Has anyone else noticed that the Chinese game is written by people from China?
So I've finally read the new story (Medjehtiqedti Bound if anyone is looking at this in the future) after many delays. I will say, after trying out Endfield it was so nice to have a story with some actual meat to it, one you can actually analyze for a bit and has something to say.
So while I was reading, I suddenly saw something which I don't think I've seen people talking about this before. Now, it's very obvious once you see it so I can't help but feel probably it was just me who was an ignoramus but I wanted to get my thoughts out there anyway.
Basically, the game is written in a very Chinese context for a Chinese audience. Like, a hundred years of occupation is a very specific number, and IMO it's one that changes the entire meaning of the story entirely. So now the talk about the about kicking out invaders, suppression of local practices, tradition vs modernity, etc, takes on a different light, right?
Now, Medjehtiqedti Bound isn't the only place I've seen it before. This is actually a kind of very belated post about the Kjerag storyline, where I actually first noticed it. I don't know if it was just obvious to everyone but I didn't see any discussion about it so I just wanted to put my thoughts out there. Kjerag was where the conflict between tradition vs modernity was most central. There, 'tradition' was giving way to 'modernity'. Modernity took on the form of, ending traditional power structures, industrialization, the poisoning of the land and its people that comes with it and capitalism. The game actually unambiguously takes a position that the above was necessary to keep out the Victorians. To me, that's actually interesting as hell. I haven't had the chance to reread Break the Ice yet but I feel like people better read than me can make all sorts of fascinating essays.
This is not to say that Medjehtiqedti Bound is not about Greek independence, because obviously it is heavily inspired by it and the writers chose to depict it a certain way. I think it's not the most historically accurate portrayal, but I'm not a historian or someone with a personal connection to such things. But to the writers and the intended audience, I think that it is something that happened far away not exactly relevant. My take on the depiction of Minos is that its the way it is not because the writers are intentionally biased towards one side of the nationalist history vs another but because they view it through a Chinese lens.
Normally I don't make posts like this. I'm not from China myself but there is a quote about writing that goes something like "writing is a meeting between minds" or something. So it's very interesting that you can sort of glimpse the mind behind the words if that makes sense. Thoughts, opinions?