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

metheglyn · May 22

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

As a vegan myself, this is how the Bosmer dietary representation came across to me: just a big joke highlighting how silly veganism is perceived. It's akin to a quest in High Isle where a distraught Breton wants you to save his friend, turns out his friend is a pig, and it's played for laughs: would you look at this goof, treating animals with respect? It is possible I'm overly sensitive to the matter, but honestly such treatment really is a disrespect to the lore. The Bosmer have deep beliefs about the Green and we seldom get to see that represented.

I'm going to go off on a tangent here, but I find it interesting!

I don't think you're overly sensitive. From my perspective, peoples impression of things like veganism can get colored by the loudest, most extreme members of a group, and sometimes, they aren't always the best representatives. Because some advocates tend to do things that vegans who are just living normal lives would never consider, outsiders get the wrong impression. As a result, those that don't understand turn it into a joke, when it really isn't.

It's very similar with other groups where certain perspectives get buried due to poor representation. You end up getting labeled by an outside perception that doesn't actually represent you due to the actions of people that have nothing to do with you. I'm not vegan, but I can empathize with what you must feel when people treat it as something to laugh at. It's a social issue I see mirrored across many different walks of life. Or am I making an assumption by making that comparison? Feel free to correct me. Always open to listening to different perspectives.

No assumptions made that I can see; I think you're very insightful on the matter.

It's easy for people to go with the impression that the loudest among a group create, especially when something challenges their own view of life. It does get frustrating, though, to see misrepresentation repeated over and over.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I think it's really interesting that you can see your own feelings reflected in those of the Bosmer. I've often imagined that the Bosmer must feel the same way about the Green as I do about my own animals. I raise horses, and own a few rescued dairy cows, and have goats and sheep. Treating animals with respect is no joke to me. When I roleplay, I take that emotional intensity and, instead, apply it to the plants and trees.

Actually, channeling some of my more negative experiences with people in real life can be helpful. When I think of all the people who've ever told me that a rescue animal was "just a goat" or "just a pig", I recall my emotions, flip that to "It's just a tree" or "it's just a flower", and I find I can write my bosmer from a place of genuine fervor. Even if I'm leaving myself and my personal morals at the door when I roleplay, I still draw on certain elements of myself to bring realism to my characters.

Flipping the script is a very good way to try to see another viewpoint and, in general, it's something I wish people did more often in all types of situations to try to better understand another perspective.

When it comes to Bosmer and their meat-forward diet (though maybe it's more evenly balanced between meat and dairy), the idea that they practice cannibalism doesn't bother me at all. Setting aside the fact that it's fiction anyway, it fits with their culture. It's not that hard to see why they would make the step from eating one type of meat to eating another.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

But yes- I really want to see more instances where the beliefs of the bosmer make an emotional impact. I mean, is it really so extreme to view the Green this way? How is it funny to look at a tree and regard it as something to be venerated? I don't even think it's all that difficult to imagine how a Bosmer must feel about the trees and plants. I think there's something genuinely spiritual about forests in real life, especially enormous, old-growth forests that might harbor rare species of plants under their bows. Cutting them down has always felt like a violation of something I'd almost describe as holy.

Side note-going to visit the California redwoods in real life can make you feel as tiny as an actual bosmer XD

Yes, they can! I've stood underneath a redwood and looked directly up the trunk--it was a dizzying and powerful experience and I did feel tiny in the grand scheme of things.

I live up in the Pacific Northwest, and talk about your forests! I go walking/hiking in them all the time and there's definitely a spiritual element to them. It's really easy to understand how a culture could venerate and want to protect them.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

There's a quest in Malabal Tor where you discover the fate of a village who was wiped out (it's one of the Indaenir series of quests) and you discover that, though an aggressive clan attacked and killed them all, they cleverly used the Meat Mandate to achieve the final victory. I thought it was a good insight into Bosmer culture that was treated seriously.

Thank you! Yes, that was one of the better quests. And an interesting exploration of the Meat Mandate's potential.

Indaenir is one of my favorite NPCs that we quest with. What I find particularly interesting about him is that even other Bosmer consider him a bit odd--not in a bad way, but just enough different to them that they don't quite 'get' him. When you quest with him, he doesn't come across as kooky or wacky or anything like that--you get to see his deep connection to the Valenwood--but he does stand apart from the other Bosmer. And that is what I want from more of the stories and characters in this game: subtlety, nuance, deeper looks at the lore.

But I better end this tangent and let you get back to rest of the thread!

Finedaible · May 22

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

[...]
I think, in some ways, the developer has lost touch with what role-playing really means in a game like this. We have all of these cultures within the TES series, some with very different ideas of what good and evil mean. However, it seems to me that the role the player character is meant to take on is always written from some over-arching modern sense of morality. In recent expansions, it's like they take every culture and bit of lore in TES, point out what would be “bad” about it by modern societal standards, and say “See that? That’s your enemy, that’s what you’re meant to defeat!”
[...]

I was trying to express this very thing about ESO's writing these days but you beat me to it. It almost feels like modern audiences have become so hyper-sensitive these last several years that audiences have become unable to look at things objectively and separate fiction from the real world. This no doubt presents challenges to whoever writes stories for ESO, but I don't think that pressure should fall upon the writers. Every great writer for Elder Scrolls wrote the story they wanted to convey, not the corporate-sterilized drafts with ESO now, devoid of all character, emotion, and nuance.

Syldras · May 22

Finedaible wrote: »

I was trying to express this very thing about ESO's writing these days but you beat me to it. It almost feels like modern audiences have become so hyper-sensitive these last several years that audiences have become unable to look at things objectively and separate fiction from the real world. This no doubt presents challenges to whoever writes stories for ESO, but I don't think that pressure should fall upon the writers. Every great writer for Elder Scrolls wrote the story they wanted to convey, not the corporate-sterilized drafts with ESO now, devoid of all character, emotion, and nuance.

The thing I'm always wondering about is: Does the audience actually want that sanitized or overly moralistic writing? Or is it only what the creators of movies, tv shows or games think the audience wants? Or maybe the idea of advisors? Because I don't know anyone who enjoys that, but many who dislike it.

TaSheen · May 22

Syldras wrote: »

Finedaible wrote: »

I was trying to express this very thing about ESO's writing these days but you beat me to it. It almost feels like modern audiences have become so hyper-sensitive these last several years that audiences have become unable to look at things objectively and separate fiction from the real world. This no doubt presents challenges to whoever writes stories for ESO, but I don't think that pressure should fall upon the writers. Every great writer for Elder Scrolls wrote the story they wanted to convey, not the corporate-sterilized drafts with ESO now, devoid of all character, emotion, and nuance.

The thing I'm always wondering about is: Does the audience actually want that sanitized or overly moralistic writing? Or is it only what the creators of movies, tv shows or games think the audience wants? Or maybe the idea of advisors? Because I don't know anyone who enjoys that, but many who dislike it.

I don't now nor have I ever preferred "sanitized" or "moralistic" writing. TES didn't used to be that way, but it's becoming a lot more prevalent....

Freelancer_ESO · May 23

Syldras wrote: »

Finedaible wrote: »

I was trying to express this very thing about ESO's writing these days but you beat me to it. It almost feels like modern audiences have become so hyper-sensitive these last several years that audiences have become unable to look at things objectively and separate fiction from the real world. This no doubt presents challenges to whoever writes stories for ESO, but I don't think that pressure should fall upon the writers. Every great writer for Elder Scrolls wrote the story they wanted to convey, not the corporate-sterilized drafts with ESO now, devoid of all character, emotion, and nuance.

The thing I'm always wondering about is: Does the audience actually want that sanitized or overly moralistic writing? Or is it only what the creators of movies, tv shows or games think the audience wants? Or maybe the idea of advisors? Because I don't know anyone who enjoys that, but many who dislike it.

I don't think most people want sanitized or overly moralistic writing but, I think you'd find for the most part people don't want the writing to challenge what they care about/value/believe too much.

I think that it varies from person to person how much people are willing to have their views challenged.

Depending one someone's life situation they may already be in the position where their views are challenged frequently enough that they are sick of it especially when they feel they are in a position where they don't have an option to safely challenge back or that their views aren't given fair representation.

People also may not trust other people to think critically and make good decisions and as a result may not like them to be exposed to ideas that they disagree with out of fear that the ideas will influence them or lead them to content that does so via algorithm.

Finally, in RPG type games some people will play as a version of themselves and thus will take less kindly to needing to act in ways that don't align with what they are comfortable with doing as they are attaching themselves to their character.

TaSheen · May 23

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Finedaible wrote: »

I was trying to express this very thing about ESO's writing these days but you beat me to it. It almost feels like modern audiences have become so hyper-sensitive these last several years that audiences have become unable to look at things objectively and separate fiction from the real world. This no doubt presents challenges to whoever writes stories for ESO, but I don't think that pressure should fall upon the writers. Every great writer for Elder Scrolls wrote the story they wanted to convey, not the corporate-sterilized drafts with ESO now, devoid of all character, emotion, and nuance.

The thing I'm always wondering about is: Does the audience actually want that sanitized or overly moralistic writing? Or is it only what the creators of movies, tv shows or games think the audience wants? Or maybe the idea of advisors? Because I don't know anyone who enjoys that, but many who dislike it.

I don't think most people want sanitized or overly moralistic writing but, I think you'd find for the most part people don't want the writing to challenge what they care about/value/believe too much.

I think that it varies from person to person how much people are willing to have their views challenged.

Depending one someone's life situation they may already be in the position where their views are challenged frequently enough that they are sick of it especially when they feel they are in a position where they don't have an option to safely challenge back or that their views aren't given fair representation.

People also may not trust other people to think critically and make good decisions and as a result may not like them to be exposed to ideas that they disagree with out of fear that the ideas will influence them or lead them to content that does so via algorithm.

Finally, in RPG type games some people will play as a version of themselves and thus will take less kindly to needing to act in ways that don't align with what they are comfortable with doing as they are attaching themselves to their character.

VERY well put.

spartaxoxo · May 23

I think the scale of games has also contributed to the safer writing. The bigger games cost a LOT to make and are designed to be appealing to global audiences. Audiences that increasingly reject localization designed to remove anything that might offend or cater to their specific tastes in favor of a purist experience. I think is why TV is so often better written than movies and to big budget video games (to a lesser extent because the medium also changes what type of stories are told). It's not a small wonder than that large studios try to stick to themes and characters that feel a bit more universal to begin with. Although, cultural markers are ofc still around in large amounts and in some ways unavoidable.

I think that's one reason why indie games tend to be riskier about story these days.

Syldras · May 23

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

I don't think most people want sanitized or overly moralistic writing but, I think you'd find for the most part people don't want the writing to challenge what they care about/value/believe too much.

The thing is that TES has established lore reaching back over 30 years now, and a big part of the game is the existence of different fictional cultures with different traditions and beliefs. Our player character is a member of one of these cultures, and while no one is obliged to play their character accordingly, we should be given the chance to do so (I'm all for different dialogue options).

Also, I'd also expect npcs from different cultures to act according to that culture (or the culture of the place they grew up in), not so just mirror current real world morals. Why would I play a medieval(-ish) fantasy game to see a plain copy of the real world? Tamriel is not the real world. Some problems may exist both in the fictional world as well as in reality, and that's fine, but I'd personally like to see how TES's cultures handle these things, in their way. I don't want everyone from Bosmer and Imperials to Argonians and Orcs just parrot the real-world morals (or more precisely: the current mainstream sentiment about a topic) to me. It's boring.

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

People also may not trust other people to think critically and make good decisions and as a result may not like them to be exposed to ideas that they disagree with out of fear that the ideas will influence them or lead them to content that does so via algorithm.

If that would be a real danger, we'd have to remove almost everything "unsavory" from TES. No cults, because an "uncritical" person might get the idea to found one. No cannibalism, because someone could get the idea to eat their neighbour. No Dark Brotherhood, no Thieves Guild. Maybe some day someone finds the idea of killing enemies horribly, too. I don't think it's reasonable to strip a game from every critical topic because a hypothetical someone might not be able to handle it.

colossalvoids · May 23

Syldras wrote: »

Finedaible wrote: »

I was trying to express this very thing about ESO's writing these days but you beat me to it. It almost feels like modern audiences have become so hyper-sensitive these last several years that audiences have become unable to look at things objectively and separate fiction from the real world. This no doubt presents challenges to whoever writes stories for ESO, but I don't think that pressure should fall upon the writers. Every great writer for Elder Scrolls wrote the story they wanted to convey, not the corporate-sterilized drafts with ESO now, devoid of all character, emotion, and nuance.

The thing I'm always wondering about is: Does the audience actually want that sanitized or overly moralistic writing? Or is it only what the creators of movies, tv shows or games think the audience wants? Or maybe the idea of advisors? Because I don't know anyone who enjoys that, but many who dislike it.

As much as I'd like to point it to the producers, directors and companies behind those it's also an audience which is at least indirectly pushes that. It's not just how people do actively prefer to not challenge their ideas through media which exposed them to anything "alien" but about seeking confirmation of them being right in a political and cultural aspects, being on a "right side of history" so to say, and that's only one "right" every time, can't be two or three of them so it's safer not going against the grain for a better overall perception. Some artists also think it's their responsibility to not cause indirect harm by planting some ideas to grow in people's heads nowadays, knowing this first hand so to say, so choosing to stick with a safe moralising narratives instead, preferably making a link to some recent real life event to facilitate their allegiance to certain idea in a sense, siding with right people.

So here we are in such threads across the net and fandoms wishing for a better, more open writing which was possible previously but less and less since around 2010's. Even Skyrim looks lot better now, which was a shock for many by how bland and neutralised it was compared to Oblivion.

Syldras · May 23

colossalvoids wrote: »

As much as I'd like to point it to the producers, directors and companies behind those it's also an audience which is at least indirectly pushes that. It's not just how people do actively prefer to not challenge their ideas through media which exposed them to anything "alien" but about seeking confirmation of them being right in a political and cultural aspects, being on a "right side of history" so to say, and that's only one "right" every time, can't be two or three of them so it's safer not going against the grain for a better overall perception. Some artists also think it's their responsibility to not cause indirect harm by planting some ideas to grow in people's heads nowadays, knowing this first hand so to say, so choosing to stick with a safe moralising narratives instead, preferably making a link to some recent real life event to facilitate their allegiance to certain idea in a sense, siding with right people.
So here we are in such threads across the net and fandoms wishing for a better, more open writing which was possible previously but less and less since around 2010's. Even Skyrim looks lot better now, which was a shock for many by how bland and neutralised it was compared to Oblivion.

I see. Now the question is: What could be done to change the course?

It's not only that bland, streamlined, "safe" writing is horribly boring, in case of TES I also have one thing in mind: Everything that gets established remains in the lore forever. I see the risk that the fear to write something more creative and open could lead to warping TES lore as a whole, into a less unique and therefore, from my point of view, negative direction. And that would be a pity, after 30 years.

JemadarofCaerSalis · May 23

Syldras wrote: »

Finedaible wrote: »

I was trying to express this very thing about ESO's writing these days but you beat me to it. It almost feels like modern audiences have become so hyper-sensitive these last several years that audiences have become unable to look at things objectively and separate fiction from the real world. This no doubt presents challenges to whoever writes stories for ESO, but I don't think that pressure should fall upon the writers. Every great writer for Elder Scrolls wrote the story they wanted to convey, not the corporate-sterilized drafts with ESO now, devoid of all character, emotion, and nuance.

The thing I'm always wondering about is: Does the audience actually want that sanitized or overly moralistic writing? Or is it only what the creators of movies, tv shows or games think the audience wants? Or maybe the idea of advisors? Because I don't know anyone who enjoys that, but many who dislike it.

Sadly, I think it is a case like ArchangelIsraphel was talking about. 'Modern audiences' do NOT want overly moralistic writing or sanitized fiction.

However, the loud minority, who will get up in arms about everything and actively campaign to 'cancel' anything they don't like, DOES. Since they are so loud, they often come across as a much larger problem.

I have said elsewhere that I play several online pet sites, and one of those pet sites is pretty much going through this right now. They are seemingly sanitizing their lore from what it was 10 years ago, to a more 'kumbaya' type lore.

10 Years ago, it was about a species whose gods created the world, then had a cataclysm, and they basically went to sleep. After a while they woke up and created this species and placed on the world. In the meantime, other species sprang up and it started a war between the one species and all the other species.

However, people complained because they didn't want to play the part of 'colonizers' (which, you aren't. In this pet site, lore is pretty much a suggestion) and complained until a lot of the lore was changed and now it is a mostly peaceful cohabitation.

One of the results, and I personally find this slightly sad, is they had what they called 'familiars' which were basically pets for your pet, and one of them came from a race of matriarchal creatures. Males were rare and highly prized and this familiar was a fugitive. Since they changed the lore, males are now no longer basically prisoners and 'willingly stay', so the familar being a fugitive is gone.

But, to me, it was much more interesting to think of this person escaping from a society that may want to pamper him, but he doesn't want to be a prisoner.

This is just one example, there have been many more where they have changed lore because it might be 'insensitive' to some of their audience, which I can understand. They are a business, and they want to keep people happy. It is just sad to me that interesting lore is changed to basically the same bland generic lore that you can find pretty much anywhere else.

This pet site isn't the only place i have seen people complain about lore. Even in the TES realm itself, I have seen complaints about people who choose the Imperials over the Stormcloaks, about Dunmer (dont' think Bosmer lore is that widely known) and so on.

Syldras · May 23

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Sadly, I think it is a case like ArchangelIsraphel was talking about. 'Modern audiences' do NOT want overly moralistic writing or sanitized fiction.
However, the loud minority, who will get up in arms about everything and actively campaign to 'cancel' anything they don't like, DOES. Since they are so loud, they often come across as a much larger problem.

If it's just a few oversensitive people being that loud, shouldn't we be able to be louder and cancel the cancelers?

No, but seriously: I have nothing against criticism, obviously, as I'm criticising a lot of things myself. And I'm all for the plurality of opinions. But right now, I don't even see this plurality, but indeed just one thing: Everything - media/fiction, "art" - becoming ever more avoidant and tame out of fear of some elusive group of people who might be offended, whether this group truly exists or not (I don't want to judge that, I leave that to the people who have more knowledge about that).

Why would one even take seriously a - let's assume that for now - tiny group of "complain about everything" people, who don't even seem to understand what art, fiction and roleplay mean, so they are offended by a fictional culture who is immoral from a real-world human 21st century viewpoint? How is their opinion more important than that of people who enjoy the art of writing, fictional worlds and portrayals of diverse cultures with all their differences, including different beliefs and morals? It's all "diversity" nowadays, but the fear of people actually being different and thinking different things seems to be bigger than ever.

To make sure: I'm not discussing politics here - please don't do that, we want this thread to remain open, after all. What I'm about is criticising art and media and the change in writing that I see in different longer-running stories, such as TES, including ESO.

JemadarofCaerSalis · May 23

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Sadly, I think it is a case like ArchangelIsraphel was talking about. 'Modern audiences' do NOT want overly moralistic writing or sanitized fiction.
However, the loud minority, who will get up in arms about everything and actively campaign to 'cancel' anything they don't like, DOES. Since they are so loud, they often come across as a much larger problem.

If it's just a few oversensitive people being that loud, shouldn't we be able to be louder and cancel the cancelers?

No, but seriously: I have nothing against criticism, obviously, as I'm criticising a lot of things myself. And I'm all for the plurality of opinions. But right now, I don't even see this plurality, but indeed just one thing: Everything - media/fiction, "art" - becoming ever more avoidant and tame out of fear of some elusive group of people who might be offended, whether this group truly exists or not (I don't want to judge that, I leave that to the people who have more knowledge about that).

Why would one even take seriously a - let's assume that for now - tiny group of "complain about everything" people, who don't even seem to understand what art, fiction and roleplay mean, so they are offended by a fictional culture who is immoral from a real-world human 21st century viewpoint? How is their opinion more important than that of people who enjoy the art of writing, fictional worlds and portrayals of diverse cultures with all their differences, including different beliefs and morals? It's all "diversity" nowadays, but the fear of people actually being different and thinking different things seems to be bigger than ever.

To make sure: I'm not discussing politics here - please don't do that, we want this thread to remain open, after all. What I'm about is criticising art and media and the change in writing that I see in different longer-running stories, such as TES, including ESO.

I think the biggest issue is that the people who don't want the sanitized version are often okay with actually playing the sanitized version, they just wish for more indepth lore etc...

conversely, the people who want it, often ARE the type of people who will stop playing and they will also make a stink about it on social media, which can reach a large audience, and since these people are complaining about it, there is no guarantee that they will actually be *accurate* in what they are saying the lore portrays.

So, because of this, people who haven't even played the game, but might be interested in it, are now starting to hear about how the game portrays this particular topic, but because the person who is complaining hasn't necessarily portrayed the topic accurately, they are getting a skewed view of the game, which means they could then now go on and blast the game for whatever topic it is, without even realizing (and sometimes not caring) that they aren't giving accurate information.

This is why I feel it seems like so many companies do cater to the minorities that are loud and vocal, rather than the majority that are silent.

And yeah, this is a topic that can easily be about politics, but it is pretty much any debate topic now. It isn't just that people don't want to hear opposing viewpoints, it is now that they don't want opposing view points to exist.

You can see this in how people perceive popular characters. They view the character one way, and if anyone has a differing view point (especially if it puts that one character in a negative light if they like that character or positive light if they hate it) and you now have a flame war on your hands in certain areas.

While I know that these types of people have always existed, I sort of blame social media because it has given these types of people a global platform in which they can put their own opinions forth and, since some social media has ways to 'punish' those that don't agree with you, they can also try to silence opposing opinions. (thinking of Reddit's dislike button, which if you get too bad of a ratio, your comment is collasped automatically and often sorted to the bottom. This leads to making some posts look like the overwhelming majority agrees with one viewpoint, but it is often only because other viewpoints have been chased off or downvoted.)

This leads to what we have seen, where certain sites look like echo chambers, and where many games sanitize their stories so that it is more globally appealling, because they don't want to run the risk of having their game blasted on social media.

I wish it weren't the case. But sadly, it seems to be, especially for media that is hoping to have a broad outreach.

colossalvoids · May 23

Syldras wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

As much as I'd like to point it to the producers, directors and companies behind those it's also an audience which is at least indirectly pushes that. It's not just how people do actively prefer to not challenge their ideas through media which exposed them to anything "alien" but about seeking confirmation of them being right in a political and cultural aspects, being on a "right side of history" so to say, and that's only one "right" every time, can't be two or three of them so it's safer not going against the grain for a better overall perception. Some artists also think it's their responsibility to not cause indirect harm by planting some ideas to grow in people's heads nowadays, knowing this first hand so to say, so choosing to stick with a safe moralising narratives instead, preferably making a link to some recent real life event to facilitate their allegiance to certain idea in a sense, siding with right people.
So here we are in such threads across the net and fandoms wishing for a better, more open writing which was possible previously but less and less since around 2010's. Even Skyrim looks lot better now, which was a shock for many by how bland and neutralised it was compared to Oblivion.

I see. Now the question is: What could be done to change the course?

It's not only that bland, streamlined, "safe" writing is horribly boring, in case of TES I also have one thing in mind: Everything that gets established remains in the lore forever. I see the risk that the fear to write something more creative and open could lead to warping TES lore as a whole, into a less unique and therefore, from my point of view, negative direction. And that would be a pity, after 30 years.

For the company? It's a ball that's sitting on their territory, imo they're listening to specific kinds of people in their online bubble that aren't much critical and are fine with the changes going forward. They are seeing ESO and TES in general as it is portrayed in recent years, like most fantasy media really are. It's safe and getting them around fine. Wish we could have both at the very least, with some guest writing from old lore heads and beards out there putting their spin and having no fear of moralistic accusations, being non trendy and keeping the lore weird most of all. Teenage quirky and weird are sadly very different things, hehe.

About warping we recently had Ithelia, which got pretty mixed reviews overall especially in deep lore circles, but better some sloppy attempt in multiverses than nothing at one hand, it's still zero summed in the very end luckily for the future of TES. My though was that the "deeper" community isn't even interested in ESO enough to begin with 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.

Syldras · May 23

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.

Freelancer_ESO · May 23

Syldras wrote: »

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

I don't think most people want sanitized or overly moralistic writing but, I think you'd find for the most part people don't want the writing to challenge what they care about/value/believe too much.

The thing is that TES has established lore reaching back over 30 years now, and a big part of the game is the existence of different fictional cultures with different traditions and beliefs. Our player character is a member of one of these cultures, and while no one is obliged to play their character accordingly, we should be given the chance to do so (I'm all for different dialogue options).

Also, I'd also expect npcs from different cultures to act according to that culture (or the culture of the place they grew up in), not so just mirror current real world morals. Why would I play a medieval(-ish) fantasy game to see a plain copy of the real world? Tamriel is not the real world. Some problems may exist both in the fictional world as well as in reality, and that's fine, but I'd personally like to see how TES's cultures handle these things, in their way. I don't want everyone from Bosmer and Imperials to Argonians and Orcs just parrot the real-world morals (or more precisely: the current mainstream sentiment about a topic) to me. It's boring.

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

People also may not trust other people to think critically and make good decisions and as a result may not like them to be exposed to ideas that they disagree with out of fear that the ideas will influence them or lead them to content that does so via algorithm.

If that would be a real danger, we'd have to remove almost everything "unsavory" from TES. No cults, because an "uncritical" person might get the idea to found one. No cannibalism, because someone could get the idea to eat their neighbour. No Dark Brotherhood, no Thieves Guild. Maybe some day someone finds the idea of killing enemies horribly, too. I don't think it's reasonable to strip a game from every critical topic because a hypothetical someone might not be able to handle it.

TES's lore/depiction of content has generally evolved over time to better align with it's shifting audiences.

You'll see this at times referenced in ESO such as by Valentina the Crone.

"Chapel of Dibella my big toe! When I was your age, the priests would dance down the lane every morning—naked as a noon-day sparrow! Now? Robes from chin to ankle.
Shameful!"

Personally, I'm on the prudish side of the spectrum. I probably never would have gotten into the Elder Scrolls series had it kept the nudity level of some of the early titles.

So, the amount I can fairly complain about TES evolving for modern audiences is probably a bit curtailed because the only reason I'm actually here is because it evolved when I was younger.

I think you'd generally have more leeway with most people to explore other cultures and viewpoints provided the issues being addressed weren't directly linked towards things people are strongly attached to/impacted by in real life.

You could likely get away with depicting/implying cannibalism because you don't have significant occurrences of it that impact many people that play ESO IRL. If you tread closer to things people see as an IRL threat it's likely people will become more picky.

Syldras · May 23

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

I think you'd generally have more leeway with most people to explore other cultures and viewpoints provided the issues being addressed weren't directly linked towards things people are strongly attached to/impacted by in real life.
You could likely get away with depicting/implying cannibalism because you don't have significant occurrences of it that impact many people that play ESO IRL. If you tread closer to things people see as an IRL threat it's likely people will become more picky.

But why all of a sudden? It has not always been that way. Fiction in general, including movies and literary works, have always depicted dire and real topics including racism or xenophobia, for example. Over decades, no, centuries, people seemed to be capable of separating fiction and reality, and especially so if it was fantasy or sci-fi (or the predecessors of these genres) - genres that are already defined as visions of a world not real (or in case of sci-fi more specifically an idea how the future could become - no matter whether good or bad).

spartaxoxo · May 23

Storytelling has always been used to impart messages and beliefs. And people have criticized those stories for a long, long time.

What has changed is the access to the publishing of those viewpoints being easier than ever, and also making it easier for like minded people to band together to increase the volume of their voice.

The scale of the audiences and the changing general attitudes of localization changes, for better and worse. Localization changes still happen but they're far less common. So the material is made to reach a global audience to begin with rather than being modified later to remove something that wouldn't be understood the same in different places.

Syldras · May 23

The thing I was about is this: People once understood that fantasy and sci-fi stories are supposed to show different worlds (or iterations of this world) and different societies, and just showing different morals doesn't mean endorsing them. This doesn't change even if media can be used to voice an opinion by the author (although it has often been less blatantly done back then than in recent times - and yes, I know that propaganda pieces also exist, but most fiction wasn't this). Most of all they understood that depicting something negative can also be a statement - but not in the way that the author supports that negative thing (people didn't write sci-fi dystopias because they thought the horrible future they portrayed was awesome). Have there been people who have problems with this? Of course, including different accounts of media-related moral panic. But most people understood the difference between reality and fiction very well. Maybe media-literacy is a problem, I don't know.

Syldras · May 23

spartaxoxo wrote: »

So the material is made to reach a global audience to begin with rather than being modified later to remove something that wouldn't be understood the same in different places.

For that, there are quite a lot of meme-y aspects in ESO that people who are not from the USA don't get.

TaSheen · May 23

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

So the material is made to reach a global audience to begin with rather than being modified later to remove something that wouldn't be understood the same in different places.

For that, there are quite a lot of meme-y aspects in ESO that people who are not from the USA don't get.

Some of us in the US don't get them either....

JemadarofCaerSalis · May 23

Syldras wrote: »

The thing I was about is this: People once understood that fantasy and sci-fi stories are supposed to show different worlds (or iterations of this world) and different societies, and just showing different morals doesn't mean endorsing them. This doesn't change even if media can be used to voice an opinion by the author (although it has often been less blatantly done back then than in recent times - and yes, I know that propaganda pieces also exist, but most fiction wasn't this). Most of all they understood that depicting something negative can also be a statement - but not in the way that the author supports that negative thing (people didn't write sci-fi dystopias because they thought the horrible future they portrayed was awesome). Have there been people who have problems with this? Of course, including different accounts of media-related moral panic. But most people understood the difference between reality and fiction very well. Maybe media-literacy is a problem, I don't know.

I think media literacy is a problem, and I think, and this may be related (just woke up from a nap, so my brain isn't quite awake yet), the whole 'subtext' scanners is the same.

The ones who want to insist that the reason the author mentioned blue curtains was because the author was hinting at a deep traumatic past for themselves or the character, when the author themselves say they included blue curtains because they like blue curtains and have them hanging in their own house.

You get these types of people who want to read intention and subtext, (which can be fun! I am not saying it isn't, and I am not saying that some authors don't put subtext and little hints like that in their works!) and they will scour the work for it, and they then extrapolate whatever they read into the work as something the author endorses.

Add in another issue I have seen, again spread by social media, where it is seen as a 'negative' if you happen to like a 'problematic author', and these types of people now start getting uncomfortable. If something they don't like is shown as something that isn't deeply abhorrant, with the idea that the author endorses it because of it, they project onto that as they themselves are problematic, because they like that author.

Does this make sense. My mind went blank halfway through and I lost my train of thought :P I might come back, if I can remember how I was going to put it, and clean this up.

Finedaible · May 23

Warhammer has absolutely zero qualms about including any of those bad subjects in its fantasy world and despite that it is massively successful because its audience understands it is a make-believe dystopian setting. I think the problem with ESO's recent writing lies in the directors' choice to suddenly market the game towards all ages halfway through ESO's lifetime, when it had already launched and established itself as a Mature rated game (it is rated M, likely for various quests in the base game). So, I don't understand why ZoS continues to go down this weird path of alienating Elder Scrolls fans when they could just be committed to making a quality product.

Syldras · May 23

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

The ones who want to insist that the reason the author mentioned blue curtains was because the author was hinting at a deep traumatic past for themselves or the character, when the author themselves say they included blue curtains because they like blue curtains and have them hanging in their own house.
You get these types of people who want to read intention and subtext, (which can be fun! I am not saying it isn't, and I am not saying that some authors don't put subtext and little hints like that in their works!) and they will scour the work for it, and they then extrapolate whatever they read into the work as something the author endorses.

Even more so, they don't seem to understand that their assumptions are only that first and foremost: assumptions. It's something I come across everywhere, actually, also in online discussions. Increasingly often there are people who make assumptions of all kinds about others (often using some weird group boxes or cliché ideas) and who insist that their idea of that person and that person's feelings are the truth - and not merely their idea: "You think this, you intend that, you are xyz, you wanted to insult me!" (or whatever). Also works the other way round, of course, with people accusing everyone and everything of being "offended" while the truth might look completely different. As someone who's been participating in online discussions since the late 1990's, I have the impression it got much worse within the last 10 years or so. In any way, this also seems to include fiction and people believing they knew exactly what an author had in mind - and then horribly misinterpreting it.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Does this make sense. My mind went blank halfway through and I lost my train of thought :P I might come back, if I can remember how I was going to put it, and clean this up.

Don't worry, it does!

JemadarofCaerSalis · May 23

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

The ones who want to insist that the reason the author mentioned blue curtains was because the author was hinting at a deep traumatic past for themselves or the character, when the author themselves say they included blue curtains because they like blue curtains and have them hanging in their own house.
You get these types of people who want to read intention and subtext, (which can be fun! I am not saying it isn't, and I am not saying that some authors don't put subtext and little hints like that in their works!) and they will scour the work for it, and they then extrapolate whatever they read into the work as something the author endorses.

Even more so, they don't seem to understand that their assumptions are only that first and foremost: assumptions. It's something I come across everywhere, actually, also in online discussions. Increasingly often there are people who make assumptions of all kinds about others (often using some weird group boxes or cliché ideas) and who insist that their idea of that person and that person's feelings are the truth - and not merely their idea: "You think this, you intend that, you are xyz, you wanted to insult me!" (or whatever). Also works the other way round, of course, with people accusing everyone and everything of being "offended" while the truth might look completely different. As someone who's been participating in online discussions since the late 1990's, I have the impression it got much worse within the last 10 years or so. In any way, this also seems to include fiction and people believing they knew exactly what an author had in mind - and then horribly misinterpreting it.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Does this make sense. My mind went blank halfway through and I lost my train of thought :P I might come back, if I can remember how I was going to put it, and clean this up.

Don't worry, it does!

I completely agree, and I think part of that is how so many people seem to want 'representation' and so when they find a character or world that they feel represents them best, they don't want anything to 'sully' that, which includes anything they consider negative.

As for the last 10 years thing, I hate to belabor this point, but I still blame social media. Yeah, it had been around for longer, but now you have kids who grew up with it, instead of found it as an adult, and they are now becoming adults themselves, and thus are now starting to get into different fandoms.

I have also seen a raise in the amount of people who can't 'scroll past' something they dislike. They combine this with the idea that their opinion is very important and MUST be heard. One of my favorite examples of this is the movie 'My Friend Flicka'. For any who don't know, it was a movie with Roddy McDowell about a horse.

There was a review on it that said, and this is almost verbatim, 'I don't normally like movies about horses and this one is no exception. It sucked'.

I can understand not liking horse movies, but if you don't like horse movies, why watch one? If you were somehow forced to watch one, why review it, because you already knew you weren't going to like it.

That type of opinion also didn't really help anything, because there was no reason why this person normally dislikes horse movies, or why 'My Friend Flicka' in particular sucked. But, that person felt that their opinion had to be shared and so they did.

I have seen that elsewhere as well, threads that are meant to be positive about a new feature or change, and someone has to come in and hijack the thread towards negativity (and I have seen the opposite, where people get upset about threads that are meant to be more critical of changes/new features, so they either make their own 'positivitiy' thread to counter, or have to go into the negative thread to tell people 'they don't have to play'), people who want any word or opinion they dislike banned from being aired on a certain platform, and so on.

I don't know if you are in 'fandom circles' for various fandoms, but it happens a LOT there. Someone likes a character and they see someone post something negative about that character and the first person loses their mind, because how dare someone have a negative thought towards this character! There are fandom wars about how people interpret certain events and many more about 'problematic' content.

There are fandoms that people just don't say they like, because it has been deemed problematic, due to subtext and interpretation, whether real or imagined, because people get so upset about it. Some people have places where others can share art and stories they have made about the fandoms they love, and these types of fandoms are typically excluded. (as in the person running the place to share just won't allow people to post things about this fandom)

So, it seems like a great many people today *aren't* able to separate reality and fiction. Which is a true shame. There are a great many stories out there that were written at a time when cultural norms, no matter where you live, were different, things were more accepted, and so people wrote about them. But, because people are seemingly having a harder time separating reality and ficiton, they are being 'canceled' because of those particular aspects, instead of people just realizing 'these authors lived at a different time.' So many people think that if they were born into those times, they would have been rebels, just automatically knowing that whatever that aspect was was 'wrong', without stopping to realize, that no, they likely wouldn't have. They would have grown up in a household that at the very least didn't condemn it, and would have likely grown up thinking it was 'normal'.

Basically, they have to project their own morals onto whatever they are watching/reading, and if there is something in what they are watching/reading that clashes, it must be condemned. if it isn't condemned, it must be canceled, because it is condoning it.

(and I am aware that there is a movement to do the exact opposite, that takes the 'it is just fiction' to the other extreme, where they don't care what is depicted, just because it is fiction or art, it is 'okay'.)

Syldras · May 23

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I completely agree, and I think part of that is how so many people seem to want 'representation' and so when they find a character or world that they feel represents them best, they don't want anything to 'sully' that, which includes anything they consider negative.

I seem to be a strange exception then, I guess, as I do very much enjoy characters with flaws (and my roleplay characters are flawed, too), and much more so in comparison to characters that are super cliché positive people - because it seems unrealistic, unnuanced and clichéd to me that someone would be totally shiny and flawless.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

(and I have seen the opposite, where people get upset about threads that are meant to be more critical of changes/new features, so they either make their own 'positivitiy' thread to counter, or have to go into the negative thread to tell people 'they don't have to play'

This is also something I often find astounding: That some people don't seem to understand that criticizing something doesn't mean hating it. If I hated something, I wouldn't take time to write long texts about how to improve it - in some cases even to save it (to clarify: that is not the case with ESO, as I don't think ESO is in danger yet; but still, I care for this game, so I want to improve what I see as having gotten worse in comparison to earlier - that's the whole reason I always get into these discussions about the writing).

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I don't know if you are in 'fandom circles' for various fandoms

No, I'm not. I have my subcultural background, but it's not comparable to that. And to be honest, what you describe sounds like there's a lot of drama in those circles, which isn't actually something I'd enjoy (I prefer my drama in fiction and roleplay).

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

There are a great many stories out there that were written at a time when cultural norms, no matter where you live, were different, things were more accepted, and so people wrote about them. But, because people are seemingly having a harder time separating reality and ficiton, they are being 'canceled' because of those particular aspects, instead of people just realizing 'these authors lived at a different time.'

Indeed that's an interesting point, and I've also noticed it often that people don't seem to have any "historical thinking". I already wrote it earlier: It strikes me as so strange that individuality and diversity are such huge topics today, people talk about that all the time and think they're super diverse, but it seems harder than ever for people to even imagine that other people could have other ideas, morals and norms than them - including people of other cultures, or people of other eras.

Freelancer_ESO · May 24

Syldras wrote: »

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

I think you'd generally have more leeway with most people to explore other cultures and viewpoints provided the issues being addressed weren't directly linked towards things people are strongly attached to/impacted by in real life.
You could likely get away with depicting/implying cannibalism because you don't have significant occurrences of it that impact many people that play ESO IRL. If you tread closer to things people see as an IRL threat it's likely people will become more picky.

But why all of a sudden? It has not always been that way. Fiction in general, including movies and literary works, have always depicted dire and real topics including racism or xenophobia, for example. Over decades, no, centuries, people seemed to be capable of separating fiction and reality, and especially so if it was fantasy or sci-fi (or the predecessors of these genres) - genres that are already defined as visions of a world not real (or in case of sci-fi more specifically an idea how the future could become - no matter whether good or bad).

I wouldn't necessarily say that people have always been accepting of fiction especially when it's message disagreed with their values.

I would say that some of the current shifts stem from changes in who has access to mass communication. In the past, mass communication was frequently expensive and as such restricted to those that either had resources or the backing of those that had resources. Needless to say, this would frequently limit the views that were presented to ones that either aligned with the status quo or that challenged the status quo in mostly "acceptable" ways.

The modern era has massively reduced the cost of mass communication dramatically and as such allows a wider array of viewpoints to be shared and accessed. Needless to say, this both gives a voice to the voiceless and allows an absolutely massive amount of rubbish to also be spread. The amount of information that is now available to people dramatically exceeds the ability for people to process all of it. As a result, you'll find that most people will pick a few sources they trust and ignore most everything else most of the time. Since the sources have massive amounts of competition many of them will try to spice up what they have to say and will try to align their reporting with what their audience wants to hear. This can leave people with dramatically different worldviews as the information that they see can be totally different from what others see and frequently the information they consume will make them believe they are under threat.

JemadarofCaerSalis · May 24

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I completely agree, and I think part of that is how so many people seem to want 'representation' and so when they find a character or world that they feel represents them best, they don't want anything to 'sully' that, which includes anything they consider negative.

I seem to be a strange exception then, I guess, as I do very much enjoy characters with flaws (and my roleplay characters are flawed, too), and much more so in comparison to characters that are super cliché positive people - because it seems unrealistic, unnuanced and clichéd to me that someone would be totally shiny and flawless.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

(and I have seen the opposite, where people get upset about threads that are meant to be more critical of changes/new features, so they either make their own 'positivitiy' thread to counter, or have to go into the negative thread to tell people 'they don't have to play'

This is also something I often find astounding: That some people don't seem to understand that criticizing something doesn't mean hating it. If I hated something, I wouldn't take time to write long texts about how to improve it - in some cases even to save it (to clarify: that is not the case with ESO, as I don't think ESO is in danger yet; but still, I care for this game, so I want to improve what I see as having gotten worse in comparison to earlier - that's the whole reason I always get into these discussions about the writing).

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I don't know if you are in 'fandom circles' for various fandoms

No, I'm not. I have my subcultural background, but it's not comparable to that. And to be honest, what you describe sounds like there's a lot of drama in those circles, which isn't actually something I'd enjoy (I prefer my drama in fiction and roleplay).

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

There are a great many stories out there that were written at a time when cultural norms, no matter where you live, were different, things were more accepted, and so people wrote about them. But, because people are seemingly having a harder time separating reality and ficiton, they are being 'canceled' because of those particular aspects, instead of people just realizing 'these authors lived at a different time.'

Indeed that's an interesting point, and I've also noticed it often that people don't seem to have any "historical thinking". I already wrote it earlier: It strikes me as so strange that individuality and diversity are such huge topics today, people talk about that all the time and think they're super diverse, but it seems harder than ever for people to even imagine that other people could have other ideas, morals and norms than them - including people of other cultures, or people of other eras.

As I said, it is a vocal minority that doesn't like this, but because of how vocal they are, they make it seem like they are the majority. Because the actual majority is just silently enjoying what they enjoy!

I also tend to prefer *realistic* characters, who have flaws, who might not react the way you think they should, as long as they are acting *in character* with how the author actually wrote them to act.

I also agree. If I hate something, I tend to ignore it. With regards to fiction, how well it is done and how much I like it dictates how much I can ignore flaws in that work. IE, the more I like it and the better done it is, the more the flaws stand out, and the more I want them gone. Which means I am more likely to criticize flaws in works I enjoy and works I think are high quality than the works like the one I dubbed had adjectivitist. It wasn't a *bad* work per se, but every noun pretty much had two or three adjectives to describe it. Think things like 'The long, silky blue curtains flowed in the cool refreshing breeze, that came in through the Tiffany style stained glass windows. It ruffled the pieces of paper on the mahogany Victorian style desk.'

Only, this was in relation to people places AND things. (and it was much much worse than my little example).

I am likely to ignore any flaws in a work like that, because it is so riddled with flaws.

I am not actually in fandom circles either, but I sort of run 'adjacent' to them, and sometimes see the drama that goes down. Usually after the fact. But yeah, it is usually extremely drama filled and full of people who pick their favorite characters and pairings and decide anyone who dislikes that character or pairing, or who likes that character with someone else, or who likes a pairing or character they dislike are just *wrong* and shouldn't have a platform to air their opinions on, and they aren't afraid to say so.

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.

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. I mentioned this earlier about how so many people want to see representation of their own personal labels in media (I have seen this on the pet site I mentioned) and so they will take any bit of that media that *might* potentially be able to be labeled the way they want, and they are going to defend that hill. Since that personal label is so, well, *personal* to them, any pushback against it, or in a broader sense, any pushback against the media, and any negative aspects of that media, *must* be eliminated, because it is a personal attack on THEM.

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. (and it does work the opposite, using the Thalmor and Stormcloaks from Skyrim. They can't fathom why someone would chose 'colonizing Imperials' and 'Racist Thalmor' over the 'poor nords who are just defending their homes'. The only reason they can think for that is because those people MUST be that way in real life. I can't even remember which side I chose, I think it was whichever side either had the most people in it I liked, or whichever side annoyed me the least. I was there to kill dragons, not mediate a playground dispute!)

It is basically a mess, and sadly, many companies are willing to listen, because as I said, while these may be the minority, because they have the loudest voices, they can make those voices heard and spread their opinions far and wide. Which hurts business.

Syldras · May 24

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.

Nomadic_Atmoran · May 24

Finedaible wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

[...]
I think, in some ways, the developer has lost touch with what role-playing really means in a game like this. We have all of these cultures within the TES series, some with very different ideas of what good and evil mean. However, it seems to me that the role the player character is meant to take on is always written from some over-arching modern sense of morality. In recent expansions, it's like they take every culture and bit of lore in TES, point out what would be “bad” about it by modern societal standards, and say “See that? That’s your enemy, that’s what you’re meant to defeat!”
[...]

I was trying to express this very thing about ESO's writing these days but you beat me to it. It almost feels like modern audiences have become so hyper-sensitive these last several years that audiences have become unable to look at things objectively and separate fiction from the real world. This no doubt presents challenges to whoever writes stories for ESO, but I don't think that pressure should fall upon the writers. Every great writer for Elder Scrolls wrote the story they wanted to convey, not the corporate-sterilized drafts with ESO now, devoid of all character, emotion, and nuance.

I'm not even sure its modern audiences so much as internet culture/social media culture. There's a pretty wide gap between what the everyday person is experiencing in the real world vs what they may be expressing online. You can probably break it down even farther with perpetually online vs not. People are definitely more outspoken and even more extreme with their views online and its been enabled by echo-chambers on social media. Companies are following along with trends that might not be aligning with the average customer/consumer of their goods. All because its a hazy mess of feedback and swells of popular trends. Without making this political we can see this with certain products that have over the last few years faced boycotts over companies choices to engage certain groups, individuals or organizations. It can certainly make it difficult for a company that is casting a wide net to know exactly where to draw the line on content.

I do feel that ZOS may be playing it too safe and is ultimately watering down the product to a point that it is barely tolerable or enjoyable. So it is starting to lose that draw that many long time fans have found the most interesting about the franchise. With each chapter and dlc going down the route of simple and bland modern characters, sensibilities and plots. It stops feeling like a medieval fantasy world with its own problems the player is just trying to explore and navigate. I wont hold my breath that the company will find the resolve to return to that sort of storytelling. But I guess there is always the possibility. Only time will tell.