. So I'm not bothered with those I already saw in the current prologue, for example. Well, we'll see who else will cross our way on Solstice...

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

there are enough vocal players who have grown up on characters such as that (you see them in a lot of western media, usually a side character who always has a handy quip ready) that they like them and like to see them included, and since they are vocal about it, they will give their appreciation about it.

I see. It's correct that many people appreciate what they're used to. It's just tragic if the mainstream trend is writing rather superficial characters

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

You also have to take into account and many people DO get a thrill about seeing a favorite character show up, or get mentioned in a different context.

There are characters I enjoy - as you know. And I also like it if I see them again - given the occasion makes sense and the writing is meaningful (or entertaining for longer than 5 seconds at least). I have the feeling though that there are some "official fan favorites" who get shoved into stories no matter what (and not just twice), whether it even makes sense that they're in that part of the continent or not at all. Also, those "favorites" are, albeit with some small differences, all very much the same writing direction: "flirty". A bit more variety would be nice.

Seeing some important Mages Guild charactes again in a Mages Guild centered story (as an example) is not what I mean. That absolutely makes sense. So I'm not bothered with those I already saw in the current prologue, for example. Well, we'll see who else will cross our way on Solstice...

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

there are enough vocal players who have grown up on characters such as that (you see them in a lot of western media, usually a side character who always has a handy quip ready) that they like them and like to see them included, and since they are vocal about it, they will give their appreciation about it.

I see. It's correct that many people appreciate what they're used to. It's just tragic if the mainstream trend is writing rather superficial characters

Yeah, I don't mind if my favorite characters show up and are acting in character, but for many, they don't particularly care, they just like the nod to their favorite characters or fandom or game or whatever.

Sadly, and this is something that goes way back, not sure how far, mainstream media has always been like that. If something gets popular, then suddenly ALL media of that type has that something.

Like the sarcastic side kick character. You saw it in one movie, then all of a sudden it seemed like every movie had that type of character.

My mother was born in the 30s, and thus enjoyed a lot of old movies, and I inherited that love of old movies (or maybe it was self defense :P). There are a great many good movies out there (and not talking about the 'classics' such as Casablanca or ones like that), but when you watch so many (and she had a LOT), you can easily start seeing trends and noticing how similar many characters and plot lines actually were.

I think we are still seeing that, but it is magnified because it is so easy to access content. It is also branching out from mainstream media towards more niche media as well.

Also, to be clear, this was also the case with mainstream books. I grew up loving fantasy, but one of the reasons why I moved from mainstream novels that I would buy to online fiction that was free was because so many mainstream novels were basically the same, they had the same caricatures, the same tropes, the same plot devices and so on. At least with online fiction, I wasn't paying to read something I had already read, just reskinned with new superficial details.

Plus, it was a lot easier to find that niche media that didn't follow the trends or tropes and so was a breath of fresh air.

Not quite sure where exactly I am going with this, but basically, superfical characters have long been a facet of mainstream media, we just have better access to said mainstream media to be able to see it. In my mother's day, going to the threater was the only way to see movies, and it was something done as a treat. Now we have pretty much any movie we want to see available with just the touch of a button (and subscription to streaming services at times) and we can binge watch movies back to back that people might have waited weeks or months, or maybe even years, to see all of them.

Same thing with novels, with online resources and audio books, and various other things like that, it is much easier to access the various novels, and so people can now access them almost immediately, instead of having to wait for a physical copy to get to a bookstore near them (or library if they didn't want to buy the book)

I think that might also be another facet as to why mainstream media is getting even more stereotypical and cliche, because now people have access to those books, and often have fairly accurate and current access to numbers. How many people bought this book? How many people have streamed this particular movie? Which means they can then take the tropes in that media and start working on their own version of it. At the same time, who knows how many others are doing the same thing.

Then, on the business side of things, because one version of it sold well, it is expected that other versions will (and they often will) which just reinforces the idea that 'this is what the public wants'.

When you combine that with what the vocal minority says and shows appreciation for, it is very easy to take the wrong things out of the media and think that THOSE are what makes that piece of media popular.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I think that might also be another facet as to why mainstream media is getting even more stereotypical and cliche, because now people have access to those books, and often have fairly accurate and current access to numbers. How many people bought this book? How many people have streamed this particular movie? Which means they can then take the tropes in that media and start working on their own version of it. At the same time, who knows how many others are doing the same thing.

From a commercial standpoint, that indeed seems to make sense. And if the current trope gets boring and people start to not pay attention anymore, they'll just start the next fad... How to get more substance into this, I wonder? Or can be basically say that art is lost?

I want to be honest, I don't pay much attention to mainstream media. There might be 1 or 2 movies, sometimes, per year that I might find interesting, but that's it (which doesn't mean I don't view movie trailers while looking whether there's something interesting, but most often they're rather off-putting or plain boring than interesting to me). And as I've already written, I don't read much contemporary literature either. Not to be niche on purpose, but I can't relate to most characters - or rather tropes - commonly used today. Is it telling that I can relate more to Dostoevsky and Kafka (and a whole dozen of Romanticist writers)? I don't know. And yes, I am well aware that the general public could rather not relate to that, and I don't expect a mainstream movie, book or game released today to look and sound like a 18th or early 19th century novel (although a tad of Byron would not be wrong ), but I think the public could handle a bit more depth than the meme-y mass products flooding people's brains today. Who knows, maybe it would be even eye-opening to them, making them realize that there's more than always the same clichéd stuff, that there's different ways to tell a story.

Of course, we know. But now imagine younger people grow up with just that - memes, quips, cliché characters - and then people who grow up with only that start writing themselves, what will they write? It will probably be just more of the same. Unless some decide they want to do something different and begin to observe society, contemplate it, and write something witty again - but just copying the common stuff again and again is certainly the easier way most would choose.

tomofhyrule

Whoa, there's a lot here already. Thank you for the very insightful thread.

I definitely was a bit put off by the article's way of talking about the enemies as "irredeemable, power-mad megalomaniacs. You never have to ask yourself if it’s right for you to stop them, because they want bad things for bad reasons. That’s fun!" I... really don't think that's that fun, but that's just me. I think that a story which is done in such a black-and-white way makes it harder to connect to it and make it feel alive. Sure, it's easy to say who the bad guys and the good guys are, but that kind of thing just takes all nuance out of the equation. You're not really interacting with the story beyond "I need to kill the people that are the designated bad guys."

The lack of nuance and the black-and-white thinking really has seemed to have gotten worse too. I really can't wait for this trend to end.

I much prefer the shades of grey. Give me two sides where neither is perfect. I want to have to wrestle with my decisions. I want to be able to see where both sides are coming from, and to have deep discussions about how both sides can be right (and how they both can be wrong).

Too many people nowadays try to force everything to be black-and-white, usually based on one single facet, and then refuse to consider anything else. My big example of this is Skyrim - I know a lot of people who support the Empire because "that one Stormcloak dude is racist to Dark Elves" and that's the entire thought process. Bonus points for the people who then also talk about how much they like the Redguards for "casting off the yoke of the Empire" in the same sentence as disparaging the Stormcloaks for trying to do the same thing. Another example: Fallout 4 - I don't think any of the 4 factions are the only choice, but a lot of people will make their decision based on one thing and not care about what consequences that could lead to in the months or years in the future.

Messy and nuanced makes storytelling good. Probably doesn't work out well for a 20-second "here's why you should support [X] and if you support [Y] you're literally the devil" TikTok reel, but being able to engage with the story and consider all outcomes makes it feel more impactful.

Now I'll agree that a BG3-esque story probably can't be done in an MMO, but I do hope that the TES6 team writers are going to be looking a lot more at why everyone loved the story and potential of BG3 instead of something really cut-and-dry "here's the bad guys and you're the perfect good guy."

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

You also have to take into account and many people DO get a thrill about seeing a favorite character show up, or get mentioned in a different context.

There are characters I enjoy - as you know. And I also like it if I see them again - given the occasion makes sense and the writing is meaningful (or entertaining for longer than 5 seconds at least). I have the feeling though that there are some "official fan favorites" who get shoved into stories no matter what (and not just twice), whether it even makes sense that they're in that part of the continent or not at all. Also, those "favorites" are, albeit with some small differences, all very much the same writing direction: "flirty". A bit more variety would be nice.

Seeing some important Mages Guild charactes again in a Mages Guild centered story (as an example) is not what I mean. That absolutely makes sense. So I'm not bothered with those I already saw in the current prologue, for example. Well, we'll see who else will cross our way on Solstice...

I also want to touch on this.

I'm one of those people who tends to dislike fan-favorites on principle. It's almost like I feel like this character is shoved in my face because the writers are like "look how cool they are, you are supposed to like them!" and that tends to rub me the wrong way. Sometimes it works out, but a lot of the time I get annoyed about the shilled character because the character I like is getting shoved into the background and hated because they're not the golden child.

And I hate seeing characters return as a one-dimensional caricature of themselves. Stop that. If you're bringing someone back, keep them written the same.
And yes, for the love of all things holy stop making everyone so flirty. I feel like I need to carry a spray water bottle to calm people down.
As for the humor, that's a product of the time. I'll admit, I'm a huge fan of quippy humor, but even I'm getting tired of that after the past 10+ years of every other character having that same style. I really hope that trope runs its course soon.

Here's an example: I know that Raz is coming back, which... I get that everyone loves him, but saw him in the Gold Coast, he was your partner in Summerset, then he also showed up in NElsweyr and in Galen. And all of this after you can make a choice to leave him to die in the basegame (but of course he gets better, because we can't hurt the fan-favorite, can we?) Meanwhile, one of my favorites from the basegame, Holgunn, was last seen... oh, in the basegame. He never made it back, despite all the chances. And I know that if they did bring him back, he'd appear as a thickheaded Nord drunk who can't do anything, because stupid drunk Nords are funny, right? Even though he wasn't like that in the basegame.

Now there are also those 'fan-favorite' characters who always get into the 'humorous hijinks' style sidequests, and for me, they've absolutely run their course. I'm talking about Lady Laurent and Stibbons (I don't care how much it's implied he likes it, that's abuse plain and simple) and Rigurt (that style of stupid racial caricature is inappropriate and would not be acceptable if he were any other race). I do not find either of them funny in any way, and their stories have just been getting more and more over-the-top and offensive. Those are the ones that I would love to see retired for good, but I know there are a lot of people who love both of them specifically because of that humor.
(and after the stream yesterday, they said the horrible words "Nord Cultural Exchange" and I just groaned.)

JemadarofCaerSalis

Apologies in advance, I don't know how long this will get.

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I think that might also be another facet as to why mainstream media is getting even more stereotypical and cliche, because now people have access to those books, and often have fairly accurate and current access to numbers. How many people bought this book? How many people have streamed this particular movie? Which means they can then take the tropes in that media and start working on their own version of it. At the same time, who knows how many others are doing the same thing.

From a commercial standpoint, that indeed seems to make sense. And if the current trope gets boring and people start to not pay attention anymore, they'll just start the next fad... How to get more substance into this, I wonder? Or can be basically say that art is lost?

I want to be honest, I don't pay much attention to mainstream media. There might be 1 or 2 movies, sometimes, per year that I might find interesting, but that's it (which doesn't mean I don't view movie trailers while looking whether there's something interesting, but most often they're rather off-putting or plain boring than interesting to me). And as I've already written, I don't read much contemporary literature either. Not to be niche on purpose, but I can't relate to most characters - or rather tropes - commonly used today. Is it telling that I can relate more to Dostoevsky and Kafka (and a whole dozen of Romanticist writers)? I don't know. And yes, I am well aware that the general public could rather not relate to that, and I don't expect a mainstream movie, book or game released today to look and sound like a 18th or early 19th century novel (although a tad of Byron would not be wrong ), but I think the public could handle a bit more depth than the meme-y mass products flooding people's brains today. Who knows, maybe it would be even eye-opening to them, making them realize that there's more than always the same clichéd stuff, that there's different ways to tell a story.

Of course, we know. But now imagine younger people grow up with just that - memes, quips, cliché characters - and then people who grow up with only that start writing themselves, what will they write? It will probably be just more of the same. Unless some decide they want to do something different and begin to observe society, contemplate it, and write something witty again - but just copying the common stuff again and again is certainly the easier way most would choose.

I think the last time I watched a 'modern movie' was like 5+ years ago before my mom died, and that was like Zootopia... yes, the animated film :P So, yeah, I don't tend to pay attention to mainstream that much.

But, I wanted to touch on that last paragraph. That is exactly my feelings. Because what you grow up with influences you so much, often without you realizing it.

I have also seen this sentiment occasionally thrown around, mainly with regards to games, AAA vs indie. Many people write for themselves, but they want it to be seen by others. Especially if they want to profit off of it. The more niche and less mainstream a piece of media gets, the more likely it is going to have a small audience and many people are going to miss it. Not just because mainstream is what everyone flocks to but because mainstream also often has the advertising power to get the word about whatever piece of media they are putting out. Which tends to exacerbate the issue.

So a movie or game company or a writer who wants to get their work seen is more likely going to write something that they know the audience is going to live vs something avant guarde.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Whoa, there's a lot here already. Thank you for the very insightful thread.

I definitely was a bit put off by the article's way of talking about the enemies as "irredeemable, power-mad megalomaniacs. You never have to ask yourself if it’s right for you to stop them, because they want bad things for bad reasons. That’s fun!" I... really don't think that's that fun, but that's just me. I think that a story which is done in such a black-and-white way makes it harder to connect to it and make it feel alive. Sure, it's easy to say who the bad guys and the good guys are, but that kind of thing just takes all nuance out of the equation. You're not really interacting with the story beyond "I need to kill the people that are the designated bad guys."

The lack of nuance and the black-and-white thinking really has seemed to have gotten worse too. I really can't wait for this trend to end.

I much prefer the shades of grey. Give me two sides where neither is perfect. I want to have to wrestle with my decisions. I want to be able to see where both sides are coming from, and to have deep discussions about how both sides can be right (and how they both can be wrong).

Too many people nowadays try to force everything to be black-and-white, usually based on one single facet, and then refuse to consider anything else. My big example of this is Skyrim - I know a lot of people who support the Empire because "that one Stormcloak dude is racist to Dark Elves" and that's the entire thought process. Bonus points for the people who then also talk about how much they like the Redguards for "casting off the yoke of the Empire" in the same sentence as disparaging the Stormcloaks for trying to do the same thing. Another example: Fallout 4 - I don't think any of the 4 factions are the only choice, but a lot of people will make their decision based on one thing and not care about what consequences that could lead to in the months or years in the future.

Messy and nuanced makes storytelling good. Probably doesn't work out well for a 20-second "here's why you should support [X] and if you support [Y] you're literally the devil" TikTok reel, but being able to engage with the story and consider all outcomes makes it feel more impactful.

Now I'll agree that a BG3-esque story probably can't be done in an MMO, but I do hope that the TES6 team writers are going to be looking a lot more at why everyone loved the story and potential of BG3 instead of something really cut-and-dry "here's the bad guys and you're the perfect good guy."

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

You also have to take into account and many people DO get a thrill about seeing a favorite character show up, or get mentioned in a different context.

There are characters I enjoy - as you know. And I also like it if I see them again - given the occasion makes sense and the writing is meaningful (or entertaining for longer than 5 seconds at least). I have the feeling though that there are some "official fan favorites" who get shoved into stories no matter what (and not just twice), whether it even makes sense that they're in that part of the continent or not at all. Also, those "favorites" are, albeit with some small differences, all very much the same writing direction: "flirty". A bit more variety would be nice.

Seeing some important Mages Guild charactes again in a Mages Guild centered story (as an example) is not what I mean. That absolutely makes sense. So I'm not bothered with those I already saw in the current prologue, for example. Well, we'll see who else will cross our way on Solstice...

I also want to touch on this.

I'm one of those people who tends to dislike fan-favorites on principle. It's almost like I feel like this character is shoved in my face because the writers are like "look how cool they are, you are supposed to like them!" and that tends to rub me the wrong way. Sometimes it works out, but a lot of the time I get annoyed about the shilled character because the character I like is getting shoved into the background and hated because they're not the golden child.

And I hate seeing characters return as a one-dimensional caricature of themselves. Stop that. If you're bringing someone back, keep them written the same.
And yes, for the love of all things holy stop making everyone so flirty. I feel like I need to carry a spray water bottle to calm people down.
As for the humor, that's a product of the time. I'll admit, I'm a huge fan of quippy humor, but even I'm getting tired of that after the past 10+ years of every other character having that same style. I really hope that trope runs its course soon.

Here's an example: I know that Raz is coming back, which... I get that everyone loves him, but saw him in the Gold Coast, he was your partner in Summerset, then he also showed up in NElsweyr and in Galen. And all of this after you can make a choice to leave him to die in the basegame (but of course he gets better, because we can't hurt the fan-favorite, can we?) Meanwhile, one of my favorites from the basegame, Holgunn, was last seen... oh, in the basegame. He never made it back, despite all the chances. And I know that if they did bring him back, he'd appear as a thickheaded Nord drunk who can't do anything, because stupid drunk Nords are funny, right? Even though he wasn't like that in the basegame.

Now there are also those 'fan-favorite' characters who always get into the 'humorous hijinks' style sidequests, and for me, they've absolutely run their course. I'm talking about Lady Laurent and Stibbons (I don't care how much it's implied he likes it, that's abuse plain and simple) and Rigurt (that style of stupid racial caricature is inappropriate and would not be acceptable if he were any other race). I do not find either of them funny in any way, and their stories have just been getting more and more over-the-top and offensive. Those are the ones that I would love to see retired for good, but I know there are a lot of people who love both of them specifically because of that humor.
(and after the stream yesterday, they said the horrible words "Nord Cultural Exchange" and I just groaned.)

I occasionally like the 'evil for evils sake' but that is typically when I just want to turn my brain off and smash through some enemies (think ALA Doom) where I don't have to worry about I might be wrong about the person.

But, other times I want more indepth games and quests. I don't mind if the person is irredeemably evil, but their motivations should fit their personality.

That two sides with neither being perfect reminded me of a trope in writing that I used to see. It used to be that when someone was making up their own world, they would have the obvious 'good guys' and the obvious 'bad guys', and the good guys of course had everything that the author thought it meant to be good. Every law was just, the rulers were all for their people, everyone was kind and welcoming. While the 'bad guys' (even if they weren't evil, or the antagonists) were the opposite. They had laws that were cruel, the rulers were just in it for themselves, the people were selfish and against the protagonist.

I would see authors do the same with fanfiction, when taking a race they liked. That race would be perfect, with perfect laws, perfect society, and so on, while the races they didn't like (usually human) were seen as the, well, infestation of the world. There were the occasional 'good human' but they were always written as the exception.

FAllout 4 *groans* by the end of it, I wanted to take some faction leaders by the ear and tell them 'listen up, I just went through fallout soaked regions, and have been exploring all sorts of bomb riddled shelters, and have done all this stuff. You WILL get it together and work together with these other factions for the good of the commonwealth, or I WILL take over your faction or kick you out of the commonwealth.' Though, to be fair, that is a common refrain of mine from Bethesda games, the whole 'only one can stand' even though by the end of the game your character can be a super powerful person who could easily kick the rears of any faction. There is no way to get the factions to work together for the good of the region. Though I have to admit, I made my choice based on how much the leader of the INstitute annoyed me...

I completely agree with you. I can't stand Laurent and STibbons and can't understand why they are so darned popular. I don't mind Raz as much, though he is getting a bit overused.

But, that also brings up a good point that I was thinking about the other day: recurring characters/series where there is no growth. So many long running series just don't see a growth in their protagonist characters, and ESO suffers from that on a lesser scale with their recurring characters. It isn't just that their personality is the same, which it should be, but they often use the same type of jokes, get into the same types of messes, blame the same people (looking at you Laurent, get your head out of your rear!). They don't learn from their past and so each time you see them, you know it is basically going to be the exact same quest you already had.

I also don't mind quippy humor, but it has its place, and its place is NOT every single instance of humor, nor everywhere. I also like dry humor, some dark humor, and so on. But, it seems like the default today is to use one liners or little quips to get the humor across.

I want to see more of Revus and Tiras, with them having *grown* like it seemed they showed in that one quest. I would like Raynor and Kirith to have actually grown as well. (you would think that supposedly intelligent people, after getting into all these situations and needing to be rescued, would realize something, but no...) I am sure there are also plenty of other characters from the base game that you only see once that I would love to have come back, but only if they show some growth! Not just come back as a one dimensional 'hey, this is their quest 2.0! here you can do the same things you did for them the first time, but with a different skin on it!'.

metheglyn

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

You also have to take into account and many people DO get a thrill about seeing a favorite character show up, or get mentioned in a different context.

There are characters I enjoy - as you know. And I also like it if I see them again - given the occasion makes sense and the writing is meaningful (or entertaining for longer than 5 seconds at least). I have the feeling though that there are some "official fan favorites" who get shoved into stories no matter what (and not just twice), whether it even makes sense that they're in that part of the continent or not at all. Also, those "favorites" are, albeit with some small differences, all very much the same writing direction: "flirty". A bit more variety would be nice.

Seeing some important Mages Guild charactes again in a Mages Guild centered story (as an example) is not what I mean. That absolutely makes sense. So I'm not bothered with those I already saw in the current prologue, for example. Well, we'll see who else will cross our way on Solstice...

I also want to touch on this.

I'm one of those people who tends to dislike fan-favorites on principle. It's almost like I feel like this character is shoved in my face because the writers are like "look how cool they are, you are supposed to like them!" and that tends to rub me the wrong way. Sometimes it works out, but a lot of the time I get annoyed about the shilled character because the character I like is getting shoved into the background and hated because they're not the golden child.

And I hate seeing characters return as a one-dimensional caricature of themselves. Stop that. If you're bringing someone back, keep them written the same.
And yes, for the love of all things holy stop making everyone so flirty. I feel like I need to carry a spray water bottle to calm people down.

Lol, that's a good idea! One good shot of water to the face should do it.

I don't have a problem with fan-favorites in general (being a fan who does have favorites) and I do like to see my favorites return, but it definitely seems like ZOS has narrowed the roster to the most requested characters, which means we do see too much of certain npcs at the expense of possible new and interesting characters.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Here's an example: I know that Raz is coming back, which... I get that everyone loves him, but saw him in the Gold Coast, he was your partner in Summerset, then he also showed up in NElsweyr and in Galen. And all of this after you can make a choice to leave him to die in the basegame (but of course he gets better, because we can't hurt the fan-favorite, can we?) Meanwhile, one of my favorites from the basegame, Holgunn, was last seen... oh, in the basegame. He never made it back, despite all the chances. And I know that if they did bring him back, he'd appear as a thickheaded Nord drunk who can't do anything, because stupid drunk Nords are funny, right? Even though he wasn't like that in the basegame.

Now there are also those 'fan-favorite' characters who always get into the 'humorous hijinks' style sidequests, and for me, they've absolutely run their course. I'm talking about Lady Laurent and Stibbons (I don't care how much it's implied he likes it, that's abuse plain and simple) and Rigurt (that style of stupid racial caricature is inappropriate and would not be acceptable if he were any other race). I do not find either of them funny in any way, and their stories have just been getting more and more over-the-top and offensive. Those are the ones that I would love to see retired for good, but I know there are a lot of people who love both of them specifically because of that humor.
(and after the stream yesterday, they said the horrible words "Nord Cultural Exchange" and I just groaned.)

I do love Raz, and like to see him show up, but only when it fits his character. I thought his role in North Elsweyr was good, because you got a glimpse into his non-professional life. And he, at least, isn't flirty towards our characters (at least, if he is I don't remember it). It seems from the most recent meet the character article that Raz will be involved in his capacity as Eye of the Queen, so hopefully him being around fits.

Side note: I like Holgunn, too, and it would be nice to see him again.

I wasn't able to watch the stream all the way through, so I didn't get to hear the Nord Cultural Exchange bit, but I would have groaned, too. I never want to see Rigurt again. The first time I came across him, in Mournhold, was the only time he made any sense. Helping him out, I realized exactly why the king sent him on this "diplomatic mission" and I had every sympathy for the king on the matter. Couldn't get away from Rigurt fast enough. But then he showed up again, and again, and again and each time he was dumber. He is, at this point, so stupid it's hard to understand how he's still alive. They cannot make me believe that everyone who crosses his path during his "diplomatic missions" is charmed by him. Someone, somewhere, must have wanted to do him harm. This is Tamriel, after all. The Dark Brotherhood exists.

I feel the same way about Laurent and Stibbons. One quest with them was more than enough, and I honestly have never seen the appeal of those two characters.

metheglyn

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I want to see more of Revus and Tiras, with them having *grown* like it seemed they showed in that one quest. I would like Raynor and Kirith to have actually grown as well. (you would think that supposedly intelligent people, after getting into all these situations and needing to be rescued, would realize something, but no...) I am sure there are also plenty of other characters from the base game that you only see once that I would love to have come back, but only if they show some growth! Not just come back as a one dimensional 'hey, this is their quest 2.0! here you can do the same things you did for them the first time, but with a different skin on it!'.

I'm quite fond of Revus and was glad to see him return in Blackwood, and he was a returning character done really well. If they can bring him back and move him further along his arc, that would be lovely.

As for the Vanos twins, I think Raynor is the highly intelligent one while Kireth is more action-oriented. She is rather reckless/adventurous/bold (however you want to term it) and was more interested in delving than getting into the academy or earning recognition with the mages' guild. I think they're meant to be rather young, as far as mer go, and so I put their misadventures down to the folly of youth in general. But, I do agree that seeing them always in those situations makes them come across rather one-note.

I'm curious if you've done their Clockwork City quest, because that isn't a reskin of them running headfirst into trouble and actually does show some growth.

JemadarofCaerSalis

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I want to see more of Revus and Tiras, with them having *grown* like it seemed they showed in that one quest. I would like Raynor and Kirith to have actually grown as well. (you would think that supposedly intelligent people, after getting into all these situations and needing to be rescued, would realize something, but no...) I am sure there are also plenty of other characters from the base game that you only see once that I would love to have come back, but only if they show some growth! Not just come back as a one dimensional 'hey, this is their quest 2.0! here you can do the same things you did for them the first time, but with a different skin on it!'.

I'm quite fond of Revus and was glad to see him return in Blackwood, and he was a returning character done really well. If they can bring him back and move him further along his arc, that would be lovely.

As for the Vanos twins, I think Raynor is the highly intelligent one while Kireth is more action-oriented. She is rather reckless/adventurous/bold (however you want to term it) and was more interested in delving than getting into the academy or earning recognition with the mages' guild. I think they're meant to be rather young, as far as mer go, and so I put their misadventures down to the folly of youth in general. But, I do agree that seeing them always in those situations makes them come across rather one-note.

I'm curious if you've done their Clockwork City quest, because that isn't a reskin of them running headfirst into trouble and actually does show some growth.

I have and it was an interesting departure.

For me, it is because they are young that I feel they should be showing *some* growth (and to be fair to them, they are no where near as bad as some of the other recurring characters. I don't groan when I see them like I do a coupe of the others)

Being young is the time when you really should see the most growth, because you are still learning and aren't set in your ways.

I think one issue is that so many people confuse things like 'interest' with 'personality'. IE, someone is interested in Ruins, so their personality is 'Ruins' and everything they do must be about Ruins. Kireth and Raynor do break that mold a bit because their quests aren't always just about ruins.

You can see it offline all the time, where people will take one single aspect and suddenly that is all they can talk about. Nothing else matters, and if the conversation moves away from that subject, they will either clam up or they will move the topic back.

Dogs, specific video games, hobbies, etc... These people don't seem to understand that people can be interested in more than one thing at a time, and don't always want to talk about that one subject.

I have seen this in writing as well. It was touched upon earlier, the difference between writing a 'Hero' and writing a 'Person who is a hero'. That difference is being lost, and so many characters fall victim to the trap of 'I am a hero, so therefore my personality is HERO'. It makes the characters come across as one dimensional.

Laurent and Stibbons, to me, are a good example, Rigurt is another. Laurent and Stibbons, no matter how often I have seen them, always seem one note. You go through the exact same actions with them, and they never learn anything, they never grow, and the next time you meet them you know that you will do the exact same actions.

Basically, they come across as having been written for this specific role, rather than being written as characters who then have adventures. Just as Rigurt was written, not as a cultural ambassador that was clueless, but rather as a clueless cultural ambassador. Again, there is a distinction there, one that can often be hard to put into words. But it is there nonetheless.

metheglyn

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I want to see more of Revus and Tiras, with them having *grown* like it seemed they showed in that one quest. I would like Raynor and Kirith to have actually grown as well. (you would think that supposedly intelligent people, after getting into all these situations and needing to be rescued, would realize something, but no...) I am sure there are also plenty of other characters from the base game that you only see once that I would love to have come back, but only if they show some growth! Not just come back as a one dimensional 'hey, this is their quest 2.0! here you can do the same things you did for them the first time, but with a different skin on it!'.

I'm quite fond of Revus and was glad to see him return in Blackwood, and he was a returning character done really well. If they can bring him back and move him further along his arc, that would be lovely.

As for the Vanos twins, I think Raynor is the highly intelligent one while Kireth is more action-oriented. She is rather reckless/adventurous/bold (however you want to term it) and was more interested in delving than getting into the academy or earning recognition with the mages' guild. I think they're meant to be rather young, as far as mer go, and so I put their misadventures down to the folly of youth in general. But, I do agree that seeing them always in those situations makes them come across rather one-note.

I'm curious if you've done their Clockwork City quest, because that isn't a reskin of them running headfirst into trouble and actually does show some growth.

I have and it was an interesting departure.

For me, it is because they are young that I feel they should be showing *some* growth (and to be fair to them, they are no where near as bad as some of the other recurring characters. I don't groan when I see them like I do a coupe of the others)

Being young is the time when you really should see the most growth, because you are still learning and aren't set in your ways.

I think one issue is that so many people confuse things like 'interest' with 'personality'. IE, someone is interested in Ruins, so their personality is 'Ruins' and everything they do must be about Ruins. Kireth and Raynor do break that mold a bit because their quests aren't always just about ruins.

You can see it offline all the time, where people will take one single aspect and suddenly that is all they can talk about. Nothing else matters, and if the conversation moves away from that subject, they will either clam up or they will move the topic back.

Dogs, specific video games, hobbies, etc... These people don't seem to understand that people can be interested in more than one thing at a time, and don't always want to talk about that one subject.

I have seen this in writing as well. It was touched upon earlier, the difference between writing a 'Hero' and writing a 'Person who is a hero'. That difference is being lost, and so many characters fall victim to the trap of 'I am a hero, so therefore my personality is HERO'. It makes the characters come across as one dimensional.

Laurent and Stibbons, to me, are a good example, Rigurt is another. Laurent and Stibbons, no matter how often I have seen them, always seem one note. You go through the exact same actions with them, and they never learn anything, they never grow, and the next time you meet them you know that you will do the exact same actions.

Basically, they come across as having been written for this specific role, rather than being written as characters who then have adventures. Just as Rigurt was written, not as a cultural ambassador that was clueless, but rather as a clueless cultural ambassador. Again, there is a distinction there, one that can often be hard to put into words. But it is there nonetheless.

I wonder if character growth is hampered by the notion that everything that's happened thus far has all basically happened at the same time, or in the same year, canonically. I don't remember when ZOS introduced that strange rationale (never been a fan of it) or even if that would somehow impact the writing for the characters.

I agree with you whole-heartedly about Laurent, Stibbons, and Rigurt. Unless those characters show some growth, I never want to see them again. Or, if I have to see them in the same tired roles, I want the ability to sabotage whatever they're doing.

I do agree that the characters often come across as a collection of quirky traits rather than actual characters. I think this is partly due to the medium--we're never going to get inside any npcs thoughts like we can in books with the narrator voice (even the in-game journals of npcs are rather sparse)--and perhaps also due to it being easier to come up with a 'hook' than a character. I think the need to come out with new content on a regular schedule hampers creativity to a degree, so maybe with the intended flexibility of the upcoming seasonal framework, they can return to more well-rounded characters.