According to the pts patch notes, some of the dialogue has been changed.
According to the pts patch notes, some of the dialogue has been changed.
Urgh. I guess I have to play through the whole quest again and hope I'll spot what exactly they changed... Really would have been helpful if they had told us which parts the changes come in. Considering they said "text", I am guessing they completely removed all the SA references from the notes and letters alongside all the relevant dialogue since that is the easiest way to fix it 3 weeks away from release. But that's only speculation on my part.
I did the first part of his quest again and found the one of Sondivel notes where he used to write in full caps where he tells others to prioritize capturing Sharp. It's no longer in full caps and also Reynila no longer had dialogue where she was talking about Sondivel trying to break barriers of will and desire. I also gotten the impression Sharp was slightly more emotionally expressive, maybe? IDK? But that also could be just me and me paying extra attention.
Aaand then my dumb ass noticed I was not on a pre-made character so I couldn't up Sharp's reputation with me to progress further. Will have to start again later in the day.
I am pleasantly surprised ZOS reacted so quickly. I certainly did not expect that. Will write my thoughts down when I have time to log in again tonight.
Seems like good changes aside from his ambitions being too much for other telvanni. I’m sure the goal of controlling slaves wouldn’t offend them that much.
Short summary of changes that I noticed:
- I also don't think Sharp has any dialogue anymore about not wanting to be touched when you ask Sharp to tell you something about himself.
PrinceShroob wrote: »EDIT: Upon further consideration, I'm not actually sure if he had any dialogue about that. Was it in his first quest instead? "Tell me something about yourself" is essentially a thinly-veiled way to ask what increases and decreases the companion's rapport, and as far as I know, there's no way to actually... y'know, finishing that sentence doesn't make me feel great, so I'll leave it there, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
PrinceShroob wrote: »With regard to the letter, I think the intention was not to change it too much, but... I don't know. It made me tear up when I read it the first time and there was something that resonated about him trying to move on, to change his reactions and heal, that the worst parts of ourselves aren't faults but the detritus of others who have hurt us.
- I think some of us hoped for replaced dialogue and more dialogue for Sharp, not just snipping of what was there.
[/list]
Yeah, I have really grown attached to our boy and I was really hoping it weren't true. The fact that the whole SA subtext pretty much got cut really stings.
If it stays like this I will end up preferring the 1st version however flawed it may have been.
edit: added extra quote so I don't have to double post.
dcam86b14_ESO wrote: »The game is already an M rating and to call out writing or themes that make people uncomfortable is a waste IMO.
We all have our own experiences and react differently, taking away a story for the sake of just making someone feel safe is the opposite of what art/world-building stands upon.
We have already seen this type of censorship happen several times in ESO and it has consequences for future updates.
sneakymitchell wrote: »Who cares it’s just a story in a fantasy game. If any word comes up real life or a scene play out. It’s just a game. You can’t make good story if it’s always hero beats bad guy all the time. Why media is too cliche in writing nowadays [snip]
Let the story be a story if it will not want me to see what happens next then I just go do something else or go through the boredom of the story.
sneakymitchell wrote: »It’s just a game. You can’t make good story if it’s
sneakymitchell wrote: »It’s just a game. You can’t make good story if it’s
Except, if it's written in a poor way, then it's NOT a good story.
And I would argue that misrepresenting SA by writing it poorly is, in a way, it's own type of censorship. If you're going to show it in a way that waves away it's impact, or puts too much focus on the abuser instead of the victim, then you're misrepresenting the truth. And might even risk implying that the abuser is more important, censoring the voice of the victim.
~
sneakymitchell wrote: »It’s just a game. You can’t make good story if it’s
Except, if it's written in a poor way, then it's NOT a good story.
And I would argue that misrepresenting SA by writing it poorly is, in a way, it's own type of censorship. If you're going to show it in a way that waves away it's impact, or puts too much focus on the abuser instead of the victim, then you're misrepresenting the truth. And might even risk implying that the abuser is more important, censoring the voice of the victim.
~
I disagree that this is what happened in this quest. The end result is muting the presentation of the perpetrators behavior, when it’s their behavior that should be on trial and not the victims. I agree with some of the changes fixing maybe the worst of his dialogue though.
As far as how to handle Sharp, I personally didn’t think his characterization was bad. I certainly don’t like removing any of his dialogue or text.
I completed my honors thesis interviewing male survivors of sexual assault. At the time it was a topic nearly completely missing in the academic journals. A theme specific to male survivors especially early on in their realization is often a burying of feelings and deep sense of shame. It’s unlikely Sharp would want to have lots of dialogue about this experience with the player character he just met. That he gets to kill his abuser is already some level of fantasy empowerment for the character but that alone will not fully heal him.
Many of those I interviewed never talked about this to anyone. At the time on my campus resources and counselors for sexual assault were for female students only. I know for many victims male and female they also may hide this has happened at all for years, for various reasons.
sneakymitchell wrote: »It’s just a game. You can’t make good story if it’s
Except, if it's written in a poor way, then it's NOT a good story.
And I would argue that misrepresenting SA by writing it poorly is, in a way, it's own type of censorship. If you're going to show it in a way that waves away it's impact, or puts too much focus on the abuser instead of the victim, then you're misrepresenting the truth. And might even risk implying that the abuser is more important, censoring the voice of the victim.
~
I disagree that this is what happened in this quest. The end result is muting the presentation of the perpetrators behavior, when it’s their behavior that should be on trial and not the victims. I agree with some of the changes fixing maybe the worst of his dialogue though.
As far as how to handle Sharp, I personally didn’t think his characterization was bad. I certainly don’t like removing any of his dialogue or text.
I completed my honors thesis interviewing male survivors of sexual assault. At the time it was a topic nearly completely missing in the academic journals. A theme specific to male survivors especially early on in their realization is often a burying of feelings and deep sense of shame. It’s unlikely Sharp would want to have lots of dialogue about this experience with the player character he just met. That he gets to kill his abuser is already some level of fantasy empowerment for the character but that alone will not fully heal him.
Many of those I interviewed never talked about this to anyone. At the time on my campus resources and counselors for sexual assault were for female students only. I know for many victims male and female they also may hide this has happened at all for years, for various reasons.
But the quest is still mostly fixated on that Telvanni fellow and NOT Sharp. That's my point though. The fact that they muted his horribleness is just another layer of "you see? He's not so bad. Let's focus on him", which is still drowning out Sharp's point of view.
I know you said a male victim wouldn't have much to say, likely, and that is fine. But I don't agree that we should have had every single one of his quests be about "oh let's go kill an abuser, Telvanni what's-his-name, and oh hey Sharp is along for the ride as a sidekick". It just feels nasty.
Telvanni-face should have been quickly taken care of in the first quest, with all of his horribleness laid out (but give the player a warning for it) and we should have moved on to doing stuff that Sharp likes for subsequent quests. I hope that makes more sense.