In my experience, games broach religion in the same way they handle sex and relationship: clumsily, inelegantly, and in a very limited capacity.

Skeleon:

Do you remember any games that you think did it in a particularly interesting or engaging way?

Besides the ones that have already been mentioned I enjoyed the religious elements of Darksiders even though they tried to be unnecessarily coy.

Star Wars games have also started to explore the religious philosophies of the galaxy, specifically the KotOR series, but it still has a ways to develop, imo.

Edit: And even though it was already briefly mentioned, I've enjoyed how Assassin's Creed has used religion as well, though I'm only up to AssBro.

Skeleon:

Suicidejim:
God is portrayed as almost a dictator-like figure, whose angels have little mercy for sinners and who would be willing to strip mankind of free will if necessary, while the opposing side seems determined to free humanity of God's rule and guidance and allow them to find their own way in the world.

Sounds very similar to the Innos/Belial dilemma, albeit with much more clearly Christian references. Very interesting, I might check that game out. Is there an option to free humanity from all those external influences, too, or are there those two sides only?

Typically in Shin Megami games, Law (usually headed up by God), wishes mankind to live in a very specific way, who doesn't take terribly kindly to the free will to do otherwise, and Chaost (usuually headed up by Lucifer), wishes to make a world where you're free to do absolutely anything you want, but the world is a perpetual state of barbarism with your average living human sacrificing to 'old gods' and 'demons' and the like for favor to survive, considering they'd be very low on the food chain in a world where all these supernatural entities are also otherwise likewise free to do whatever they want.

Neutral is usually the option to stay between absolute Law and absolute Chaos and more or less retain the world 'how it currently is'. Or 'mostly how it was' considering that in almost all these games the world ends regardless of what you do, and you're just shaping what comes 'after'.

Skeleon:

Damien Granz:
I also dislike the implication that some have, that themes like, 'sacrifice' or 'loyalty' and things are 'religious' subjects or some junk.

Depends a lot on how it's done, too. While I get iffy about loyalty portrayed as a value in and of itself, too, sacrifice in particular can be a very powerful story-telling device and obviously doesn't have to be religious in nature. But it is quite clichèd by now, what with a random guy telling the others to "go ahead without me" every 20 metres or so...

I guess I meant, loyalty, as in, not being a total ponce to one's ideals or friends and stabbing each other in the backs at the earliest opportunity, because The Bad Guy offered you a better paycheck.

Consider all that cliche or not, sure. I'm not here to debate the merit of the tropes in general. Just stating that religion as done by super religious people, especially when they're dealing with a real life religion and not some expy, is likely to tire me fast out of that game.

A lot of people who are super religious tend to think that their 2,000 year old religion made 10,000 year old concepts. When that's a theme in a movie or game, that's generally a sign for when I'm done with a game. Cliche or not.

The more abstract the religion in the game (or even the more divorced from a real life breathing religion now), the less annoying or offensive it's likely to get.

Things like the Elder Scrolls does it well because while the Adaedra and Daedra (their two pantheons of 'gods') are real and can be in your face at times (especially the latter group), the game doesn't try to portray them as this inherently good force that you're worthless and boned without. They're more like the classical Greek Gods who were more like, characters in and of themselves, rather than a floating bearded Aesop.

Skeleon:

Imperator_DK:
God of War series

Hm, those games get mentioned a lot. Might have to check them out, if they are available for PC.

Bayonetta was of course very agreeable too in that regard too, nothing like curb stomping the Christian god with some aggressive female sexuality.

Quite frankly, the trailers and whatnot I saw of this game kind of drove me away from it. It seemed like an unadulterated attempt to cash in on the boobies, little more. Could you perhaps expand a bit upon its themes and the elements you liked?

You wouldn't be too far off. The game was created in the sense that 'random is weird and therefor good', so the plot's a giant mess.

Skeleon:

But I suppose I don't really miss it, I guess it's positive in that it's a sign that the relevance of religion is ever on the decline in the younger demographics that products aimed at them don't feature it much.

While I agree with the sentiment, wouldn't the fact that Atheists still face problems in society (especially in the USA where many video games are produced) be all the more reason to target games at the younger, generally more Atheistic generation and tackle such themes all the more?

Well, this might sound weird, but in America, people are becoming less and less tolerant of religion being drove down their throats in their laws and personal lives, and video game players tend to be more strongly in that demographic (in general, not always), but however not necessarily more tolerant of atheists or other religions.

That's because you have a large demographic of people here, that don't believe in the Bible, don't go to church, don't want the church to tell them what to do, but still personally identify as members of that same church and still uphold and defend it, even if nothing it stands for.

If an atheist attacks 'their' religion, they still see it as an attack on them non-the-less even if they might have more in common than with their own clergy. That's why you can get people to overwhelmingly vote for, say, gay marriage, and then get those same people to vote against it, it just depends on who's asking and how the question is framed.

Obviously, I'm not meaning 'everybody' in the country.

Baldur's Gate series.

Spoilers to follow ;p

Also Grandia 2, though I remember far less about the plot for that. All I really remember is that there's an Evil Pope.

LetalisK:

Star Wars games have also started to explore the religious philosophies of the galaxy, specifically the KotOR series, but it still has a ways to develop, imo.

"It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost. But in you...I see the potential to see the Force die, to turn away from its will. And that is what pleases me. You are beautiful to me, [REDACTED]. A dead spot in the Force, an emptiness in which its will might be denied." - [REDACTED], KotOR2.

Stuff like that? It's why I continue to defend KotOR2 as a great game against its detractors.

Batou667:
In my experience, games broach religion in the same way they handle sex and relationship: clumsily, inelegantly, and in a very limited capacity.

Sounds a lot like how I handle sex, too.

Skeleon:

Oirish_Martin:
...a comparatively new (small n) atheist...

"Small n"? What does that mean?

As in, I'm a new atheist (i.e. a recent convert to atheism), not a New atheist (that somewhat redundant term for fans of Dawkins, Dennett et al).

It has a particular symmetry for me with reading Dune about 11-12 years ago as a Christian and contemplating a world where the religion I believed in was extinct (or to be more accurate, mashed unsubtly together in the mind of Frank Herbert with some other completely unlikely religion. Zen-Sunni-ism, I'm looking at you).

Heh, that comes with taking place tens of thousands of years in the future. Herbert was practically completely free to do with our cultures what he wanted. Hell, if it weren't for all the high-tech gear, Dune could easily take place in the middle ages in a feudalistic realm.

Oh come off it - Orange (protestant) + Catholic = Orange Catholic! (You can practically hear the guns being loaded in Northern Ireland)

This is "crocoduck" logic, ten thousand years of further evolution of belief just isn't going to result in the names being jammed together.

When I read Dune and its follow-ups, I was particularly impressed by how the religion of the God Emperor was constructed (especially part 3 and 4). Yet, in those book religion has quite clearly been defined as a tool.
Leto II used it to install his own godhood and to motivate people into particular behaviours and adherence to rule to, in his own words, ensure humanity's long term survival. A belief of divinity knowingly put into place to fool and control people, yet (according to him) to their own good.
It was a highly complex tale, the climax of which (the assassination of Leto II) left me quite uncertain whose side I was on; although I think in the end I agreed with the rebels more who wanted humanity to be free from the benevolent tyranny of Leto II (and a violent tyranny it was).

You could be on the side of both, surely. It was the entire point of what Leto was trying to do, or at least, it was the initial catalyst for what he was planning to do.

He was hardly the first to use it as a tool, mind, the Bene Gesserit had been doing that for ages, although arguably Leto did it far better than they could ever have hoped to.

Fascinatingly, Herbert ensured that Leto II's influence on humanity lived on quite strongly in the sequels taking place many hundreds of years later. Leto II's legacy endured and continued to motivate and influence people, both to good and bad.

The biggest theme for me in the Dune saga is "be careful what you wish for". For most of the first half of the series anyway, races seem to find their messiahs/ reach their promised lands or whatever, and then end up massively regretting it. Herbert seems to be saying that humans thrive through the struggle to attain something rather than attaining it at all - the whole notion of Leto's Scattering would seem to support that too.

Skeleon:

Dajosch:
Interestingly, though, the game makes a point about the whole fight also being only possible through intervention of some higher-dimensional being (i.e. a form of a "real" god) which accidently gets trapped in the events of the game.

How do the characters interact with this entity? Does it also have demands of its own? Are its motivations related to the player? I.e., is it an interactive personal entity? Or is it all rather vague?

Well....

Kratos as the personification of humanities unending desire for power or their own unchecked emotions run rampart on the world and destroys it in the end.

Without the aspect of renewal at the end, this sounds very anti-humanistic, actually. Rather than liberation, the ridding of those gods causes destruction. Which aspect is more important to the story would you say? Is it more a "cautionary" story (heh, God of War and cautious) or does it put more emphasis on the aspect of freedom in the end?

The games are about as subtle with Kratos motivation as Arnold Schwarzenegger is in Terminator 1. All he wants is revenge on the gods - to be precise, Zeus, who has wronged him in the past. And that is pretty much what the story tells: "Kratos angry! Kratos SMASH!". The whole redemption aspect about his past and stuff like that was very well handled in the first God Of War. But in the second and third...well not so much as everything seemed like a caricature of the character in the first GoW. And somehow, I don't think that was intended but rather a side effect of giving Kratos an excuse to kill even bigger stuff in more and more creative and cruel ways. This small detour meaning: the games aren't very subtle about what they want to tell.

As such, I don't think there is much of a discussion about freedom or whatever in there. What IS in there, though, I'd say is a rather obvious parabola about how destructive human nature can be. Its conclusion, like I said, I haven't seen yet. Personally, I'd guess that much of what the parabola wants to tell is in there, actually. Dammit....now I've got to finish that game to see if I'am right... ^_^

In this universe the chantry tries to spread the word of the Maker to all people in the world in their effort to make him come back to a place he left. Why did he leave? Because humanity sinned and tried to become god themselves. In this sense, the chantry and its notion of redemption for the sins of the forefathers is very similar to Christianity as far as I can see. This is also the case with its problems of overzealousness, authority and blind faith. Sadly, I don't recall there actually being some revelation about humanities sin at all, which would have made some interesting points towards what religion means. As such, religion is basically just a setup for some conflicts and nothing really substantial.

How are the Chantry used in those conflicts? As instigators? Victims? Can the player join/aid them or are they always antagonists?

Considering what I remember, the chantry is, as I said, more of a passive setup than active participant. You can help the chantry in some quests and can even recover an old artifact for them, but its never more than your typical questgiver i.e. do something and get XP and gold out of it. Not much choice or interaction there. However, the chantry setup serves as an underpinning for one of the main conflicts in DA (which is presumably the main focus in DA2 which I haven't played): mages against templars.

Mages in this universe can use magic by having a connection with the spirit realm. But this isn't without danger: spirits (or rather demons) can possess mages if they are not careful and turn them into abominations which usually wreak havoc on the world. This inherent danger and the fact that it was the ruling Mages of the Tevinter Empire who committed this universes original sin, spawned an order of templars under the rule of the chantry whose sole purpose is to tightly control mages and guard the world from their danger.

That conflict is not a bad idea, as both sides are relatable: the (naturally born) mages want freedom from the tight oppression by the templars while the templars want to contain the danger posed by the mages. One of the quest lines involves siding with either one those groups which (if you side with the templars) can result in the whole order being killed to contain an outbreak. Other than that, small questlines involving apostates (free, uncontrolled mages) are common, too, while the chantries quests usually relate to finding and or killing apostates and abominations.

The main point I wanted to make, though, was that this kind of conflict could very well been done without having the chantry involved at all: The conflict itself is already present without even mentioning the chantry in the first place. So its a rather neutral setup as far as I can see, no real points being made as of the chantry being largely evil or good, instigators or victims.

For example, the individual level would be highly interesting here: where is the line between doctrine and ones own belief?

I think this facet has been adressed a number of times when a character leaves a dogmatic group they used to belong to and agree with only to realise that the group's behaviour disagrees with their principles. I'm no Final Fantasy buff, but on a non-religious level, isn't that basically what happens when the main character leaves the Shinra corporation? I'm sure plentiful religious examples exist and can be used as examples of displays of personal versus doctrinal beliefs. Or is that too clichéd?

Yeah, I was thinking more on the line of less extreme shifts in perception here. Basically what I've seen too often is that some character changes his perception about some dogmatic belief because Evil Secret #362 has been revealed about the organization he is in. I would like something more subtle and realistic - like someone disagreeing with doctrine because of theology and not some made up stuff to make a plot point.

But you also mentioned it: this particular tension between group and individual has been featured many many times and is in no way only restricted to religions and their organizations. Thus, my objection here is probably me being annoyed by a rather common trope, which I incidentally saw too many times in context of religion....

Amnestic:

LetalisK:

Star Wars games have also started to explore the religious philosophies of the galaxy, specifically the KotOR series, but it still has a ways to develop, imo.

"It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost. But in you...I see the potential to see the Force die, to turn away from its will. And that is what pleases me. You are beautiful to me, [REDACTED]. A dead spot in the Force, an emptiness in which its will might be denied." - [REDACTED], KotOR2.

Stuff like that? It's why I continue to defend KotOR2 as a great game against its detractors.

Seconded hard. KOTOR 1 was seriously shallow in comparison, their Sith Code was almost a dead lift from LaVey. Kreia, like Vergere in the books, really forces you to think about the Force through a different lens. Yes, it's awful that the game was so rushed, but the writing is excellent.

Polarity27:

Amnestic:

LetalisK:

Star Wars games have also started to explore the religious philosophies of the galaxy, specifically the KotOR series, but it still has a ways to develop, imo.

"It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost. But in you...I see the potential to see the Force die, to turn away from its will. And that is what pleases me. You are beautiful to me, [REDACTED]. A dead spot in the Force, an emptiness in which its will might be denied." - [REDACTED], KotOR2.

Stuff like that? It's why I continue to defend KotOR2 as a great game against its detractors.

Seconded hard. KOTOR 1 was seriously shallow in comparison, their Sith Code was almost a dead lift from LaVey. Kreia, like Vergere in the books, really forces you to think about the Force through a different lens. Yes, it's awful that the game was so rushed, but the writing is excellent.

Thirded beyond belief. There is a reason KOTOR 2 is my favorite game of all time. :D

Speaking of works by Obsidian... Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the betrayer had some very interesting going on with religion in that game.

There was also a lot of interesting stuff in that game dealing with dead religions and such. Fascinating stuff. I tell you, Obsidian is one of the great, unsung heroes of game story-telling.

Batou667:
In my experience, games broach religion in the same way they handle sex and relationship: clumsily, inelegantly, and in a very limited capacity.

I think mainstream games avoid current, real life religions like the plague. At most, they're neutral flavour or colour, with all the deep and important stuff unvisited.

Non real-life or dead religions in games largely derive their influence from fantasy literature (let's face it, the average computer game designer is likely to be or have been a fan of SF/fantasy), which is in itself highly indebted to the portrayal of gods in ancient mythologies.

But then, when it boils down it, computer games are games. Most barely have plots, never mind detailed characterisation or philosphical musings.

Polarity27:

Amnestic:

LetalisK:

Star Wars games have also started to explore the religious philosophies of the galaxy, specifically the KotOR series, but it still has a ways to develop, imo.

"It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost. But in you...I see the potential to see the Force die, to turn away from its will. And that is what pleases me. You are beautiful to me, [REDACTED]. A dead spot in the Force, an emptiness in which its will might be denied." - [REDACTED], KotOR2.

Stuff like that? It's why I continue to defend KotOR2 as a great game against its detractors.

Seconded hard. KOTOR 1 was seriously shallow in comparison, their Sith Code was almost a dead lift from LaVey. Kreia, like Vergere in the books, really forces you to think about the Force through a different lens. Yes, it's awful that the game was so rushed, but the writing is excellent.

Funny, all I remember from KotoR 2 is The Unescapable Bum Lecture and Revan being turned into a complete Mary Sue.

Skeleon:

God of War series

Hm, those games get mentioned a lot. Might have to check them out, if they are available for PC.

They've unfortunately only been released for the various Playstation platforms.

The first one is really good, in that its story sticks to the powerful simplicity of eternal themes, exactly like the Greek Myths do. The latter two just tries too hard, especially the third one, which ventures into straight up melodrama.

Bayonetta was of course very agreeable too in that regard too, nothing like curb stomping the Christian god with some aggressive female sexuality.

Quite frankly, the trailers and whatnot I saw of this game kind of drove me away from it. It seemed like an unadulterated attempt to cash in on the boobies, little more. Could you perhaps expand a bit upon its themes and the elements you liked?[/quote]

Well, there are certainly boobies and innuendo aplenty, but its presentation of them - at least in the game, haven't seen the marketing material - is rather different from what you'd usually see. Bayonetta is in more ways than one a very provocative character[1], who expresses a very confident and dominant female sexuality which she pretty much expresses as finishing moves on various angelic creatures which are obviously based on Christian art and symbolism.

So you're basically a character personifying confident and liberated female sexuality, slaughtering personifications of Christian puritanism. By no means high art, but agreeable, over-the-top, and blasphemous enough to be entertaining (the gameplay resembles the Devil May Cry and to a lesser extent the God of War series). In spite of the copious nudity and innuendo, I for one didn't find the game particularly tantalizing, I guess you'd have to be into female domination to do so.

While I agree with the sentiment, wouldn't the fact that Atheists still face problems in society (especially in the USA where many videogames are produced) be all the more reason to target games at the younger, generally more Atheistic generation and tackle such themes all the more?

I doubt there's much of a market for such social realism and inclusion of specific everyday problems with religiously induced social exclusion. Most games featuring powerful religions are set in fantastic fantasy/sci-fi settings - incidentally another positive note - and are much better suited for grander tales of religious wars. RPG's like Skyrim, which features plenty of NPC's living out their daily lives, could probably feature it, but I doubt many would discover or take note of it in such a vast fantasy setting.

So until social realism might gain a foothold in gaming, such themes won't really be prominent.

Damien Granz:
...
You wouldn't be too far off. The game was created in the sense that 'random is weird and therefor good', so the plot's a giant mess.
...

The specific events of it are certainly completely absurd and over-the-top (as is the case with many a Japanese game), but the overall thematic is pretty clear.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Funny, all I remember from KotoR 2 is The Unescapable Bum Lecture and Revan being turned into a complete Mary Sue.

Revan had always been a 'Mary Sue' insomuch as they were an extremely powerful, intelligent character. KotOR2 didn't change that. You could argue it expanded upon it (by giving more of their backstory), but Revan was Mary Sue fuel from the start. Right down to the super Darth black cloak+visor.

poiumty:

rambling about DA's 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

I haven't really found anyone else who shares this opinion, but nevertheless it did leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Imperator_DK:
In spite of the copious nudity and innuendo, I for one didn't find the game particularly tantalizing, I guess you'd have to be into female domination to do so.

This is why I didn't find Bayonetta tantalising:

CANNOT UNSEE.

Did enjoy the combat and music though. Excellent gameplay.

Revan had always been a 'Mary Sue' insomuch as they were an extremely powerful, intelligent character. KotOR2 didn't change that. You could argue it expanded upon it (by giving more of their backstory), but Revan was Mary Sue fuel from the start. Right down to the super Darth black cloak+visor.

No. A Mary Sue is not a powerful, intelligent character. Even the cloak/visor didn't make him a mary sue. It was a bit cliche, but that isn't what a Mary Sue is. A Mary Sue, specifically in this case the Mary Tzu and Black Hole sue, simultaneously being the most brilliantest military mind in the galaxy -and- an untouchable morally superior superman who everyone loved and adored, whereas in the first game Revan was -bad-, Revan was a fucking Sith Lord who nearly destroyed galactic civilization. Not as bad as Malak, but still a bad guy, and the Protagonist was rightly horrified to learn that he/she and Revan were the same person.

poiumty:
There are good gods and evil gods, and even a major, absent overgod-figure reminiscent of the christian one.

Uh... I'd say it's much more reminiscent of Deism. Ao has no scripture or commandments. The only similarity is that it is a "Supreme" god. It can't really even be called monotheist, since it's the "Over" god, not "the one (true)" god.

BreakfastMan:

Speaking of works by Obsidian... Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the betrayer had some very interesting going on with religion in that game.

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+WW91IGJhc2ljYWxseSBzdG9ybSB0aGUgZ2F0ZXMgb2YgaGVsbCB0byByZXN0b3JlIHlvdXIgc291bCBhbmQgZW5kIHRoZSBjdXJzZSBvZiBhIGRlYWQgZ29kLiBBbHNvLCB0aGUgZGVhZCBnb2QgY3JlYXRlZCBoZWxsLCBzbyBpdCBpcyBoZWF2aWx5IGhpbnRlZCB5b3UgY2FuIGFjdHVhbGx5IGRlc3Ryb3kgaGVsbCBmb3IgdGhlIGdyZWF0ZXIgZ29vZCBvZiBtYW4uIE5ldmVyIGhhcHBlbmVkIGluIHRoZSBnYW1lLCBidXQgZGFtbiwgdGhhdCBpcyBzb21lIHNlcmlvdXMgc3R1ZmYgcmlnaHQgdGhlcmUuPC9wPg==

Mask of the Betrayer has a couple of characters (including, amusingly, a celestial) that are basically what a militant anti-theist would be in a world where gods (and a supernatural order including afterlife punishment for lack of worship) obviously exist. Very interesting riff on the Euthyphro problem.

NWN2:OC and MotB both seem a lot more engaging than Bioware's contributions to NWN. Original Campaign has a lot of political and social philosophy, whereas Mask deals with the nature of justice. And it's kind of funny that NWN2 plays more like Baldur's Gate than NWN1 does (you can directly control each character in your party, and you can have more characters in your party in NWN2.)

There was also a lot of interesting stuff in that game dealing with dead religions and such. Fascinating stuff.

I thought those parts were pretty uninspired, to be honest. But maybe that's just because I think writing that has a pretense of being 'philosophical' should have an anchor somewhere in reality (even if the anchor is only "what should a person think about whether this hypothetical situation is just?".) "Maybe a dead religion works like this, or maybe like that..." is so far from anything real or worth thinking about that it is difficult to take seriously.

poiumty:

Seanchaidh:

Uh... I'd say it's much more reminiscent of Deism. Ao has no scripture or commandments. The only similarity is that it is a "Supreme" god. It can't really even be called monotheist, since it's the "Over" god, not "the one (true)" god.

Well... in the sense that he created the universe, needs no worship and is unresponsive. But I get what you're trying to say.

Right. That pretty much exactly describes Deism, whereas the Christian God is very often thought to intervene (there was supposedly that whole Jesus incident) and does require of his followers worship.

Seanchaidh:

BreakfastMan:

Speaking of works by Obsidian... Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the betrayer had some very interesting going on with religion in that game.

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+WW91IGJhc2ljYWxseSBzdG9ybSB0aGUgZ2F0ZXMgb2YgaGVsbCB0byByZXN0b3JlIHlvdXIgc291bCBhbmQgZW5kIHRoZSBjdXJzZSBvZiBhIGRlYWQgZ29kLiBBbHNvLCB0aGUgZGVhZCBnb2QgY3JlYXRlZCBoZWxsLCBzbyBpdCBpcyBoZWF2aWx5IGhpbnRlZCB5b3UgY2FuIGFjdHVhbGx5IGRlc3Ryb3kgaGVsbCBmb3IgdGhlIGdyZWF0ZXIgZ29vZCBvZiBtYW4uIE5ldmVyIGhhcHBlbmVkIGluIHRoZSBnYW1lLCBidXQgZGFtbiwgdGhhdCBpcyBzb21lIHNlcmlvdXMgc3R1ZmYgcmlnaHQgdGhlcmUuPC9wPg==

Mask of the Betrayer has a couple of characters (including, amusingly, a celestial) that are basically what a militant anti-theist would be in a world where gods (and a supernatural order including afterlife punishment for lack of worship) obviously exist. Very interesting riff on the Euthyphro problem.

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+SSBsaWtlIHdoYXQgaXQgZ2VzdHVyZXMgYXQsIHRob3VnaCB0aGUgZW5kaW5nIHNlZW1zIHBvaW50bGVzc2x5IGxpbWl0ZWQuIFdoeSBpcyBpdCB0aGF0IG9ubHkgdGhlICdldmlsJyBjaG9pY2VzIGNhbiBkaXN0dXJiIHRoZSBleGlzdGluZyBvcmRlciB2ZXJ5IG11Y2g/PC9wPg==

NWN2:OC and MotB both seem a lot more engaging than Bioware's contributions to NWN. Original Campaign has a lot of political and social philosophy, whereas Mask deals with the nature of justice. And it's kind of funny that NWN2 plays more like Baldur's Gate than NWN1 does (you can directly control each character in your party, and you can have more characters in your party in NWN2.)

Yeah, I never really played NWN 1. Have it installed on my computer, never got around to playing it. XD Don't remember that much political and social philosophy stuff going in the OC. What are you talking about there? And the main reason I started playing NWN 2 was because it played like Baldur's Gate. I fecking love BG. <.< >.>

There was also a lot of interesting stuff in that game dealing with dead religions and such. Fascinating stuff.

I thought those parts were pretty uninspired, to be honest. But maybe that's just because I think writing that has a pretense of being 'philosophical' should have an anchor somewhere in reality (even if the anchor is only "what should a person think about whether this hypothetical situation is just?".) "Maybe a dead religion works like this, or maybe like that..." is so far from anything real or worth thinking about that it is difficult to take seriously.

I think if you are a religious person, you might look at it differently. I am a religious person, so the idea of dead religions and religions building on what has come before intrigues me, especially considering the... unique nature of christianity and it's relationship to judaism.

BreakfastMan:
Yeah, I never really played NWN 1. Have it installed on my computer, never got around to playing it. XD Don't remember that much political and social philosophy stuff going in the OC. What are you talking about there? And the main reason I started playing NWN 2 was because it played like Baldur's Gate. I fecking love BG. <.< >.>

How you approach the docks and later your personal fiefdom, especially if you go the outlaw route, attitudes toward knighthood and the role of lords and so on. Almost every choice between "chaos" and "law" is one that can be heavily informed by political and social philosophy. Perhaps it's fair to say that I was reading into it a lot more than was explicit.

PrinceOfShapeir:
snip

I think you have to remember, this is Star Wars. Star Wars is explicitly grounded in mythic fantasy, characters were always meant to be archetypal and larger than life.

It also requires one key act of suspension of disbelief, which is that people who use the force in anger or for violent purposes are changed psychologically and in their beliefs by doing so. Not just traumatized or damaged, but actually have their whole personality changed by it in a way which is almost irreparable save by some grandiose act of redemption (or, apparently, amnesia).

If you accept that, Revan's shift from 'kickass, super-awesome hero of the Republic who saved us from the Mandalorians' to 'super bad dude who wants to conquer the galaxy and make it his bitch' and back again makes a little more sense.

I don't actually think the KotoR games had particularly good stories, they smack too much of the stupid narrative conventions of the 'expanded universe'. That said, I think it's as well written as a mediocre story can be.

poiumty:

rambling about DA's 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

I haven't really found anyone else who shares this opinion, but nevertheless it did leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Except that the Tevinter draconic religion was also absolutely true, because you kill one of their Gods at the end of Origins (I don't think that's a spoiler).

And the Dwarf religion is also absolutely true, because you kill rock wraiths in Dragon Age 2.

And the Qun is also absolutely true because it doesn't need magic fade spirits to validate it. Asit tal-eb, human.

Anyway, things we actually know about the cosmology of the dragon age universe.

poiumty:
I didn't know fighting a bunch of rock wraiths confirmed dwarven religion.

Well, considering the chantry doesn't accept the existence of rock wraiths any more than the dwarves would accept that Andraste's remains have miraculous powers..

Rock wraiths are meant to be Dwarven souls who cannot return to the stone because of their evil deeds in life. If they exist, it's either because that statement is true and dwarves do return to the stone when they die rather than going to fade or wherever the chantry believes they go, or there is some alternative explanation.

It's certainly as much a confirmation of Dwarven beliefs as Andraste's ashes having miraculous properties is a confirmation of chantry belief.

poiumty:
Dragons and the Qun are barely religions. They're more like cults, and in the Qun's case, laws. Chantry-ism (or whatever) trumps them all by having the Maker create both of those.

If Andrasteanism trumps these beliefs, then why does pouring dragon blood on the ashes destroy their mystical power?

I don't think even the chantry believes that the maker created the old Gods, or for that matter the dragons who bear their image. The reason they're not worshipped is not because they're mere creations, it's because they are deemed unworthy of mortal worship. However, despite this they certainly exist because one of them is the final boss of Origins.

You're right. The Qun isn't a "religion". The Qunari don't see it as a religion. It's a truth about the real world derived from Koslun's observation and writings about that world. Saying that it's false because of spirits or magic or anything else stemming from the fade is saying that something imaginary, however convincing it might be, invalidates something real.

What I'm trying to do here is reign back what we actually know. It's very rare in fantasy storytelling for a myth to be entirely wrong, but it's also very rare for a myth to be entirely right. There are elements to the chantry's story which already don't make sense, I can only imagine more will appear as more of the surrounding cosmology of the world is revealed.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Revan had always been a 'Mary Sue' insomuch as they were an extremely powerful, intelligent character. KotOR2 didn't change that. You could argue it expanded upon it (by giving more of their backstory), but Revan was Mary Sue fuel from the start. Right down to the super Darth black cloak+visor.

No. A Mary Sue is not a powerful, intelligent character. Even the cloak/visor didn't make him a mary sue. It was a bit cliche, but that isn't what a Mary Sue is. A Mary Sue, specifically in this case the Mary Tzu and Black Hole sue, simultaneously being the most brilliantest military mind in the galaxy -and- an untouchable morally superior superman who everyone loved and adored, whereas in the first game Revan was -bad-, Revan was a fucking Sith Lord who nearly destroyed galactic civilization. Not as bad as Malak, but still a bad guy, and the Protagonist was rightly horrified to learn that he/she and Revan were the same person.

Not everyone loved and adored Revan in the second game, where are you even getting that from? Atris hated her, the council feared her, those who *do* adore her do so not for her tactical acumen but for the fact that she was the only one willing to get the Jedi up off their asses and fighting the Mandalorians. Her reason isn't necessarily "morally superior" at all, certainly not to the Jedi-- but to the average person, yeah the legendary unstoppable warrior magician (tm, ty Yahtzee) who's willing to actually fight for you is better than the legendary unstoppable warrior magicians who could help you but are just fine sitting on the sidelines watching people die in droves because involvement would be bad in some kind of bigger picture.

I'd also argue that the first game was very much written from the Jedi POV, and the protagonist is horrified to find that they're Revan because they've been indoctrinated as a Jedi, and the first game is a lot more settled with Jedi good, anyone who opposes Jedi bad, duh. The second game, and why I love it, is a lot more gray about whether the Jedi are a net positive or a net negative on the universe around them, and isn't written so exclusively from within the Jedi mindset.

(Besides, I don't think the term "Mary Sue" has much meaning in Star Wars, as the canon is lousy with them. What else is Anakin Skywalker? Luke Skywalker? SW canon is full of larger-than-life powerful people who have gigantic effects on the universe around them.)

Polarity27:
(Besides, I don't think the term "Mary Sue" has much meaning in Star Wars, as the canon is lousy with them. What else is Anakin Skywalker? Luke Skywalker? SW canon is full of larger-than-life powerful people who have gigantic effects on the universe around them.)

As I understand it, the original trilogy was deliberately written along the lines of Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. Basically, Campbell's idea was that certain narrative tropes work because they mirror the "coming of age" experience of the typical adolescent male, which everyone in society can relate to as some form as a social ideal. The book itself is terrible, but I think it's a really interesting idea because it seems to work in practice.

So Luke Skywalker starts off as a nobody on some backwater planet, totally powerless and subject to forces beyond his control, he can't even leave without his step-family being murdered. He encounters his father as a powerful and controlling force, but through personal growth he ultimately becomes equal to that power without falling to his own destructive impulses. He then unmasks his father to reveal, not an all-powerful God but a man. Voila, the helpless boy-child has become an man like his father, with the power to shape his own universe. Satisfying narrative.

Luke Skywalker, at least, isn't a Mary Sue so much as he's a typical everyman protagonist. This is, I think, why the original trilogy remains so highly regarded in storytelling terms, it's an extremely accessible and satisfying story because it mirrors a part of human experience which we tend to obsess over (unfairly, I would argue, but that's me).

The problem is that whenever subsequent Star Wars products have tried to emulate that, they've lost sight of why they were doing it. Thus, we end up with characters just being powerful or special for no reason other than video game logic.

Heck, I'm pretty sure that's why this..

..pissed people off so much.

The prequels are basically the story of Anakin Skywalker failing to grow up. Why does he have power? He just does. Why is he important? He just is.. Midichlorians + bullshit prophecy = unsatisfying, childish narrative about a dude with kewl awesome powerz (which he didn't earn) getting really mad because his girlfriend left him.

Revan at least did something to earn or deserve that power and respect, and had a convincing reason to morally fail.

You know in Heart of Darkness where everyone keeps banging on about how awesome Kurtz is so that when we finally meet him and see what he's become it's shocking. That's actually intentional, it doesn't make him a Mary Sue. There's more to a Mary Sue than just being good at stuff.

I mean, just for comparison.

Sorry. I overthink Star Wars, but that's mostly because it's one of the few nerd properties which explicitly had bigger ideas behind it, at least at one point.

Batou667:
In my experience, games broach religion in the same way they handle sex and relationship: clumsily, inelegantly, and in a very limited capacity.

I totally agree with this dude; the representation of religion in games, and thus the ability of gaming to enter into religious dialogue, is poor.

I also agree totally with Tamoor's assertion that the only meaningful way to move forward here is to have characters who happen to be religious, but that their faith isn't all there is to their character. I think this could be particularly powerful in relation to Islam as it isn't very prominently represented in mainstream media and I feel like gaming could contribute in detoxifying its image for many people.

Suicidejim:
Well, in a sense, the option to fight against God is the option that frees mankind from any external influence,...

I assumed the demon choice would still mean humanity would be influenced by external forces, albeit in a less "organized" or authoritarian fashion.

.but if you simply meant more 'neutral' options, there a few options that allow you to resolve the game without explicitly siding with demons or angels.

And what's the result of that for humanity?

It's a quite a good game, you can get the original version for DS, or the Overclocked version for 3DS, which adds an extra playable epilogue section to some of the endings so you can see how your end choice plays out.

Thanks! I don't have a 3DS, but I do own a DS. Maybe the original version is cheaper now anyway, I might check it out.
___

TheDarkEricDraven:
It'd be nice if there was more pagan stuff. I'd really like to see some Shinto and Aztec features.

Damn, you're right. When we think of Pagan influences in games, it's usually either Norse gods or Greek gods, but rarely Aztec. I'd assume Shinto references exist in a number of Japanese games, but I'm honestly not sure.
I just remembered a pretty good game with (I think) Aztec references. It's a classic adventure game, if you want to check it out, "Broken Sword 2: The Smoking Mirror".
___

BreakfastMan:
It could go either way, but I would prefer a more ambiguous approach. [...] If you have to give an answer either way, be more subtle about it. More games nowadays could do with some subtlety...

I would agree with that. As much as I like the Sacrifice-gods, I think that they are almost too relatable. Leave some more mystery there, don't make them directly interactive characters. This is probably due to my own Atheism at least in part, but I prefer religion being used as a motivator for human characters, as a story-driving element rather than a "real thing" ("real" in the sense that gods are clearly visible everywhere or providing "real", game-altering magic powers and whatnot).
___

LetalisK:
Besides the ones that have already been mentioned I enjoyed the religious elements of Darksiders even though they tried to be unnecessarily coy.

That one is on my list to check out, too.
Man, I'm so behind with games. To give you a sense of how behind I am: I just recently bought a Windows7-compatible version of Descent 1+2 and the big new release I'm eagerly awaiting is an addon for a flash game.

Star Wars games have also started to explore the religious philosophies of the galaxy, specifically the KotOR series, but it still has a ways to develop, imo.

When I hear Star Wars, I obviously think "the force", both light and dark. Are there other major religions/philosophies in there? Considering I get most of my "knowledge" from the only three movies ever made, the focus has always been on the force as a sort of pantheistic impersonal "yin and yang"-like deity/power/influence. I don't think I've ever noticed any other references to "in-universe" religions. .

Damien Granz:
Typically in Shin Megami games...

Man, that sucks. I kind of hoped for a more... empowering ending. Screw that God, but also screw the old gods and demons. Something like that.

It's interesting, though, that this is basically the political dilemma of "individual liberty versus safety", where some people argue for absolute liberty even at the risk of early death, pain and suffering, while others argue for control and safety. In that context, I'm more guided by my political than my religious views to say "find a balance, I don't want either extreme". Then again, religion and politics do overlap in real life quite a bit.

A lot of people who are super religious tend to think that their 2,000 year old religion made 10,000 year old concepts. When that's a theme in a movie or game, that's generally a sign for when I'm done with a game. Cliche or not.

Unless, perhaps, they are the antagonists?

You wouldn't be too far off. The game was created in the sense that 'random is weird and therefor good', so the plot's a giant mess.

Hehe. Doesn't necessarily mean it can't have good elements to it, just that they are jumbled up in a nonsensical way.

Well, this might sound weird, but in America, people are becoming less and less tolerant of religion being drove down their throats in their laws and personal lives, and video game players tend to be more strongly in that demographic (in general, not always), but however not necessarily more tolerant of atheists or other religions.

That's because you have a large demographic of people here, that don't believe in the Bible, don't go to church, don't want the church to tell them what to do, but still personally identify as members of that same church and still uphold and defend it, even if nothing it stands for.

If an atheist attacks 'their' religion, they still see it as an attack on them non-the-less even if they might have more in common than with their own clergy. That's why you can get people to overwhelmingly vote for, say, gay marriage, and then get those same people to vote against it, it just depends on who's asking and how the question is framed.

Obviously, I'm not meaning 'everybody' in the country.

Hm, interesting.
That would also fit with the various, somewhat schizophrenic polls I hear and read about every now and then (very little approval of Atheists, but also less and less approval of religious extremism). I'd hope that is at least an indicator of the USA becoming more secular. More Atheist-friendly would possibly be a second step.

Anyway, the overall point would remain the same. Even if the audience still dislikes Atheists, wouldn't a plot about an authoritarian religion still entice young, more moderate religious people? Perhaps it's more about "packaging" at that point, i.e. providing a moderate religious option rather than putting two extremes out there, religious authoritarianism and radical anti-theism.

Skeleon:

Damien Granz:
Typically in Shin Megami games...

Man, that sucks. I kind of hoped for a more... empowering ending. Screw that God, but also screw the old gods and demons. Something like that.

It's interesting, though, that this is basically the political dilemma of "individual liberty versus safety", where some people argue for absolute liberty even at the risk of early death, pain and suffering, while others argue for control and safety. In that context, I'm more guided by my political than my religious views to say "find a balance, I don't want either extreme". Then again, religion and politics do overlap in real life quite a bit.

The neutral endings are usually like "Mankind is going ahead and doing its own thing", in a sort of 'humans have infinite potential to be awesome, but potential to suck too, but it's up to them to do their own thing' sort of way.

If that'd fit your 'empowering' ending or not. It requires you to take neither Law or Chaos's side but beat the hell out of both of them.

Skeleon:

A lot of people who are super religious tend to think that their 2,000 year old religion made 10,000 year old concepts. When that's a theme in a movie or game, that's generally a sign for when I'm done with a game. Cliche or not.

Unless, perhaps, they are the antagonists?

I guess, but I don't need that sort of antagonist in a movie, I get enough from my own political system.

Skeleon:

You wouldn't be too far off. The game was created in the sense that 'random is weird and therefor good', so the plot's a giant mess.

Hehe. Doesn't necessarily mean it can't have good elements to it, just that they are jumbled up in a nonsensical way.

I guess, but I find if I can't take a game somewhat seriously, I'm not going to be interested in it too much.

Skeleon:

Well, this might sound weird, but in America, people are becoming less and less tolerant of religion being drove down their throats in their laws and personal lives, and video game players tend to be more strongly in that demographic (in general, not always), but however not necessarily more tolerant of atheists or other religions.

That's because you have a large demographic of people here, that don't believe in the Bible, don't go to church, don't want the church to tell them what to do, but still personally identify as members of that same church and still uphold and defend it, even if nothing it stands for.

If an atheist attacks 'their' religion, they still see it as an attack on them non-the-less even if they might have more in common than with their own clergy. That's why you can get people to overwhelmingly vote for, say, gay marriage, and then get those same people to vote against it, it just depends on who's asking and how the question is framed.

Obviously, I'm not meaning 'everybody' in the country.

Hm, interesting.
That would also fit with the various, somewhat schizophrenic polls I hear and read about every now and then (very little approval of Atheists, but also less and less approval of religious extremism). I'd hope that is at least an indicator of the USA becoming more secular. More Atheist-friendly would possibly be a second step.

Anyway, the overall point would remain the same. Even if the audience still dislikes Atheists, wouldn't a plot about an authoritarian religion still entice young, more moderate religious people? Perhaps it's more about "packaging" at that point, i.e. providing a moderate religious option rather than putting two extremes out there, religious authoritarianism and radical anti-theism.

There are games like that, yeah, where it's like "The Church is baaad", but it's not going to be as widespread.

As a person who struggles with religious belief I find that it's 'easy' for most fantasy games - in D&D a cleric can cure your cold or smite foes and protect you from zombies. In guild wars you can pray to deities and they give you blessings. Equally however in Guild wars the Charr do not believe in being 'enslaved' by the worship of gods (either true or false)

Oirish_Martin:
Oh come off it - Orange (protestant) + Catholic = Orange Catholic! (You can practically hear the guns being loaded in Northern Ireland)

This is "crocoduck" logic, ten thousand years of further evolution of belief just isn't going to result in the names being jammed together.

While you're right on the name-issue, I don't think he's too far off in principle. For example, Christian beliefs and Pagan beliefs have meshed together for thousands of years now. Hell, when missionaries took over Scandinavia, they would let people keep their Mjolnir-amulets sometimes because of the visual similarity to a cross, at least during the transitional period. And I don't have to tell you about the amounts of Pagan imagery and traditions that are still in Christian holidays today.
So while I would agree that you won't get an actual "Zen-Sunni"-religion with that name, I could easily imagine all sorts of meshings of today's religions into new ones (or current ones being "amended" by such meshings if you will).

The biggest theme for me in the Dune saga is "be careful what you wish for". For most of the first half of the series anyway, races seem to find their messiahs/ reach their promised lands or whatever, and then end up massively regretting it. Herbert seems to be saying that humans thrive through the struggle to attain something rather than attaining it at all - the whole notion of Leto's Scattering would seem to support that too.

Hm, I dunno. I always saw it more as "nothing lasts forever" than "be careful what you wish for". It's not so much that achieving your goal is necessarily going to come back to bite you in the ass, it's simply that what you came to achieve may be stable for a while but falls apart eventually. So in my view, the message was more along the lines of "mankind is always changing, there are no absolutes". And that constant change and adaption that humanity is going through actually turns out to be what ensures humanity's survival.
___

Dajosch:
"wave existence snip*

Very interesting and I particularly enjoy the notion of the entity learning from humanity, too. It would lend itself well to the sort of Deistic god motif of a deity performing experiments and observing, although obviously this entity is much more interventionist than that due to its goal of freeing itself.

As for interaction there isn't much: its one of the revelations at the end of the game if I recall, done exclusively by a talk with the main character.

Hm, that's a bit poor. Would you say that, looking back, there were hints of the entity in the earlier parts of the game that were simply not clear at first or are you saying there was literally nothing there, no hints or traces? In some movies, for example, they like to leave hints and notions lying about that don't make sense to the viewer until after the twist. Hell, sometimes those hints don't become apparent until watching the movie over again with that awareness in mind.

This small detour meaning: the games aren't very subtle about what they want to tell. [...] What IS in there, though, I'd say is a rather obvious parabola about how destructive human nature can be.

I see. Yeah, let me know when you finish it. :-D

*Chantry snip* Not much choice or interaction there. However, the chantry setup serves as an underpinning for one of the main conflicts in DA (which is presumably the main focus in DA2 which I haven't played): mages against templars.
[...]
This inherent danger and the fact that it was the ruling Mages of the Tevinter Empire who committed this universes original sin, spawned an order of templars under the rule of the chantry whose sole purpose is to tightly control mages and guard the world from their danger.

That conflict is not a bad idea, as both sides are relatable: the (naturally born) mages want freedom from the tight oppression by the templars while the templars want to contain the danger posed by the mages.

Yes, that's very good, considering both sides have very valid motives, although one could argue about the extent of the measures again (complete freedom for the mages, complete control for the templars). From how you describe the rest of the quest, it sounds like there isn't a middle path to take, though?

The main point I wanted to make, though, was that this kind of conflict could very well been done without having the chantry involved at all: The conflict itself is already present without even mentioning the chantry in the first place. So its a rather neutral setup as far as I can see, no real points being made as of the chantry being largely evil or good, instigators or victims.

Well, sure, but the conflict wouldn't exist without these parties, would it? I mean, you don't require the Chantry specifically, but you do require a faction that wants to control and you require a faction that wants to free, both with positive and negative consequences. No, the Chantry in particular isn't required, but how'd you set up the conflict without a group like the Chantry and their templars?

Yeah, I was thinking more on the line of less extreme shifts in perception here. Basically what I've seen too often is that some character changes his perception about some dogmatic belief because Evil Secret #362 has been revealed about the organization he is in. I would like something more subtle and realistic - like someone disagreeing with doctrine because of theology and not some made up stuff to make a plot point.

Probably not dramatic enough for games and movies. Especially if the disagreement doesn't result in a major conflict or oppression. The heroes we root for (or play as) need a big bad.

Skeleon:
While you're right on the name-issue, I don't think he's too far off in principle. For example, Christian beliefs and Pagan beliefs have meshed together for thousands of years now. Hell, when missionaries took over Scandinavia, they would let people keep their Mjolnir-amulets sometimes because of the visual similarity to a cross, at least during the transitional period. And I don't have to tell you about the amounts of Pagan imagery and traditions that are still in Christian holidays today.
So while I would agree that you won't get an actual "Zen-Sunni"-religion with that name, I could easily imagine all sorts of meshings of today's religions into new ones (or current ones being "amended" by such meshings if you will).

Well, ok, maybe. I suspect such meldings only happen when there's intent to do so - ironically buying into Herbert's rather cynical (IMO) view of religion - a tool to be manipulated to cultural ends.

Certainly seemed to be the case with early Christianity, which hybridised like billy-oh to widen its appeal.

Hm, I dunno. I always saw it more as "nothing lasts forever" than "be careful what you wish for". It's not so much that achieving your goal is necessarily going to come back to bite you in the ass, it's simply that what you came to achieve may be stable for a while but falls apart eventually. So in my view, the message was more along the lines of "mankind is always changing, there are no absolutes". And that constant change and adaption that humanity is going through actually turns out to be what ensures humanity's survival.

I'd hardly call the fulfillment of the major goals stable for a while. The Kwisatz Haderach was so bad for the Bene Gesserit that they already swore off the idea while Paul was still alive. The Fremen began to miss the old ways even while people of that generation like Stilgar were alive. Those dreams never produced stability in the first place.

The entire point of the Golden Path was to make such panaceas obsolete, so mankind's future would no longer be bound to (a) single powerful individuals like Emperors/messiahs and (b) single costly commodities like spice.

Honestly? Some of my favorite games deal with religion in some manor or another. For example, in Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor (Overclocked, specifically)

TheDarkEricDraven:

It'd be nice if there was more pagan stuff. I'd really like to see some Shinto and Aztec features.

I would like to point you to a little game called Asura's Wrath.

Amnestic:
"It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost. But in you...I see the potential to see the Force die, to turn away from its will. And that is what pleases me. You are beautiful to me, [REDACTED]. A dead spot in the Force, an emptiness in which its will might be denied." - [REDACTED], KotOR2.

Stuff like that? It's why I continue to defend KotOR2 as a great game against its detractors.

Obsidian won me over as a fan with KotOR2 and NWN2. Here's to hoping that they get a title that they don't have to rush.

Truthfully, I've never really been too big of a Bioware fan, since they tend to have great ideas, but they seem to lack polish in the end. After playing through KotOR and the ME series again, I've seen a pattern in their storytelling which, while decent and compelling, lacks the depth and weight of a good Obsidian game. Don't get me wrong, Dragon Age makes for an awesome, compelling setting, even as we see...

...but Obsidian has shown a pattern in the past of recognizing just what a player can do in their RPGs.