The elder scrolls has always been a very Dark and maddening setting once you peel away the surface level. I cannot look into much detail of what this quest involves as i wish to avoid as many spoilers as i can before release, however such dark content Should remain in the game in general. in this, past and future iterations of the elder scrolls. Sure, maybe it could use a content warning, but i hope the majority of this dark content remains as is, and is not censored in any way.

I hear some saying its handled or written poorly, and if thats the case sure im all for some things being tweaked to that extent as long as its not sanitized in the process

Ratzkifal wrote: »

RevJJ wrote: »

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 hope that is not the case. This is a topic really underrepresented in media and I was looking forward to seeing how it was handled.

FayJolyn wrote: »

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.

I’ll look forward to reading your insights as to what changed if you are willing to redo the quest and share here.

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.

There's at least a few more changes other than what's been noted already, did my best to (haphazardly) record them here:

Sondivel's letter from the cache in "Between a Rock and a Whetstone":
Sondivel's dialogue near the end of "Dim and Distant Pasts"
Sondivel's letter in "Light the Way to Freedom":
Personally, I think Sharp's questline is in a better place than it was originally...but there's still more that could be done. I listed a couple points below from lines that are still in this new version and don't sit right to me.

Sharp's dialogue in "Light the Way to Freedom":

Short summary of changes that I noticed:

• Reynilla no longer talks about Sondivel wanting to change the barrier between will and desire.
  
• Sharp no longer has dialogue when he says he wish he hadn't read the rest of the letter where Sondivel goes all "poetic" over Sharp physical features. That first letter itself seems to be unchanged.
  
• Sharp's letter no longer talks about him not wanting to be touched.
  
• You still play as Sharp in the bucket scene, however Sondivel no longer wears any lipstick.
  
• Sondivel no longer signs his last letter with Sondy, he now signs it with: Your Sondivel.
  
• I don't think I really noticed any new dialogue, pretty much most of the references to Sharp's physical features in Sondivel's correspondence got cut or toned down.
  
• 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.
  
• There is no extra dialogue options that I've noticed that weren't there before. I have the feeling that Sharp did more emoting when talking to him, but I'm not sure.

Some changes where welcome - like the removal of Sondivel's lipstick and that he now signs his letter no longer as Sondy. Others however...
I'm not sure how I feel about the adjustments. Any SA subtext got pushed back further back which I guess is ok, but for some reason the questline as a whole now felt flatter to me as a result.

I really disliked that they removed dialogue from Sharp who was - as others also pointed out - already not that prominent in his own story. I feel ZOS went in too thoroughly with the nerf bat here, because it now felt like the whole subject of SA kinda got censored. Which is not what players asked for. We wanted to have a sensitive story that keeps players possible reaction in mind. But instead now Sharp gets even more silenced. I feel they now went overboard, and again missed the mark.

Sharp's dialogue and letter didn't need adjusting, it was mostly Sondivel who had to be toned down. People were put off by him not by Sharp of all people.

If this end up being the final version it feels the players who yelled the loudest got what they want and the players who wanted nuance and maturity in a possible rough gem of a quest got censored. The optimism I had earlier today has deflated.

feeling kinda gloomy about it. ngl.

EDIT: spelling

From Fay's post:

[*] Reynilla no longer talks about Sondivel wanting to change the barrier between will and desire.

- Dislike this change. I don't feel Sondivel needed to be made less villanous and I don't feel that was the complaint. EDIT: Some of the worst ICK may need to have been rewritten though.

[*] Sharp no longer has dialogue when he says he wish he hadn't read the rest of the letter where Sondivel goes all "poetic" over Sharp physical features. That first letter itself seems to be unchanged.

- Dislike this change too and agree Sharp isn't the one who needs to be losing dialogue or reactions to what happened to him.

[*] Sharp's letter no longer talks about him not wanting to be touched.

- Dislike this change. This is a common occurrence after abuse and many survivors share their boundaries around being touched.

[*] You still play as Sharp in the bucket scene, however Sondivel no longer wears any lipstick.

- Great about the lipstick. I'm torn on whether this is a plot device I'd like to play through. Each survivor is at a different place in their own healing as to what experiences would be too much of a trigger.

[*] Sondivel no longer signs his last letter with Sondy, he now signs it with: Your Sondivel.

- Good change. The less camp the better with this topic.

[*] I don't think I really noticed any new dialogue, pretty much most of the references to Sharp's physical features in Sondivel's correspondence got cut or toned down.

- Unfortunate Sharp wasn't given more agency and dialogue at least. This ignores a lot of the critique around this. I am torn on Sondivel's correspondence getting but and toned down though - for again, I feel people like this are gross and their evilness doesn't need to be muted and hidden. It depends on how this was done for me and I'd have to see the differences to fully know.

[*] 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.

- Bad change if this is the case - saw the post though that this dialogue may still be there.

[*] There is no extra dialogue options that I've noticed that weren't there before. I have the feeling that Sharp did more emoting when talking to him, but I'm not sure.

- I think some of us hoped for replaced dialogue and more dialogue for Sharp, not just snipping of what was there.
[/list]

FayJolyn wrote: »

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.

Same to be honest. This is a topic that means a lot to me, and while MMOs may not be the best place to tackle the topic, I was excited they made the attempt. In most media it's handled either as a joke, in a prison setting between inmates, or both. That's in the rare media it comes up at all.

I liked that there was nuance and some effort to address power and control dynamics, and show some hints at the impact on Sharp himself that a lot of victims go through. Sharp at least gets Tamrielic justice, something most do not get IRL.

If the end result is to remove this plot I think it missed the mark. This may have been a gut over-reaction to avoid criticism, which I dislike. It's one thing if this was cut on the editing room floor and was never introduced to the playerbase - but now that we've seen it was there and is being removed now doesn't sit as well with me.

Because there is pretty much no time until release to write and record new dialouge addressing the problem of Sharp not featuring enough was never going to be addressed so I understand why they decided it would be easier to just try and cut and tone down, even though I feel like the quest is worse off because of it.

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.

I'm not sure at who your reply is directed at here, (and I'm sorry if I am interpreting what you wrote all wrong here) but I don't think it's fair to the players who took time to provide considerate amount of feedback for ZOS - to imply that it is all a waste is almost hurtful. I see no harm in people discussing on how a touchy quest can be improved. It's clearly something that is on people's mind judging by the amount of views this thread has gotten so far. Maybe not everyone feels the need to comment, but the views do give a little insight that at least the whole thing catches people' s attention.

Me and several other people have empathized multiple times that we didn't want to take away from the darker tones of the quest at all, just see the subject being handled with a little more grace.
The fact that ZOS decided to answer by scrapping the whole layer of subtext that imo didn't do the quest any good. Now it just praises the loudest voices and takes away from people who wants to see this game and it's writing get better. I hate that ZOS chickened out this way. I'm annoyed at ZOS first and foremost since they have the power here.

edit: spelling

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.

Wow. Talk about ZERO empathy or sympathy for what other people have experienced in life. Yes, it is a FANTASY game but for people who have experienced abuse and assault, this is too close to REALITY. It's not about people being offended by the quest. It's about the quest hitting too close to home and bringing up bad or painful memories. For many people, this FANTASY game is a brief escape from REALITY and they don't need to be reminded of these thing in a game that is supposed to be for fun and enjoyment.

I agree about cliched writing. I noticed a huge increase in campy humor and attempt at puns and absurd commentary or behavior throughout High Isle, noticeably more than other expansions. Also some really goofy personalities that I think were to lend themselves to humor. I think for me it’s that style of writing that had no place in the quest - like the pun on Sharp, the “Sondy” sign off, and maybe some of the obsession lines.

That said, I was sad to see on Twitter some of the hate train for the quest, some of whom Said they did not play it and did not want to spoil themselves but then went on to say how terrible the writers were. Also a lot of false info that the quest subjected the player directly to SA which is not what happens. There was an ESO influencer who played and posted the original in its entirety who came to the same conclusion about some misinformation being in the conversation around the quest and the entire quest is still online.

I just hope these types of mobs didn’t frighten them into some of the overcutting we may have now.

Wolf_Eye wrote: »

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. (My thesis won an award out of a campus of 40K students and I subsequently was invited to speak on the topic.) The point of it was to give voice to the voiceless - but only to the extent they felt comfortable having that voice. Every one of them spoke only under strict anonymity.

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. 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.

To me, 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.

This is why I question how much attention Sharp would feel comfortable with, and how much healing we as the player character would witness in the very abbreviated (one year) time frame ESO takes place in. That said, I do appreciate the letter he writes and it feels that is his attempt to open up without having to say it in person. I know it was critiqued this was a letter and not dialogue, but I could definitely see him more comfortable writing a letter about his feelings than an open conversation.

Wolf_Eye wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

Wolf_Eye wrote: »

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.

I can appreciate what you are saying, but I prefer the quest structure as is. It's a grave topic and not one I'd like to have seen settled in 15 minutes of game play.

I would LOVE for Sharp to get more quests in the future where we do explore him starting to enjoy life more freely. The "one and done" treatment of Companions where they never get new content is something I dislike as someone who loves companions and want to see more development of our relationships with them.