marcob: We're going quite a bit off topic. Still I think the real opposition is not between materialistic or symbolic. That would be about the view on the world (imaginary or not) not much the actions, the style of them and certainly not the way they're told).
Let's put aside the kitsch or the holes in some (many) plot or those hastily put together "great scenes" that really are not (which are more a matter of too few love of the art and too much need to release it, plus a drive towards overdragged serialization, a classic from "fast and cheap" ones, the reason because "commercial" is often intended as "bad, quick and soulless" while there are robust hints that Shakespeare himself was proudly "commercial"; and it's not at all specifically an "eastern" fault, west being home to feuilletons and...ahem..post-Thanos Marvel, I've heard)
The friction is to me to be found in aesthetically (not simply mentally) pleasing vs unassuming. Myths were more about teaching and immersing, movies and games are about captivating, attracting in a shorter time-span, overloading with something awesome and unusual. So a slice-of-life approach is less effective in these kinds of stories; it could be deep but it's harder to make it amazing for the reader, since you'd have to work on subtleties and epic elements are fully "internal", with the "external" ones (big castles, great deeds) not available or reduced to a less attractive and often small-scale modern/real equivalent. In the suspension of fantasy, we forget that real life old roots of this were very small scale boundary quarrels that were far from how they've been passed down to us. The tale is not necessarily a cheaply pumped up or an oversimplified version; in the best share of the media output of a time (hence often gone classic afterwards, and with some "heart" in it, meant to be sold or not) we're not presented with what happened (like from a 2 m distant camera, for example) but what was felt when it happened . And then there's all the spectacularization that is the core of action blockbuster movies, and games done like this. The main justification and ingredient is not symbolism,
it's show and engagement.
Moreover, on simplification of the Fantasy genre I don't really agree: it can be on par with its ancient sources and a sort of dialogue/commentary on them, if done well. It can be more accessible, but not always, and more for being nearest to us in time than because of the author's choice. It could also be a distortion with how we commonly understood Fantasy classics, and how we remember them, while they were instead more somber, less stereotyped and more nuanced.
I think about The Lord of the Rings, even the more "visual and epic oriented" film version, a common "Fantasy novel" model for the general public.
It's not so happy and comforting as a tale, not completely optimistic, far more real in some details than one would think. Aragorn is not Disney's Prince Philip while strangely we think he is (he feels more like Tolkien's Geralt to me..!) and the all-goodies vs all-baddies settings that we're used to criticize simply isn't quite there. Elves are not so all-gorgeous: they feel selfish, privileged and outdated too (just like victorian old gents in WWI?). Of course hobbits are bucolic peasants but are also ignorant, narrowminded and prone to pettiness (like small village real-life uneducated peasants, maybe?)
Same, and much more visible in Dune.
I agree with you that opposing symbolism and plain detailled actions isn't very interesting here. Worldviews are better suited for describing those differences indeed. And you're right : we're a bit off topic ^^', so I'll try to keep it more attached to what this game's trying to achieve. For it was, from the start, my point here.
Your take on aesthetical differences is quite good. It's not my usual way of seeing this, but I agree with most of what you've said. Except for the mandatory nature of the (narrative) contrast you see between myths and movies or video games. There's no such thing - not in academical research at least - as a complete, intrinsic and unavoidable distinction between what most people will call "myths" (which are usually legends) and other types of narratives. They manifest different worldviews, as you said - and very strict traditionnalists would go as far as to say there's only one worldview, graduated according to one's understanding of it [but that's way too far from the subject ^^] -, which simply lead to different manifestations or motivations in a given environment. All of which still exist nowadays, even if proportions wildly vary. But the definitions given to those manifestations or motivations by modern research don't conveniently seperate products of an old forgotten world from... what is still imagined on a day to day basis. Which is to say, because anyone's responsabilities, past or present, that you can't set in stone distinctions between myths or any other kind of stories even before they're formed either. Including nowadays.
Novels, movies or games aren't, per se, mandatorily limited (as mere media vehicles) to the sole purpose of entertainement. It's more, you're right, a matter of worldviews. Which, you're right too, require sometimes some rather unefficient, ill-adapted narrative tricks or... to express it otherwise, a vision clear enough to integrate (indeed) internal realities into external apparences. In middle-eastern classic story telling, this is called "subtle allusions" for example. Of course, you'll always find unimportant elements to cover a tale's main theme, but you'd be surprised how hard, even during very rigourous studious of the subject - regardless of the schools of thought or fields of interest, someone like Mircea Eliade often agreed with Lévy-Strauss for exemple -, it is to clearly, completely and definitely isolate myths from other narrative constructions, for they share sometimes very similar elements and structures, during the same period of time. Regardless, I doubt the related authors could always master that difference with great precision, for their works often both contained important and less important parts...
Loads of novels and movies, strived and still strive even now, to "teach" about existential subjects which concern any historical period, express complex related matters - without being limited to a single one, as myths do - or bring to the light old (vast) cultural conceptions, linguistical peculiarities, odd interesting visual elements, etc. Those elements can prove to be less popular, artsy or bordered to the so-called "independant realm" - though this isn't a good way to tackle what we're talking about -, but not inherently so. Video game, for various reasons, were less concerned by those initially - and usually suffer more than all the "holes" you mentioned -, but they're starting to widen their field of preoccupations... Just like, somehow, what this game's doing with Kashubian-Pomeranian culture. And those objectives don't deny any interest for adjectives such as "fun", "spectacular" or "effective" in any way. Fortunately for us, somehow ^^ ! It's just a matter of craft, priorities and values. There's an avenue of possibilities here... That's what I try to explore whenever I come up with an idea or a story at least.
It's perfectly possible, though obviously not easy - I agree with you there too -, to share important details without boring people. Indeed, "slice of life" repeated actions - which traditionnal societies were all about - help a lot, but what are video games if not gameplay loops and in-game organised, repeated interactions ? And huge costly cinematics are considered to be so outdated by lots of gamers nowadays... There are many other methods to tell a story. Whatever game design is used - usually through expression of a few desires, linked afterwards (like here) to system choices -, there's no clear cut buit-in obstruction which would force any give media to "assume" a completely evasive stance, to limit itself to being a mere distraction, to renounce to its educational value - if when it's pretty low. It's just a matter of worldviews, choices and responsabilities. Especially if you can obtain some backup from museums and professionnal from various academic fields. Which is to say, somehow, that part - probably a very minor part - of our cultural production will one day be remembered as myths, trying to convey more than mere excitement...
Now, this doesn't change a thing about fantasy's usual classic (diminutive) features. And if you really know Fantasy whose core offers more than fantasies, by all means, tell me which ! Because such a change implies leaving the realm of Fantasy ^^. Sci-fi and speculative stuff, like Herbert's, share indeed a few other characteristics, if only because of their prospective nature. But it's still not that different usually and some authors don't want to hear about that distinction nowadays... Which is to say that no, Tolkien's works only qualifies at transmitting what (modern) Fantasy specializes in : nothing more, nothing less, even with the support of all his academic background and the religious orthodoxy of his themes. Same for Geralt's adventures, vastly different and also great, I agree ^^, but that's not the point here.
Both worlds propose their share of rigorous elements indeed, but any old piece of real History (including corresponding myths and stories) offers a potential value so impressively richer, deeper and closer to reality in any possible way - phenomenological, symbolical, etc. [provided you study it that way, of course, which most common Fantasy readers don't do] - that it's "commentary", like you said, usually doesn't bring forth anything else than... virtual fantasy. The distant evocation of dreams someone never tried to travel to or to adopt in his life ; the memory of stuff never seen or never experienced first hand ; the soothing setting of what pats the back of their author's convictions - as, statistically speaking, a western white (upper) middle-classed guy, in the comfy setting of his office. Tolkien's fantasms about nordic cultures have been well documented for example... I'm basically repeating here what's common knowledge about the genre. Which always implies some sort of simplification, even for the most internal phenomenons it expresses.
As said above, this doesn't prevent Fantasy products from (potentially) dealing with goals deeper or more grounded in common adult themes than entertainment. They can, as any other media, regardless of its happy optimistic coloured lenses or grim dark down to earth prospectives, be used as a vessel to express graduations of important specific or global realities, sometimes even universal. Though they're often mainly used, you're right, to sate a hunger of escapism rather than remembering about those themes. A novel by Jack London suits better the exposition of real feelings in the wild, in poverty, facing struggles or handling political beliefs - if only because they were lived as such by the author - than any imitation, through Fantasy, imagined by someone who invented a (more) muscular counterpart of himself like Conan. But does that change the effect of individual worldviews, decisions and effects ? Certainly not. Apart from striving to experiment those transformations ourselves, we're always free to subvert the genre to carry unusual messages - which is partly the case here. I sure hope, returning to the main topic, that this game will maintain a fair, even if modest share of exotical concrete elements. Not just an excuse to go on an adventure ^^...
PS : I thank you for the conversation ^^ and would talk more with pleasure, but I'm affraid we're going to bother people here ^^'. I've sent you an invitation, if chatting elsewhere piques your interest...
