Dan Brown's Inferno
I recently finished listening to a new audiobook, that of the novel Inferno by popular author Dan Brown. I wanted to post about this because the issue of population features heavily in the book, and it is one particularly close to my heart as it were.
In the story, returning protagonist and art historian Robert Langdon faces a race against time to stop the release of a virus developed by seemingly crazed transhumanist (see below) scientist Bertrand Zobrist. The story is not the main subject of this post but I'll just say that I did enjoy the book. It was fast paced, exiting and well written with Brown's normal riddles, puzzles and symbol-based challenges for Langdon to solve.
I hadn't previously heard much about transhumanism
The Wikipedia definition: Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
Inferno no doubt paints a bit of a straw man concerning transhumanism - it would be easy to read the book and go away with the impression that it is a dangerous movement, that needed to be stopped. My own views are somewhat sympathetic towards transhumanism. I am very much for the development of technology that would allow us to transfer those aspects of our minds that make us human into another form, be that genetically engineered, or digitised, that was better able to survive the unknown challenges of the future.
This thinking is aligned with the notion that quality is better than quantity, i.e. at the moment we are over-populating the planet, whereas what we should really be doing is concentrating technological development towards transgenic or artificial intelligence solutions, to the problem of survival in inhospitable environments for instance.
The virus deployed by the transhumanist in Inferno, touted at first as something to control the world's population, we assume by recreating the effects of the Black Plague, actually turns out to be a sterility plague. Its only effect is it causes about one-third of humans to become sterile - so nobody dies as a direct consequence of the virus.
The notion of a sterility plague is explored in some depth in the Mass Effect series of video games. Here a prolific and violent alien race called the Krogan are affected by a genetically engineered virus called the genophage, that effectively renders 99.9% of krogan infertile (only 1 in 1000 pregnancies is viable). This is widely seen as a big mistake and overly harsh punishment; ethnic cleansing and a despicable act. Although it is possible to take a more pragmatic view (the Krogan did need to be controlled at the point when the virus was deployed) the game leaves you in no doubt that it was nothing more than a morally questionable means-to-an-end. It even goes so far as to make you reverse the effects of the virus (or at least appear to) in order to get the krogans' help later in the series.
With a much lower efficacy than the genophage, Zobrist's plague in Inferno is not as extreme. It is only intended to curb population growth rather than quickly bring numbers under strict control. And the krogan have a short life span and are very war-like so the lack of replacements for their high death rates rapidly reduced their numbers in Mass Effect. The situation is thankfully different for humanity in Inferno.
I did like the way Inferno asked the grown-up question of whether we should even try and stop the effects of Zobrist's plague once they had been unleashed. In other TV shows etc. I have seen any hint of sterility enforcement has been met with utter rejection and demonisation, so I was pleased to see the book push the real need and possible benefits of it. Of course what we should consider when exploring these ideas is the need to make the effect of such a virus indiscriminate, so as not to be seen as trying to influence the racial composition of the population.
The fact that no-one really wants to discuss the serious need for population control, in the world today of over 7 billion people, is extremely concerning to me. If ever there were a massive elephant in the room, this is it. Just as I don't want to see religious people wallow in their comfort zones - and challenge their beliefs, we shouldn't rule out any thinking not aligned with the biblical "go forth and multiply" mantra.
From a consequentialist perspective, such a plague as described in Inferno is not as bad an idea as some people may think. Whilst it may ultimately be too extreme an answer to the population problem, the thought of such a virus not being the worst possible solution (as in worse than wiping each other out in the future over acquisition of resources) is a sobering thought that we should all consider.
Population Matters
Formerly the Optimum Population Trust, Population Matters are a group advocating for a lower world population enabling more effective and rapid solutions to problems of environment, ecology and sustainability.
I wholeheartedly agree with the aims and goals of Population Matters and follow them on Facebook. They are doing important work in challenging the conventional view that technology will ultimately provide all the solutions to these problems. Whilst this is certainly possible, I can't see how trying to effectively manage population and limiting growth rates would not assist in this regard, either lowering the scope of the "damage" or giving us more time to find technological solutions, or both.
I accept that it is unreasonable to expect the population of developing countries to fall into line with these aims - that's why we in the Western world should be setting the example and be attempting to slowly reduce our national populations. This is one of the few areas where I don't completely agree with reformed environmental activist Mark Lynas, who has now taken on a more scientific approach to environmental advocacy. I'll hopefully return to this later when I review his book The God Species.
You might want to take a look at their website. It makes it all too obvious the challenges that the environment, standards of living and resources all face with continuing population growth. We cannot continue on this path forever.
Advocating for anti-procreation
Recently I've started following this Facebook group:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Advocacy-for-Anti-Procreation/250119691710353?fref=ts
They have some very interesting posts and ideas.
I would like to raise some pretty controversial questions: Do we have a right to expect to be able to have children?
I would argue, no we don't. With the spiralling world population in mind - Bearing children and raising a family is a luxury that we will probably not all be able to engage in, in future generations. I am for researching the technology for fertility treatment, but not necessarily making it available for people who can't naturally have children - certainly not for free on the health service. Explain to me - rationally and objectively, without resorting to heteronormative, ideologically motivated or religiously rooted reasons, why it is worse than being a "family man" to be someone who works all their life paying into the state and does not leave a genetic legacy? Why is the latter not a viable and accepted alternative?
Is it too easy to become a parent?
I would say a most definitive yes. We only need look at examples of people who are parents who are so obviously not suitable to be such. It's hard for me to avoid the conclusion that us humans are just too fertile for our own good.
Furthermore, the low rate of adoption around the world is shameful, being hampered by incredibly strict requirements that simply do not exist for erstwhile parents of newborns. Is it even ethically acceptable to bear your own children, all the while knowing that many thousands of children already exist that you could love and give a fulfilling existence? Are we still so tied to leaving our own genetic legacies to the world? This is a perfectly reasonable question for a consequentialist, which no-one seems to want to answer.
I have also witnessed a curious and vile hatred towards those few women who announce whilst at "child-bearing" age that they do not want any children, ever. The so-called childfree. They are routinely abused and demonised - but these are the same women I know to be fantastic individuals who are responsibly making a positive choice, to try and help reduce their environmental and financial impact on the world. I have a huge respect for them. This hatred to such a noble goal simply is unacceptable behaviour.
Strangely enough there seem to be quite a few of these great women in the skeptic, atheist and humanist communities. Being so sensible must go with the territory!
I am just asking questions here, and challenging the behaviour that everyone seems to take for granted. We all just seem to think it's OK to just have as many kids as we want or can support - I don't necessarily share this opinion.
This post is not about telling people what they should or should not be doing. It's about challenging existing preconceptions of acceptable social norms and asking if there are alternatives.
Saturday 28 September 2013
Tuesday 24 September 2013
Word processor woes
Well, I had written some nice long detailed posts which were getting close to completion and I was reviewing prior to putting on here.
One was about Atheism+ and rape allegations in the skeptic community.
The other was about Dan Brown's novel Inferno and advocating for anti-procreation.
However the word processor on my laptop saw fit to delete all my work, so the files reverted back to their state about a week ago. All I had written is lost!
Oh no! Bloody Apache Open Office is to blame...
I'll see what I can recall and recover in some shorter posts, over the weekend hopefully.
Huh! From now on I'm just using Wordpad and backing up after each session on 2 drives for safety.
Damn technology! :-(
(This is as much a reminder for me as anything. I save the files so I don't have to remember what I write!)
One was about Atheism+ and rape allegations in the skeptic community.
The other was about Dan Brown's novel Inferno and advocating for anti-procreation.
However the word processor on my laptop saw fit to delete all my work, so the files reverted back to their state about a week ago. All I had written is lost!
Oh no! Bloody Apache Open Office is to blame...
I'll see what I can recall and recover in some shorter posts, over the weekend hopefully.
Huh! From now on I'm just using Wordpad and backing up after each session on 2 drives for safety.
Damn technology! :-(
(This is as much a reminder for me as anything. I save the files so I don't have to remember what I write!)
Wednesday 18 September 2013
Video Game Violence
(Contains some spoilers)
I have to say, it always really annoys me when someone, usually a "concerned parent" or a bored journalist, decides to take it on themselves to put the digital world to rights, and launches a crusade to "ban violent video games". These people seriously lack perspective on this issue, that much should be clear. One of the main problems here include the notion that all "violent" games can be painted with the same brush.
Video Games have been blamed for: the descent or decay of society, increases in violence, obesity, social exclusion, individual acts of violence and more. Irrespective of the merits of each individual claim, these notions usually have one thing in common: the assumption that video games are a homogeneous entity - non-thinking, one-dimensional, profane kill-fests which, lacking any moral direction, skew the mindsets of their gamers towards those of a nihilistic, uncaring, cold, lazy couch potato.
With maybe a notable exception or two, this couldn't be further from the truth.
Violence is increasingly being seen in some games as a means to and end that is not justified. Big-name Games like Portal are refreshingly violence-free for the first-person perspective, and successfully use the laws of physics to produce puzzles which prove to be inventive and fiendishly cunning. Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a recent game that not only offered players non-violent solutions to confrontations, but actively rewarded players for choosing them. And non-lethally subduing enemies was preferable to killing them. Games like this find clever ways of bringing the player to account for his or her destructive actions, and make it clear that you pay a penalty for not thinking, and not weighing up the morality of actions and their consequences.
This can be achieved in several ways, for example, by attaching agency to the player, and making it clear that you represent some authority and must live up to certain standards. Or in games like The Last Of Us, the player develops such a strong attachment to the characters in the story that you could never do anything to put them at risk. That's right, they almost become a real family.
In the Bioshock series of retro- science fiction games, one game element involves players rescuing young girls from the harmful effects of sea-parasites living inside them that contain a valuable resource. You can harvest the resource for maximum reward, killing the child, or save them, resulting in lesser rewards. This is your choice, however it is obvious what the correct moral decision is. The game later rewards you for the moral choice - but there is a delay involved in receiving it.
The original Bioshock is famous for one of the best ret-cons ever seen in a game - the exposition of a simple spoken phrase (a la The Manchurian Candidate) "Would You Kindly?" that hits with the sledgehammer force of realisation of what this was about all along, akin to THAT classic "Rosebud" moment in Citizen Kane. You have to play it to believe it.
Commonly when playing popular modern games such as the epic science fiction Mass Effect franchise, I find myself spending more time talking to my shipmates and considering the ethical consequences of available options than I do fighting enemies.
The Elder Scrolls series of fantasy-role playing games (the latest instalment of which is called Skyrim) offers a colossal open world (many square miles in game size) to explore down to the smallest detail, with caves, mountains, rivers, oceans, icebergs, towns, cities, whole underground cavern networks, even economies. Yes, you can pick up a flower from a mountainside one minute, then battle a dragon atop a crumbling stone tower the next.
Games these days can be glorious forms of high entertainment; stunning interactive masterpieces of storytelling, riveting fiction and role-playing, with amazing graphics and sweeping theatrical scores, that immerse you in a world almost as real as, well, the real one. And the life you get to lead is invariably more interesting than the real one!
The gaming community has come a long way in recent years. Despite the seemingly ever-present issue of sexism towards female gamers, discussions on topics as wide-ranging as feminism & the role of women in games, sexual orientation, drug use and objective morality in games are going on even today.
Playing devil's advocate, I do have an issue with seemingly lawless, destructive and morally unaccountable games lacking ethical nuance, chief among the culprits of which are the Grand Theft Auto and Saint's Row series. I've played just enough of these games to harbour a deep dislike of them and the lack of balance between right and wrong in the game play. If there is a target for debate and criticism, it should be centred squarely here in my view.
Video games can show us so much more than mere violence. They are a statement of the struggles present between ideological perspectives at a societal level. By playing them, you can attempt to see some of these possibilities through to their logical conclusions, through a variety of lenses. And this often yields unexpected and challenging consequences. If you still don't agree, I have one last thing to say to you.
If you don't think video games can offer us anything:
I'll think about that the next time my black lesbian heroine in Skyrim is ridding the world of a scourge of dragons, settling a civil war, then marrying my long time love with not a hint of homophobia around;
I'll think about that the next time my female Commander Shepard in Mass Effect 3 is busy uniting the warring alien races of the Milky Way galaxy against an ancient, malevolent machine intelligence intent on annihilating us all, overcoming ideological barriers thought insurmountable;
I'll think about that the next time that I as Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider game, beat my would-be abusers, rapists and killers and travel through hell and back using only wits and skill to escape from a doomed island, all the while exhibiting more vulnerability than spectacular looks;
I'll think about that the next time I'm playing Bioshock: Infinite and I learn that a young girl I was sent to rescue has miraculous powers, and can be the most powerful and awesome person in the world, and ends up rescuing me;
I'll think about that the next time I'm playing The Last Of Us, after many hours of surviving unthinkable horrors whilst journeying across the American Midwest on foot, as unwitting guardian to a young girl who holds the secret to a cure to a zombie-like plague threatening the future of humanity. I become so attached to her, after all we've been through together, and she saves my life; that I find myself at the end, against the purpose of the whole game up to that point, horribly conflicted over letting the plague continue rather than curing it, if it would mean her death. The protagonist Joel saves Ellie rather than letting her die in the process of curing the plague, and I... don't blame him for it. Such emotions really show us a lot about ourselves and the ethics of right and wrong.
After all that, I'll think about video games being the bane of society, and I won't know whether to laugh or cry.
I have to say, it always really annoys me when someone, usually a "concerned parent" or a bored journalist, decides to take it on themselves to put the digital world to rights, and launches a crusade to "ban violent video games". These people seriously lack perspective on this issue, that much should be clear. One of the main problems here include the notion that all "violent" games can be painted with the same brush.
Video Games have been blamed for: the descent or decay of society, increases in violence, obesity, social exclusion, individual acts of violence and more. Irrespective of the merits of each individual claim, these notions usually have one thing in common: the assumption that video games are a homogeneous entity - non-thinking, one-dimensional, profane kill-fests which, lacking any moral direction, skew the mindsets of their gamers towards those of a nihilistic, uncaring, cold, lazy couch potato.
With maybe a notable exception or two, this couldn't be further from the truth.
Violence is increasingly being seen in some games as a means to and end that is not justified. Big-name Games like Portal are refreshingly violence-free for the first-person perspective, and successfully use the laws of physics to produce puzzles which prove to be inventive and fiendishly cunning. Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a recent game that not only offered players non-violent solutions to confrontations, but actively rewarded players for choosing them. And non-lethally subduing enemies was preferable to killing them. Games like this find clever ways of bringing the player to account for his or her destructive actions, and make it clear that you pay a penalty for not thinking, and not weighing up the morality of actions and their consequences.
This can be achieved in several ways, for example, by attaching agency to the player, and making it clear that you represent some authority and must live up to certain standards. Or in games like The Last Of Us, the player develops such a strong attachment to the characters in the story that you could never do anything to put them at risk. That's right, they almost become a real family.
In the Bioshock series of retro- science fiction games, one game element involves players rescuing young girls from the harmful effects of sea-parasites living inside them that contain a valuable resource. You can harvest the resource for maximum reward, killing the child, or save them, resulting in lesser rewards. This is your choice, however it is obvious what the correct moral decision is. The game later rewards you for the moral choice - but there is a delay involved in receiving it.
The original Bioshock is famous for one of the best ret-cons ever seen in a game - the exposition of a simple spoken phrase (a la The Manchurian Candidate) "Would You Kindly?" that hits with the sledgehammer force of realisation of what this was about all along, akin to THAT classic "Rosebud" moment in Citizen Kane. You have to play it to believe it.
Commonly when playing popular modern games such as the epic science fiction Mass Effect franchise, I find myself spending more time talking to my shipmates and considering the ethical consequences of available options than I do fighting enemies.
The Elder Scrolls series of fantasy-role playing games (the latest instalment of which is called Skyrim) offers a colossal open world (many square miles in game size) to explore down to the smallest detail, with caves, mountains, rivers, oceans, icebergs, towns, cities, whole underground cavern networks, even economies. Yes, you can pick up a flower from a mountainside one minute, then battle a dragon atop a crumbling stone tower the next.
Games these days can be glorious forms of high entertainment; stunning interactive masterpieces of storytelling, riveting fiction and role-playing, with amazing graphics and sweeping theatrical scores, that immerse you in a world almost as real as, well, the real one. And the life you get to lead is invariably more interesting than the real one!
The gaming community has come a long way in recent years. Despite the seemingly ever-present issue of sexism towards female gamers, discussions on topics as wide-ranging as feminism & the role of women in games, sexual orientation, drug use and objective morality in games are going on even today.
Playing devil's advocate, I do have an issue with seemingly lawless, destructive and morally unaccountable games lacking ethical nuance, chief among the culprits of which are the Grand Theft Auto and Saint's Row series. I've played just enough of these games to harbour a deep dislike of them and the lack of balance between right and wrong in the game play. If there is a target for debate and criticism, it should be centred squarely here in my view.
Video games can show us so much more than mere violence. They are a statement of the struggles present between ideological perspectives at a societal level. By playing them, you can attempt to see some of these possibilities through to their logical conclusions, through a variety of lenses. And this often yields unexpected and challenging consequences. If you still don't agree, I have one last thing to say to you.
If you don't think video games can offer us anything:
I'll think about that the next time my black lesbian heroine in Skyrim is ridding the world of a scourge of dragons, settling a civil war, then marrying my long time love with not a hint of homophobia around;
I'll think about that the next time my female Commander Shepard in Mass Effect 3 is busy uniting the warring alien races of the Milky Way galaxy against an ancient, malevolent machine intelligence intent on annihilating us all, overcoming ideological barriers thought insurmountable;
I'll think about that the next time that I as Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider game, beat my would-be abusers, rapists and killers and travel through hell and back using only wits and skill to escape from a doomed island, all the while exhibiting more vulnerability than spectacular looks;
I'll think about that the next time I'm playing Bioshock: Infinite and I learn that a young girl I was sent to rescue has miraculous powers, and can be the most powerful and awesome person in the world, and ends up rescuing me;
I'll think about that the next time I'm playing The Last Of Us, after many hours of surviving unthinkable horrors whilst journeying across the American Midwest on foot, as unwitting guardian to a young girl who holds the secret to a cure to a zombie-like plague threatening the future of humanity. I become so attached to her, after all we've been through together, and she saves my life; that I find myself at the end, against the purpose of the whole game up to that point, horribly conflicted over letting the plague continue rather than curing it, if it would mean her death. The protagonist Joel saves Ellie rather than letting her die in the process of curing the plague, and I... don't blame him for it. Such emotions really show us a lot about ourselves and the ethics of right and wrong.
After all that, I'll think about video games being the bane of society, and I won't know whether to laugh or cry.
The Madness Of... U.S. gun laws
On Monday 16 Sep, former US Navy reservist Aaron Alexis was suspected of going on a shooting rampage at Washington Navy Yard in the US, killing 12 people before being shot dead by police.
See more on the dreadful story and a profile on the shooter here.
What is going wrong in the US, that attacks like this can still happen, and why is no-one doing anything about it?
Well it turns out some people are trying to, but America just loves its guns!
It's easy to see why some people in the US, particularly those in southern, formerly Confederate states, still harbour a deep distrust of the Government and of authorities in general. It was only around 150 years ago that the Northern states basically invaded them in the US civil war. You'd think the fact that they had been on the wrong side (the slavers' side!), and the emancipation of their former captives, you know, little things like that, might have swayed all of them by now, but unfortunately a hardcore residue remains stoically tied to their guns and their paranoia concerning authority.
Such churlish obstinacy, in a time when clear rational thought is required, is misplaced. President Obama has sensibly tried to enact bills that would try and control the purchase and use of firearms. But groups like the NRA and their supporters, who make a lot of money from memberships and gun sales, want none of it, despite all the evidence that gun rampages simply happen more often in places where there are more guns.
Strange that, isn't it?
It should be painfully obvious to all involved the benefits of a gun armistice, leading to a lower availability of firearms. Less guns means less deaths from guns. In Europe, we don't have a fraction of the problems that the US have with gun deaths each year.
In 2010, about 30,000 people in the US were killed by guns. Sure, a lot of them would have died anyway without the presence of a gun (suicides, and some murders), but to claim the number would not be significantly reduced by having to rely on more personal methods, such as a knife, is patently ridiculous.
Guns make murder so quick, easy and impersonal.
It's quite clear to me that letting people with serious mental health issues wander round with loaded firearms is FAR more of a risk than the chances of being targeted by determined individuals (be they government agents, criminals or whatever) and not being able to defend yourself on equal terms.
The notion that hordes of soldiers will come to your house trying to detain or kill you, or that if they did you could (or would even want to?) fight them off even if you had 100 guns, is ludicrous.
But we only need to start small to help stop this madness.
What harm could there be in simple background checks for people wanting to purchase firearms, so that a short delay is involved of a few days between requesting the weapon and obtaining it - enough time for tempers to cool and calm thoughts to return?
And what harm could there be in limiting the number of rounds in a clip, so that the potential destruction that can be wrought before the delay for the necessary reload, is reined in?
Guns are killing machines, specifically designed to take life. They are not directly responsible or accountable for any deaths they cause (that "honour" goes to the person pulling the trigger) but they are so much more than just tools.
A gun becomes a tool, if and only if you use it to hammer in a nail with a pistol-whip. And nobody does that.
This short post leads directly into my next, a ranty piece about video games, by way of this rather clumsy segue.
I expect it won't be long before video games will be called into question, with a journalist irresponsibly claiming that a diet of "Call of Duty" led this poor man directly to his death, and hence "ban violent games". I can't state strongly enough how much I object to this opinion, with a couple of potentially notable caveats.
Saturday 7 September 2013
All things Dragon Age
Yay, yipee! I just found out last week that a new Dragon Age game is coming out next year!
I love Dragon Age!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age
The new game: It's going to be called Dragon Age: Inquisition and here are some previews:
http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/dragon_age_inquisition/preview-3499.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/428051/previews/preview-dragon-age-inquisition-goes-after-skyrim/
It looks fantastic and I can't wait to get my hands on a copy or two! As the hype surrounding Dragon Age: Inquisition builds, I realise I never did quite understand the dislike of the gaming community toward Dragon Age 2 (DA2). It's what I'll focus on here.
I remember having some negative interactions with a few people about the time when it came out. I posted a comment on the game's Amazon UK comment thread (not the reviews, just the comments) saying that it had scored 94% (or something like that) in PC Gamer magazine. Wow, was that a mistake. I had this guy replying to say he would never buy it, and accused reviewers of bias and even being paid off by Bioware /EA. For the uninitiated, Bioware are a famously good developer of role-playing games (RPGs) and EA (Electronic Arts) are one of the main video game publishers who have owned Bioware for a few years now.
The crazy guy then went on to suggest that fake reviewers were being employed by the game's marketers to write favourable reviews for the game. Whether this crackpot notion is true or not, it doesn't really matter too much in my opinion. There are at least a couple of reasons for this:
*Weight of numbers.
The marketing company really would have to put out one heck of a big pile of cash to hope to make a dent in the shape of the group-think of your average opinionated Joe reviewer. There are so many young gamers out there with a game pad and a voice, trying to turn the tide against what they are saying would be like taking a scoop out of the ocean, or some less savoury metaphor I can also think of. Furthermore, it is often possible to tell fake reviewers apart, as the quantity of postings they need to make in order to get paid means that
*Trusted sources.
After reading through game reviews for a while you start to learn which publications and websites have opinions you trust and respect, those whose feelings on a game generally mirror your own. You take a look at these sources first when deciding whether or not to purchase a new game, and perform some sort of mental weighted-average calculation to come to your determination. Suggesting that fake reviewers could infiltrate their way past the quality control of these sources to any significant extent is pretty far-fetched.
You've certainly no skeptical brain if you can't tell what are genuine reviews and what is fake, and which sources to trust more than others.
He didn't quite go so far as to suggest I was being paid for promoting the game, but it felt like that was what he wanted to imply.
Yeah dude. I'm still waiting for that cheque I'm owed. Oh, and I never did post a 5* review for it, so he can stuff off. He obviously wasn't being fooled, so why care?
I'll examine some criticisms of DA2 after I go over...
My thoughts on Dragon Age 2
I really loved the game, and all the extra downloadable content (DLC) that was published! It was an excellent, nuanced story with great characterisation, epic battles and a decent ending (well better than Mass Effect 3 anyway!)
The combat was hard-hitting and fast paced compared to the first game, Dragon Age: Origins (DA:O). I thought that the combination attack system worked well. To do large amounts of damage, for instance to a boss enemy, you had to exploit a combination system whereby a number of set-up attacks applied a status effect to the enemy. You then had a limited time to affect a specific follow-up attack to the same enemy, which then applied a large damage bonus. It really was the only way to take down tougher enemies. The greater number of skill choices and power-ups available made choosing your skill tree selections when levelling up more tactically important and challenging.
I for one really enjoyed re-exploring Kirkwall in each new act and noticing all the little details that had changed. All the characters you could bring into your party were well-realised and voice-acted. My favourite was probably Isabella, she was ultra-cool and so hilariously funny I was genuinely laughing my ass off at times listening to her jokes. And some of her dialogue with Hawke was pure gold! This brings me to one of my favourite aspects of the game: the conversation system. Taking it further than Mass Effect's conversation wheel, the system in DA2 had a green (co-operative or diplomatic) option, a red (aggressive or negative) AND a purple (humorous / witty / charming) choice as a response in most conversations.
My favourite responses were often the purple ones! There were some great one liners in there, and Hawke had this uncanny ability to put across a killer line with faultless timing. To this day, sometimes when pressured, or if someone slights me, I think to myself "What would be the purple response?" I've found it's a great way to diffuse situations that may have otherwise erupted into something more incendiary.
For example, if, whilst driving, someone cuts me up at a roundabout, instead of beeping angrily, shouting or making unsavoury hand-gestures, I will say the "purple response", something like, "Well, that's ONE way to drive!" It's great fun. You should try it!
Overall I felt the game improved most of the weaker aspects of DA:O that needed it. The predictable and stereotyped story, the slow and ponderous action, the samey-samey talents of each class, the lack of options in levelling up and the way some supposedly epic items became trash as you advanced through the game.
Unlike most people, I didn't really feel that DA2 failed in any new way, significantly. Hence I loved it and much preferred it to DA:O (which was a really great game in its own right, don't get me wrong).
Here are some common complaints of DA2. They are fairly universal and most review sites are now saying they found the game disappointing.
* Over-Appreciation of DA:O
This is one of the main issues. It was a great game, but hardly flawless. There were a few significant complaints which in my view are more justified than those levelled at DA2. I highlighted some of the main problems above. In addition, parts were tedious. The Mage Tower stage in particular is a real chore to have to repeat one you've already completed it, because it's very linear, and incredibly long.
If you played as a warrior, you basically had 2 choices, be a sword-and-shield tank type character, or a more aggressive double-handed weapon wielding fighter. As there were a very small number of talents that were exclusive to each, the only real choice you had was what ORDER to put your skill points in, and which prestige classes to select later in the game (and some of the combinations of these weren't very compatible, to make things worse).
The variety of the Origins stories were nice but pretty low on content that couldn't be found in a playthrough with any other character. I actually found this to be a bit of a gimmick.
Finally, the way that the expansion pack "Awakening" integrated with the original game was really disappointing. The extra skills and item levels featured in the expansion were not available in the original when both were installed, even if you reached the requisite level in DA:O that would have meant you could have accessed them if you were within the "Awakening" environment. I found this a significant problem for motivating subsequent playthroughs of DA:O.
And yet you still get things like this written:
"I genuinely believe that Dragon Age: Origins is a 10/10 experience. While it didn't do anything drastically different to what BioWare had done previously (I don't think many would be too offended by calling it 'KOTOR with fantasy'), it was so superbly put together - with characters you actually cared about - it still stands as one of the best RPGs this generation. And then we came Dragon Age II…
While the sequel was certainly not a bad game, it seemed to lack many of the qualities its predecessor possessed. Familiar faces you'd grown to love appeared in mere cameo roles (1), you never did find out what happened to your demon spawn (2), and the changes to combat and the world didn't feel as impactful as we were all first led to believe (3). If it was by any other developer, or part of any other series, it may have gone down far better than it did. Given the expectations set by Origins, though, II felt like it never fed off the ambition that had been put in place (4)."
(1) Developer's prerogative. They are under no obligation to include (or exclude) any character that may or may not have appeared previously in the series. What's wrong with "well they could just be in the next game?" HINT: There were always going to be 3 games, at least. Why did DA2 have to finalise every burning question from DA:O? In my opinion, it was about time they introduced some new faces.
(2) Firstly, your character(s) may not have necessarily sired the demon spawn (it was one of many outcomes) and secondly, see (1) above.
(3) Well that was a remarkable slight-of-hand by the marketers then, wasn't it? They should take up stage magic. Just don't be so credulous. This really says more about the reviewer than it does DA2.
(4) A vague and fairly vacuous sentence. What expectations and ambition? DA2 was a different type of game. It was always going to be. Get over it.
*Marketing and over-hype
Why believe it? Aren't developers allowed to advertise their games anymore? Surely I don't have to tell you to take ANY AND ALL adverts' claims with a metaphorical pinch of salt?
There was this big "I want my money back" thing with DA2. What is this, a faulty vacuum cleaner?!
I never got it. And I was very happy with my purchase (PC version).
If there's any hyperbole to be had here, it's up above in that piece about DA:O. I'm sorry but it was never a 10/10 experience in my book.
*Icons Yep, seriously. The ICONS used for items and skills in the game's UI weren't pretty enough for some people. Please, grow up.
*Follower armour This was a concession to realism that I thought worked really well. In real life I doubt you could make your party members wear something they didn't want to. This approach gave visual changes between acts, level-up improvements AND personalisations by being able to buy upgrades and affix gems to give different resistances to elemental attacks for example. In my view, it was an effective and complete system.
*Size Yeah, not an issue for me. Apart from Kirkwall which was pretty sizable in my book, each act had a number of large outside zones that changed between them, and also an act-specific area or two. The fantastic story made the game epic enough to me.
*Repeated Areas Linked to size. OK, maybe it wasn't ideal, but remember DA:O also used repeated areas and layouts played in reverse quite often. Each act, you stayed in Kirkwall for the main part which had changed slightly in layout and populace etc. from the last act. I actually enjoyed the familiarity of the city areas and liked the subtle changes they put into the feel and atmosphere.
In conclusion, is it just me or do some of these "problems" feel pretty weak looking back now?
I really do feel that some of these complaints are pretty minor and pretty irrational. Talk about scraping the barrel!
But I doubt anyone will come out and say "I was wrong!"
Well, in any event, I'm off to play through DA2 again before the third instalment is released!
I love Dragon Age!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age
The new game: It's going to be called Dragon Age: Inquisition and here are some previews:
http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/dragon_age_inquisition/preview-3499.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/428051/previews/preview-dragon-age-inquisition-goes-after-skyrim/
It looks fantastic and I can't wait to get my hands on a copy or two! As the hype surrounding Dragon Age: Inquisition builds, I realise I never did quite understand the dislike of the gaming community toward Dragon Age 2 (DA2). It's what I'll focus on here.
I remember having some negative interactions with a few people about the time when it came out. I posted a comment on the game's Amazon UK comment thread (not the reviews, just the comments) saying that it had scored 94% (or something like that) in PC Gamer magazine. Wow, was that a mistake. I had this guy replying to say he would never buy it, and accused reviewers of bias and even being paid off by Bioware /EA. For the uninitiated, Bioware are a famously good developer of role-playing games (RPGs) and EA (Electronic Arts) are one of the main video game publishers who have owned Bioware for a few years now.
The crazy guy then went on to suggest that fake reviewers were being employed by the game's marketers to write favourable reviews for the game. Whether this crackpot notion is true or not, it doesn't really matter too much in my opinion. There are at least a couple of reasons for this:
*Weight of numbers.
The marketing company really would have to put out one heck of a big pile of cash to hope to make a dent in the shape of the group-think of your average opinionated Joe reviewer. There are so many young gamers out there with a game pad and a voice, trying to turn the tide against what they are saying would be like taking a scoop out of the ocean, or some less savoury metaphor I can also think of. Furthermore, it is often possible to tell fake reviewers apart, as the quantity of postings they need to make in order to get paid means that
*Trusted sources.
After reading through game reviews for a while you start to learn which publications and websites have opinions you trust and respect, those whose feelings on a game generally mirror your own. You take a look at these sources first when deciding whether or not to purchase a new game, and perform some sort of mental weighted-average calculation to come to your determination. Suggesting that fake reviewers could infiltrate their way past the quality control of these sources to any significant extent is pretty far-fetched.
You've certainly no skeptical brain if you can't tell what are genuine reviews and what is fake, and which sources to trust more than others.
He didn't quite go so far as to suggest I was being paid for promoting the game, but it felt like that was what he wanted to imply.
Yeah dude. I'm still waiting for that cheque I'm owed. Oh, and I never did post a 5* review for it, so he can stuff off. He obviously wasn't being fooled, so why care?
I'll examine some criticisms of DA2 after I go over...
My thoughts on Dragon Age 2
I really loved the game, and all the extra downloadable content (DLC) that was published! It was an excellent, nuanced story with great characterisation, epic battles and a decent ending (well better than Mass Effect 3 anyway!)
The combat was hard-hitting and fast paced compared to the first game, Dragon Age: Origins (DA:O). I thought that the combination attack system worked well. To do large amounts of damage, for instance to a boss enemy, you had to exploit a combination system whereby a number of set-up attacks applied a status effect to the enemy. You then had a limited time to affect a specific follow-up attack to the same enemy, which then applied a large damage bonus. It really was the only way to take down tougher enemies. The greater number of skill choices and power-ups available made choosing your skill tree selections when levelling up more tactically important and challenging.
I for one really enjoyed re-exploring Kirkwall in each new act and noticing all the little details that had changed. All the characters you could bring into your party were well-realised and voice-acted. My favourite was probably Isabella, she was ultra-cool and so hilariously funny I was genuinely laughing my ass off at times listening to her jokes. And some of her dialogue with Hawke was pure gold! This brings me to one of my favourite aspects of the game: the conversation system. Taking it further than Mass Effect's conversation wheel, the system in DA2 had a green (co-operative or diplomatic) option, a red (aggressive or negative) AND a purple (humorous / witty / charming) choice as a response in most conversations.
My favourite responses were often the purple ones! There were some great one liners in there, and Hawke had this uncanny ability to put across a killer line with faultless timing. To this day, sometimes when pressured, or if someone slights me, I think to myself "What would be the purple response?" I've found it's a great way to diffuse situations that may have otherwise erupted into something more incendiary.
For example, if, whilst driving, someone cuts me up at a roundabout, instead of beeping angrily, shouting or making unsavoury hand-gestures, I will say the "purple response", something like, "Well, that's ONE way to drive!" It's great fun. You should try it!
Overall I felt the game improved most of the weaker aspects of DA:O that needed it. The predictable and stereotyped story, the slow and ponderous action, the samey-samey talents of each class, the lack of options in levelling up and the way some supposedly epic items became trash as you advanced through the game.
Unlike most people, I didn't really feel that DA2 failed in any new way, significantly. Hence I loved it and much preferred it to DA:O (which was a really great game in its own right, don't get me wrong).
Here are some common complaints of DA2. They are fairly universal and most review sites are now saying they found the game disappointing.
* Over-Appreciation of DA:O
This is one of the main issues. It was a great game, but hardly flawless. There were a few significant complaints which in my view are more justified than those levelled at DA2. I highlighted some of the main problems above. In addition, parts were tedious. The Mage Tower stage in particular is a real chore to have to repeat one you've already completed it, because it's very linear, and incredibly long.
If you played as a warrior, you basically had 2 choices, be a sword-and-shield tank type character, or a more aggressive double-handed weapon wielding fighter. As there were a very small number of talents that were exclusive to each, the only real choice you had was what ORDER to put your skill points in, and which prestige classes to select later in the game (and some of the combinations of these weren't very compatible, to make things worse).
The variety of the Origins stories were nice but pretty low on content that couldn't be found in a playthrough with any other character. I actually found this to be a bit of a gimmick.
Finally, the way that the expansion pack "Awakening" integrated with the original game was really disappointing. The extra skills and item levels featured in the expansion were not available in the original when both were installed, even if you reached the requisite level in DA:O that would have meant you could have accessed them if you were within the "Awakening" environment. I found this a significant problem for motivating subsequent playthroughs of DA:O.
And yet you still get things like this written:
"I genuinely believe that Dragon Age: Origins is a 10/10 experience. While it didn't do anything drastically different to what BioWare had done previously (I don't think many would be too offended by calling it 'KOTOR with fantasy'), it was so superbly put together - with characters you actually cared about - it still stands as one of the best RPGs this generation. And then we came Dragon Age II…
While the sequel was certainly not a bad game, it seemed to lack many of the qualities its predecessor possessed. Familiar faces you'd grown to love appeared in mere cameo roles (1), you never did find out what happened to your demon spawn (2), and the changes to combat and the world didn't feel as impactful as we were all first led to believe (3). If it was by any other developer, or part of any other series, it may have gone down far better than it did. Given the expectations set by Origins, though, II felt like it never fed off the ambition that had been put in place (4)."
(1) Developer's prerogative. They are under no obligation to include (or exclude) any character that may or may not have appeared previously in the series. What's wrong with "well they could just be in the next game?" HINT: There were always going to be 3 games, at least. Why did DA2 have to finalise every burning question from DA:O? In my opinion, it was about time they introduced some new faces.
(2) Firstly, your character(s) may not have necessarily sired the demon spawn (it was one of many outcomes) and secondly, see (1) above.
(3) Well that was a remarkable slight-of-hand by the marketers then, wasn't it? They should take up stage magic. Just don't be so credulous. This really says more about the reviewer than it does DA2.
(4) A vague and fairly vacuous sentence. What expectations and ambition? DA2 was a different type of game. It was always going to be. Get over it.
*Marketing and over-hype
Why believe it? Aren't developers allowed to advertise their games anymore? Surely I don't have to tell you to take ANY AND ALL adverts' claims with a metaphorical pinch of salt?
There was this big "I want my money back" thing with DA2. What is this, a faulty vacuum cleaner?!
I never got it. And I was very happy with my purchase (PC version).
If there's any hyperbole to be had here, it's up above in that piece about DA:O. I'm sorry but it was never a 10/10 experience in my book.
*Icons Yep, seriously. The ICONS used for items and skills in the game's UI weren't pretty enough for some people. Please, grow up.
*Follower armour This was a concession to realism that I thought worked really well. In real life I doubt you could make your party members wear something they didn't want to. This approach gave visual changes between acts, level-up improvements AND personalisations by being able to buy upgrades and affix gems to give different resistances to elemental attacks for example. In my view, it was an effective and complete system.
*Size Yeah, not an issue for me. Apart from Kirkwall which was pretty sizable in my book, each act had a number of large outside zones that changed between them, and also an act-specific area or two. The fantastic story made the game epic enough to me.
*Repeated Areas Linked to size. OK, maybe it wasn't ideal, but remember DA:O also used repeated areas and layouts played in reverse quite often. Each act, you stayed in Kirkwall for the main part which had changed slightly in layout and populace etc. from the last act. I actually enjoyed the familiarity of the city areas and liked the subtle changes they put into the feel and atmosphere.
In conclusion, is it just me or do some of these "problems" feel pretty weak looking back now?
I really do feel that some of these complaints are pretty minor and pretty irrational. Talk about scraping the barrel!
But I doubt anyone will come out and say "I was wrong!"
Well, in any event, I'm off to play through DA2 again before the third instalment is released!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)