Games expressing views

[tentons]

I saw this today: http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=5916


In addition to its continued development of the Oddworld brand, Oddworld Inhabitants is looking to produce another title which focuses on Earth in the near future and deals with issues like "martial law and the diminishment of civil liberties," president and creative director Lorne Lanning has revealed....which I think is great. It can only help validate games as a way to express discontent for and examine the human condition. This is a good, much needed trend for multiple reasons.

Why don't more developers load their games with expressions of opinion and stories critical of society?

[Anthony Flack]

Because I want to take money off Republicans.

[Reactor]

Why don't more developers load their games with expressions of opinion and stories critical of society?


That's all we need... more opinion. Personally (and here's an opinion) I think it's a waste of time, and changes nothing. After all, look how much better the world is after the novel of opinions which was Deus Ex.

[tentons]

I think it's a waste of time, and changes nothing.
So all games should be mindless, pointless wastes of time? What a depressing thought.

[BlueSky]

Yes, they should be a waste of time. You are creating a diversion for people, an escape -- not a tool to develop political ideology. As soon as you have a 'message' people will be turned off. Imagine a rock band that plays music featuring a consistent political perspective that bothers you, would you really plunk down your own money to support them?

If you are in business to make money, don't divide your audience.

[Reactor]

No one said they should be without some point, but honestly, it's a waste of time trying to change people through games. Do you honestly think the majority of gamers play because they want to be enlightened by opinion, and informed about what they can see on the news for themselves every day? Maybe this isn't the case for you, but people play games for entertainment. They play games because they get something out of it. If that's depressing to you then... spare a thought for the gamer who plays to avoid the world outside, and what's depressing to them.

You ask why developers don't go the opinion route... that's why not. No one wants to pay to hear what they don't want to hear. If they wanted to change the world they wouldn't be sitting around playing games, and wasting their money on them. End of story.


Side note: I don't mean to sound harsh, I know where you're coming from ;)

[tentons]

We'll have to agree to disagree. :)

I think there's value in telling stories and examining the world we live in. At minimum, evoke emotions or show a particular point of view that maybe lots of people never considered. Escape for its own sake is ok--if you've got time to waste, but I like intelligent entertainment that offers something in return for the time I invest.

I don't watch TV at all for this reason. There's so little that's on which isn't a waste of time that I have no interest in it. I don't read books for mindless fun, and I generally don't like music with pointless lyrics. I don't like visual art devoid of concept. If there were more games with something of substance behind them, there might be more good games. Inspiration is a wonderful thing.

[tentons]

No one said they should be without some point, but honestly, it's a waste of time trying to change people through games.
I don't expect to change the world with a game (I never said that!), but I also don't see why adding some substance to a game's premise is a bad thing and an unpopular point of view. (Hey, I'll be an underdog.) :)

I'm not saying the point of the game should be to hammer someone over the head. It should be a given that you have to start with a fun game. I'm not saying fundamental changes are required or that some opinion or message has to come across like Blinding Light from Above™. Just that I wish more developers would utilize games as a way to create meaning in people's lives. Forgetting about trouble at work is meaningful to some degree, but that's a single dimension in a potentially multidimensional medium.

I guess I'll be the first to crack that market. ;)

[Reactor]

Okay, fair enough. I'm a Christian guy, so I obviously don't feel there's a whole lot of point to create meaning in people's lives, outside of sorting out sin and judgement. Despite that, I look forward to seeing what your games will be like.

The thing that got me was mainly the reason developers don't "load their games with expressions of opinion and stories critical of society". I think the reason is because it's difficult to find a good balance. Too much opinion is ugly, as are obvious beliefs about things in society, people didn't pay to hear. It's a risky business... one that often has no affect on the player anyway.

[Anthony Flack]

I'm all for it in principle, actually. And I was happy to read about that upcoming game. I do think that people should make their opinions heard - especially since the world seems to have been taken over by the crazies recently. And I think that videogames are perfectly capable of that kind of expression, and needn't be just mindless escapism. I'm always banging on about how people should put more personal expression into their games.

But I meant what I said about wanting to take money off Republicans. The way things are at the moment, if I voiced my political opinions, it would cut my audience in the US in half, no question. Since that's the biggest market, I'm just too poor (or too gutless) to contemplate that right now (as much as I might be tempted to chuck some pointy satire in there).

Still, there are plenty of politically motivated freeware games out there.

[Ricardo C]

So all games should be mindless, pointless wastes of time? What a depressing thought.

I don't believe that not using my games to beat people upside the head with my socio-political beliefs automatically turns them into "mindless, pointless wastes of time."

I want to bring gamers into my creations and have them be delighted by them. If you don't think that alone is a worthy pursuit, then perhaps you're in the wrong business.

[DavidRM]

Games are a medium of expression. Just because most designers don't bother to express much of anything doesn't mean that's the only approach.

It's a common statement that first novels are largely autobiographical. Why? Because the author pulls a lot of himself into that work, more usually than in any other.

Have you ever seen a game that included enough of the designer in it that you could *see* the designer in it, feel the mind behind the choices you're offered in the game? Probably not.

Before you bring up the "only entertainment" argument, remember that:

Not all movies are mindless entertainment.

Not all TV shows are mindless entertainment.

Not all books are mindless entertainment.

Not all music is mindless entertainment.

So why should all games just be a "waste of time"?

As I said before, games are a medium of expression. So you can't help but say something with your design, your gameplay, your array of player choices. Of course, what you're saying might be as simple as "I like football!" Even if you're actually lying and can't stand football at all but saw a chance to make a buck by making a football game. That says something too.

-David

[Ricardo C]

So why should all games just be a "waste of time"?


Who says they are?

My issue with tenton's argument is the false dichotomy he seems to suggest: That which does not attempt to provide insights into the world around us is, or to "enlighten" (word in quotation marks because too many seek to enlighten, never realizing how blinded they are by their own dogma) is, by definition, a "pointless waste of time".

I disagree. Strongly.

[princec]

Everyone has the right to my opinion.
Which is, I don't care either way :)
It's almost Zen-like.

Cas :)

[tentons]

If it seemed that I meant games should express only political opinions, etc, that's not the case. The Oddworld game is one example, but obviously doesn't encompass the broad spectrum of expression possible through gaming or any other medium.

Just to clear the water, I do like games that are "pointless" sometimes, I just wish there were more games with a point beyond the game itself. (Educational games are actually games with a point beyond the game.) There is value in pointless games, and they are a waste of time--but that's ok. I didn't say I think all games should be one way or another. I find nothing sacrilegious or obnoxious about making players think about something outside the game, but related to it. Agreed, you should never preach, but you shouldn't need to if you are sensible about the issue.

What I find so interesting is that games offer a way to experience a point of view unlike a book, movie, or music. Not only can you tell someone about something you see, or did, or observed, but you can allow them to also have the same experience. It's a kind of empathy, really. You can literally put someone in your shoes (or someone's shoes in a situation that expresses your thought) and experiment with how to handle things. This is what I mean by expressing opinions and being critical of society.

If you want to try and show what it's like to be a drug addict, why not make the problems a part of the gameplay? Addiction and satisfaction become integral parts of the game, and maybe there are several ways to satisfy the addiction such as using drugs, going to church, or escaping reality through television. Let the player decide, and build consequences into those choices which make it meaningful as gameplay and as a kind of commentary.

I'm not talking about slamming a bible in someone's face and saying they will burn in hell or that this is bad and that is good, etc. That's preaching, and that's not entertainment. Obviously there's going to have to be some creativity involved, but I don't see why it's not being done more because it's such a powerful way to tell a story--by experiencing the story (virtually) first-hand. ("Story" here meaning how the gameplay proceeds, not necessarily a linear exposition laid out by the designer.)

I want to create entertainment, but I want to also create something that will have meaning and be memorable. I dunno, I'm going to go this direction because I see a lot of untapped potential. And if I can stir emotions in the process (in a positive, thought-provoking way), that's just free marketing for me. :)

[Air]

Ok.. Someone says games that have opinions are pointless, and brings up specifically Deus Ex (which frankly I don't see as having a whole lot of reality-based social commentary... maybe Splinter Cell would have been a better example), and yes this would be true. But the goal here isn't to change the world guys. The goal is entertainment, and guess what? Some people, myself included, are highly entertained and quite do enjoy social commentary on a variety of levels-- critical and constructive.

However! Social commentary content of any sort is simply beyond the scope of most of the game developers here. We're pretty much talking roleplay genres here and it's been brought up time and time again that there are very few indie roleplay developers, due to the work and timeframes involved. And the roleplay games I can think of offhand are almost all more action/strategy than the sort of story-driven roleplay you find on shelves in stores.

In a bit of irony, there's a social commentary happening right here in this thread. As Bluesky writes -- "If you are in business to make money, don't divide your audience." This is wonderfully true, and is a fine example of how the market economy strengthens mediocracy. Why make a game that 500 people might love to death when you can make a game that 1000 or 2000 people would like enough to buy? One's got to pay his bills after all, and competitive pricing rules make it difficult at best to take a risk losing those sales.

... thus the struggle between the starving artist mentality and the capitalist/opportunist mentality wages on. It's one of the great ying/yang rivalries of the world.

- Air

[Air]

Just to clear the water, I do like games that are "pointless" sometimes, I just wish there were more games with a point beyond the game itself. (Educational games are actually games with a point beyond the game.) There is value in pointless games, and they are a waste of time--but that's ok. I didn't say I think all games should be one way or another.

In other words:

Variety is the spice of life. :)

I know what you're driving at, and don't let some of the replies get you down. There was some defensive posturing happening in a couple of those posts, and it has more to do with people trying to rationalize their own decisions than it does them trying to fix yours.

Oh, and if you ever need some help coming up with bitter social commentary scenarios, I might be able to help out. heh

- Air

[tentons]

I want to bring gamers into my creations and have them be delighted by them.
That's one aspect, of course. But I'm talking about multidimensional games which go the whole way and includes some meat with those potatoes. It's another flavor in the stew of gaming. (You can stop me now, that's a corny analogy. Oh no, more food...)

How many times will we play the "save the princess" or "kill the boss" games before they all blur together? Those won't be the hall of fame games that live beyond their shelf-life. There's a lot more to the universe than that, and I firmly believe that you can derive better gameplay from a better premise. Look at Ultima 4 or Wasteland, two all-time classics. They are both great games with a commentary (albeit, shallow). I think it's great, and why not more games like this?

(Ok, not just RPGs. Look at Jack and Daxter or anything in that genre, which could easily have a good story and plenty of room for "meaning" on many levels--but doesn't. Any action/adventure game can. Beyond Good and Evil does, certainly.)

Again, I'm not saying that all games need to have a point. They don't. There's a legitimate need for mindless entertainment. But I find the ratio heavily skewed unnecessarily.

[Raptisoft]

Ugh, watching any kind of artist descend into "meaning" is ugly. Has there ever been any art that was made better by injecting meaning into it? I mean, for anyone over 17 years old?

Too bad about the Oddworld thing. I guess when all your needs for money and security are fulfilled, the only thing left to do is seek power over minds. :P From poor to comfortable to rich to evangelist. What a progression.

I hope I don't end up like that one day.

Heh... on the other hand, I hope I do. :)

[Raptisoft]

Another thought... in the old civilization games, you had a slider that let you expend money on your society-- one end was science, the other end was art. The premise was that artists took people's minds off the evils of the world, but didn't make the world better, while scientists did just the opposite.

Am I alone in thinking that modern day "artists" are a glum bunch who want nothing more than to make other people feel as much pain as they do?

[Bluecat]

Has there ever been any art that was made better by injecting meaning into it?

Hmmm. How about Lord of the Rings? Tolkein injected quite a lot of opinion and meaning into that one. Then there's Lord of the Flies, Catch 22, to name a couple.

There's quite a lot of classical era painting that has meaning too. Some of it is quite wonderful.

Then there's music. So much meaning... so little time...

[Anthony Flack]

Raptisoft - It sounds like your idea of "meaning" is stuck in the crap 17-year-old angst version. Books, songs, movies, etc can do the whole "meaning" thing without sucking.

It also sounds like your perception of "artists" is too narrow here, too. It's only the people you percieve as being in that category that are a glum lot. But there are all kinds of artists.

"artist" and "meaning" don't have to be just of the teenage variety.

[tentons]

An interesting review (http://www.game-brains.com/archive/dec13_2004/half-life2.htm), somewhat along these lines, about Half Life 2.


The scene that follows, inspired in part by the legendary tram ride at the beginning of the original Half-Life, will leave you staring, slack-jawed, in disbelief. It's fitting that in these moments of helplessness - which I'm not going to spoil for those who haven’t played the game - the story's underlying themes of authority and control are portrayed in their starkest, most powerful terms. It's a breathtaking event and an incredible accomplishment for a videogame.

[tentons]

Am I alone in thinking that modern day "artists" are a glum bunch who want nothing more than to make other people feel as much pain as they do?
Why does art need to be glum? Who's saying that a game with themes and meaning has to be depressing?

I haven't played this game (http://www.adventuregamers.com/underground/article/id,452) (yet), but it's got a cool enough premise that I'll bet there's a message in there. At minimum, it's easy enough to see how some comment could be made about military drafts in contemporary terms. Doesn't have to be depressing or life-changing, just engaging and interesting.


The game [Apprentice II] once again puts you in the shoes of Pib, the titular wizard's apprentice. A despotic local knight, Lord Ironcrow, has passed a bill requiring all local non-professional men of age to enlist in the army. Due to bureaucratic laziness on his master's part, Pib is technically unemployed - his status as apprentice counts for nothing. Because of this, Pib must complete three trials for his master to prove to the Wizards' Academy that he has what it takes to become a full-fledged "magic worker," thus making him exempt from conscription.
There's nothing bad about putting themes and injecting meaning into games. It only adds to the appeal, IMHO, and gives us something more original to play.

After having done some digging, I'm finding a lot of games with some pretty heavy themes. I guess I'm not alone in this as I thought. Darn! I wanted the lionshare of the market! :)

[Raptisoft]

Lol... pile on guys.

If I were to render my opinion, it would be that LOTR does NOT have meaning-- people bring their own meaning to it.

As for being stuck with the 17-year-old mindset of "meaning," it's because I chat with a lot of artists in California. You've never seen so many 30-40 year old men with an art appreciation depth of 17. :)


Why does art need to be glum? Who's saying that a game with themes and meaning has to be depressing?

I would lay $100 down on the table right now that anyone in this era, of this generation, who is trying to add meaning to a video game will take the "everything is hopeless" route. If I'm wrong, that's great... but the Oddworld example above doesn't give me much hope. The philosophy of Generation X comes in two flavors: "It's hopeless man" and "They're out to get us, man."

[Raptisoft]

It also sounds like your perception of "artists" is too narrow here, too. It's only the people you percieve as being in that category that are a glum lot. But there are all kinds of artists.

Let me clarify that a bit... anyone who isn't in that category right now probably doesn't regard themselves as being an artist, but a craftsman. ;)

[Raptisoft]

Ha, lemme clarify further: Am I bitter? Abso-f'ing-lutely. I've had to put up with a lot of arteests over the last ten years.

But here's my own generation X dire prediction: Let the word get out that video games are now a way to convey a message, and you will attract every sore lump and chankre of an artist/write/musician that you can find. Soon you won't be able to play a game of Diablo without killing George Bush in the end.

[Ricardo C]

Let me clarify that a bit... anyone who isn't in that category right now probably doesn't regard themselves as being an artist, but a craftsman. ;)

Good one ;)

[tentons]

I would lay $100 down on the table right now that anyone in this era, of this generation, who is trying to add meaning to a video game will take the "everything is hopeless" route. If I'm wrong, that's great... but the Oddworld example above doesn't give me much hope.
The tone of a message might be colored by the designer or the subject itself (there's a lot of gloom in politics right now, but who's to say what the message is in a game that isn't playable yet?), but that's very far from saying unequivocally that any game with a message or intellectual theme will be gloomy. Unless everything in the world is already gloomy to you. But then, it's hardly the art that's gloomy. ;)

[Anthony Flack]

Jeesus, man. All art is crap now, just because you spent too long hanging out with some pretentious people in California?

[tentons]

...anyone who isn't in that category right now probably doesn't regard themselves as being an artist, but a craftsman. ;)
I think many professional artists would consider themselves artists, and many of them rely on the theme of love to make their money. That's hardly a gloomy subject, if you ask me.

It's still art if you comment on love or beauty or something else that makes you happy. A prerequisite of art is not "depression" and "narcissism." Why not make a game about living a happy life? Is that any less important than pointing out problems in society?

Above all, returning to the thread's original question, isn't it more interesting when games offer something more than mindless entertainment? I don't see this as a commercial liability, executed with taste. I see it as a benefit!

[Raptisoft]

Jeesus, man. All art is crap now, just because you spent too long hanging out with some pretentious people in California?

I didn't say that. Good heavens, I'm an artist too, with all the baggage that comes with it.

But reading that Oddworld excerpt up above... a clear attempt to politicize video games. Hopefully the concept will die on the vine, but with things as they are right now, I don't think anyone will be able to resist the temptation to add "meaning" to a video game-- in the form of politics.

It's just a bad environment for it right now. And nobody will ever call my generation subtle.

[Ricardo C]

Above all, returning to the thread's original question, isn't it more interesting when games offer something more than mindless entertainment? I don't see this as a commercial liability, executed with taste. I see it as a benefit!

And we're back to the root of the problem. There is nothing wrong with infusing a game with a theme or using it to provide commentary. It's your definition of everything else as "mindless" that I take issue with.

Would you like a little insight regarding my choice to stick to crafting escapist entertainment? I live in a politically unstable country. The government is constantly trying to silence independently owned media, and uses its own media outlets to propagandize with the same zeal as the avergae North Korean dictator. There are parts of town you can't even walk through anymore because the government's followers are so fanatical that physical violence is often the result of stepping into "revolution territory."

I'm tired of it, and I refuse to let their venom infect my life to the point where their influence seeps into my work. I suppose you could call it "the social commentary that didn't make it into the game", if you'd like. My point is that the distinction between "socially aware" and "mindless entertainment" is false, and rather offensive.

[punchey]

Here's my take on it... I enjoyed the book 1984 because of the exposition with regard to the nature of collectivism and totalitarianism. I enjoyed the movie for the same reason. There have been games which touched (although much more superficially) on the same theme, and this enhanced my enjoyement of the game's environment/universe. It added to the immersive experience.

If it's done well, it will be very subtle, yet unmistakable. If it is done poorly, as I've seen done in some games, it will be overly obvious, preachy, and too in-your-face.

I think games are a medium where this can work, but it must be done very carefully. Now for most of those here at IndieGamer, this probably doesn't apply. Many of us are making very simple puzzle games, platformers, etc, which don't usually draw people looking for an immersive experience. Such games don't usually provide a sufficient medium for the communication of this depth of ideas, and certainly don't provide an opportunity to communicate them with enough subtlety to pull it off without being too preachy.

That said, it can work in some types of games, particularly the immersive kind and ones that are more story-driven.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

[tentons]

My point is that the distinction between "socially aware" and "mindless entertainment" is false, and rather offensive.
It wasn't my intent to offend anyone, but you're taking the term "mindless" as derogatory where I'm using it descriptively, not judgementally. It's hard to find a word for something that is done for the sake of doing it without it sounding negative.

As I said a few times already, I don't look down on it, and I don't take any offense to the fact that my first game is a mindless game with no social value. I'm not judging you or the games you make in any way. I'm not saying they aren't fun or you're a bad designer or that without social value games are worse somehow.

But there is a difference between mindless entertainment (like the TV show Jackass or the game Tetris) and intellectually/conceptually engaging entertainment (like the movie Fight Club or the game Syberia). I have never watched Jackass because it offers nothing except empty diversion (which doesn't make it less entertaining). I don't have time for it. I don't judge people who like it, it's just not my cup of tea. Tetris is a beautiful game, a genius design. But it's got no point beyond itself. Nothing wrong with that!

I am not demanding that this type of entertainment stop being made. There are plenty of good reasons it exists and it serves a healthy purpose. Sometimes, you really do just need a mindless game to play while you decompress. None of that I doubt or question. But, in general, I personally prefer something more substantive in the form of a game with some thought behind it and a message. It's not a readily available commodity, though.

To say that this dichotomy is offensive is to take it personally. You can't deny that a game like Syberia is more intellectually engaging than a game like Tetris. There's absolutely a distinction. There's a gaping chasm of a difference. It's just a fact of the nature of different kinds of entertainment. Not that one is better than the next, but simply that I prefer the former, and I want to make games that offer something like that and I wish there were more games like that.

I'm sorry that you're offended, but I'm not attacking you. Ok? :)

[Ricardo C]

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Yeah, why have a discussion on anything, when it can all be summed up in one flippant dismissal? :rolleyes:

[DavidRM]

You really can not *NOT* inject meaning into your game, any more than you can avoid a decision by not deciding.

By simply choosing to include one thing in your game and exclude another, you've just made an artistic statement. You've expressed yourself. It may not be *much* of a statement or a very *deep* expression, but that's what it is nonetheless.

People get way too up in arms whenever the a-word (whisper it: art) gets brought up. Some people get defensive because they despise self-proclaimed artistes and want nothing of theirs associated with one of the *those*. Some people get hoighty-toighty and sneer at the uncultured illiterates who insist on creating "mere entertainment". The truth is, though, not only are craftsmen artists, but artists are also craftsmen.

Properly handled, like all techniques, trying to be more meaningful, more personal, can make a better game.

And isn't "make a better game" what we're all trying to do?

Throwing out the idea of including some kind of theme or underlying message in a game because it's often done poorly is not the answer. Follow that logic with all game design and development techniques, and you'll be getting rid of 3D graphics and audio, NPC's, levels/missions, user interfaces, and more until you have nothing left.

-David

[tentons]

...for most of those here at IndieGamer, this probably doesn't apply. Many of us are making very simple puzzle games, platformers, etc, which don't usually draw people looking for an immersive experience.
A platformer could definitely contain enough story and conceptual material to constitute a social commentary or otherwise artistic statement. You would need a story in some form, but a lot can be conveyed through conversations and simple scenes. I hope to pull this off with my 3rd game or so, which hopefully will be a platformer with RPG elements and a strong story. Clearly, there has to be a balance between content and cost, but I think it can be done.

I'd love to make an episodic RPG or action/adventure game. By breaking it into pieces, it would become more manageable from a development perspective. But that is definitely a content-heavy type of game.

But there doesn't have to be anything less artistic about a story-devoid shooter or a simplistic color matching game. Game design can be admired for many reasons, and games can offer many types of satisfaction to players.

That's what I meant by being multidimensional. Why not offer a little of everything, if it's feasible? Making a statement about something socially relevant (and that doesn't mean exclusively political--love, beauty, parenthood, and everything else good or bad counts as well) is just icing on the cake, if you ask me.

[tentons]

You really can not *NOT* inject meaning into your game, any more than you can avoid a decision by not deciding.
I'm talking about a specific kind of meaning, because clearly a game's design is itself an artistic expression. I'm talking about games that will make you think about subjects that transcend the game and apply to everyday reality in some way.

(And, yes, the absence of any message is itself a kind of message, but that's not the more explicit kind I'm referring to.) :)

[Ricardo C]

tentons, I appreciate your lenghtier explanation, and yes, I see where you're coming from more clearly now. I still don't quite agree with your criteria, but yes, no ruffled feathers on my end any longer ;) However...


But there is a difference between mindless entertainment (like the TV show Jackass or the game Tetris) and intellectually/conceptually engaging entertainment (like the movie Fight Club or the game Syberia). I have never watched Jackass because it offers nothing except empty diversion (which doesn't make it less entertaining). I don't have time for it. I don't judge people who like it, it's just not my cup of tea. Tetris is a beautiful game, a genius design. But it's got no point beyond itself. Nothing wrong with that!

You mean you missed the episode of Jackass in which Wee Man and Steve-O sit down in a snake pit and have a candid debate about the Communist Manifesto? See, you should have given the show a chance ;)

Personally, I found Fight Club to be entertaining but vapid. Its brand of social commentary fits neatly into the type of Gen-X (or Gen-Y, by now) bizarre combination of cynicism and self-importance Raptisoft poked fun at earlier. This doesn't make it a bad movie, far from it, just not the revelatory masterpiece so many people seem to think it is. Escapist entertainment for materialistic-men-who-like-to-pretend-they-are-not, that's how it strikes me .

[tentons]

I found Fight Club to be entertaining but vapid. Escapist entertainment for materialistic-men-who-like-to-pretend-they-are-not, that's how it strikes me.
It's ironic that the movie was made to create profit and wealth, I agree with that. But it does make you think about how often people get caught up in material gain and forget about their "human" needs, which is reflected in the two personalities. I also like that the extremes were motivated by a desire to change things for the better, such as the scene with the guy held at gunpoint at the convenience store. (Whereas the extremes in Jackass lack noble motivation but are still entertaining.)

Regardless of our opinions of the film, the beauty of this kind of thing is that it can spark debate--which is the whole point, if you ask me. It's always good to open up subjects, and discuss the issues. It could be lamenting politics, or it could be sharing the joy of love, or anything else worth discussing. That's the sort of thing I would like to prompt through games.

But I'll always be playing games for the sake of play, too. Because that is also important.

[punchey]

Yeah, why have a discussion on anything, when it can all be summed up in one flippant dismissal? :rolleyes:

Didn't I just write 4 paragraphs discussing this issue? It wasn't a flippant dismissal, it's what I say to people who can do nothing but gripe about their games having cerebral content.


A platformer could definitely contain enough story and conceptual material to constitute a social commentary or otherwise artistic statement.

Okay, sorry, I'm from the old school and to me "platformer" means Super Mario Bros. or Commander Keen. It'd be difficult to infuse such a side-scroller with much social or political commentary with any depth that would be taken seriously. I suppose it could be done, but not easily. Suffice it to say you couldn't very well have a political Tetris. :)


But there doesn't have to be anything less artistic about a story-devoid shooter or a simplistic color matching game. Game design can be admired for many reasons, and games can offer many types of satisfaction to players.

When did this become about mere art in general? I thought we were talking about having social and political messages in games?


But it does make you think about how often people get caught up in material gain and forget about their "human" needs...

Wealth is a fundamental need of humans.

[Raptisoft]

Raptisoft announces our new game, coming out February: Political Tetris!

[Bluecat]

You could do a Go style game using the colours red and blue, with the board in the shape of the US, and where every 'square' is a state. The player to win the most states wins!

[tentons]

...to me "platformer" means Super Mario Bros. or Commander Keen. It'd be difficult to infuse such a side-scroller with much social or political commentary with any depth that would be taken seriously.
Given those characters and those settings, I agree with you. With proper treatment, I think it's totally possible. Hopefully I'll get to find out in the future.


Suffice it to say you couldn't very well have a political Tetris. :)
Yeah, that might cause the Silly Police to visit you!


I thought we were talking about having social and political messages in games?
Game design itself is another "art" aspect in the spectrum of the medium. That's part of my gist, that there's more to offer players.


Wealth is a fundamental need of humans.
The things wealth gets you, maybe, but not money for its own sake. I think the message is about exchanging your emotional reality for some useless quest to find self-worth in material wealth.

[punchey]

I agree, money is a means to an end. However, "wealth" and "money" are not synonyms. When you write a game, you are creating wealth, even before you have earned a penny on it. Money is only an abstract representation of that wealth. Real wealth is the means by which man lives. And why can't you find self-worth in the production of wealth? After all, without the means to life (i.e. wealth), life cannot exist. I can scarcely think of a more self-worthy thing than promoting life through the creation of wealth.

Edited to add:
Oh, and what exactly is an "emotional reality"? Is that something different from objective external reality?

[DavidRM]

Suffice it to say you couldn't very well have a political Tetris. :)

And yet, it's been done: 911 Stacker, by Mike Caloud.

As people fall from the 2 burning World Trade Centers, in various poses, you stack them up.

Not sure it qualifies as *political* exactly, but it comes pretty close.

Never say never.

-David

[tentons]

I agree, money is a means to an end.
Ok, but I was referring to money, which I assumed is what you meant. :)


Oh, and what exactly is an "emotional reality"? Is that something different from objective external reality?
Yes, it's your true state of emotional wellness (or illness), whether you admit to it or not. Hiding behind money or power is a common way to lie to yourself that everything is okay inside when it isn't.

[punchey]

And yet, it's been done: 911 Stacker, by Mike Caloud.

:eek: Oh man, I guess I stand corrected! :)

Actually, I meant you couldn't send a very deep political or social message with Tetris. That is, apart from incorporating things that would change it fundamentally. But apparently you can't put it past anyone to send a shallow one. :rolleyes:

[Hamumu]

Breakquest is an breakout which makes a bit of light-hearted social commentary entirely within an intro cinema and ending cinema (I played all 100 levels! YAY! What a great game!). And knowing that it was making that statement, however small and silly, made me like it all the more. I appreciate the author making whatever attempt to lull people from complacency and box-worship (despite the irony of doing it through another form of picturebox). If I didn't have a free copy, I'd buy it. Some people like things that spark thought or discussion of real-world issues. It adds immensely to an entertainment's value to me.

I'm with Anthony. I think it's very worthwhile to do this, and an unequivocal improvement to a game to include it (yes it can be done badly, and usually is, but so are graphics!). I'm passing on doing it for the same reasons he is. For now. More than my desire for republican contributions though is my ineptitude. I can't picture how to do it well at all. I hardly write any amount of story in my games, much less something with resonance. I hide my deficiences behind humor!

[Greg Squire]

So is there an underlying message in Hamsterball? Are you saying that all Hamsters should be forced to live in plastic balls and be forced to do loop de loops? Don't let the ASPCA know. :D

I think you can go too far looking for meaning, when none was ever intended. Also I think you can have an underlying message in games as well as books, movies, music, etc., but you can also take it too far (on both ends for the artist and the player). There is always a message, but it's always open to interpretation.

[Anthony Flack]

I think the art in Hamsterball is primarily aesthetic, and none the poorer for it.

Apart from that, DavidRM and Hamumu between them, said what I would have said - David with regard to art, and Hamumu with regard to social commentary.

Hamumu's example is actually more like what I was originally thinking when this thread started. It doesn't have to be ultra-serious commentary, and it doesn't have to dominate the game. I was thinking more along the lines of the occasional satirical dig, etc.

[george]

games are one of the best mediums for reality/social commentary, just like movies or books, in my opinion. the gamer would be learning a valuable message, but at the same time having fun. it would be great to see more games doing that... i do agree that some games should be purely escapist, but there is definitely a role for social commentary in games also. the way things are going on right now, i think a really good game could be made dealing with our reality - corruption, war for profit, civil libery decay, etc. i bet you guys can be pretty successful with a game like that... if i was programming games right now, i would go for it. some sort of mmorpg maybe. maybe one player could be an iraqi civilian, and another player could be a soldier, and another player could be part of the bush administration -- that would be a good game :-) ( too bad it is real :-( )

[Sillysoft]

Find a niche and entertain its members. A political niche is just as valid as any other.

[NuriumGames]

@Hamumu
Glad you liked the little message.

I think we have the opportunity to express our opinions and this is a good thing :p . Also think humor works best than serious criticism (if you do not want that criticism to be a central part of the game) because people like fun and the ones that do not think like you will probably take no offense.

[punchey]

Humor is also one of the most effective tools for brainwashing as it bypasses the critical thinking faculty. What's more, after it has done so, it is difficult to challenge because people can then always fall back on the defense "it's only humor". This often allows people to even deceive themselves as to just how much they have been influenced by it.

[Badman]

This topic reminds me of the story of Ultima IV's development. Ultima III was very popular, and after it was released Richard Garriott got a lot of fan mail about the game. One thing he noticed was that a lot of people seemed to be drawing the wrong conclusions about him because of how the game had been programmed - the easiest way to get ahead in Ultima III was to steal as much stuff as you could, then sell it back to the very shopkeepers you stole it from.

Richard realized that people were getting messages from his games even though he hadn't explicitly placed any there, and once he did he felt a responsibility to use that power well. Ultima IV completely changed the tone of the Ultima series. It introduced a series of virtues into the game that the player had to master in order to win. Richard was very nervous; no one had tried anything like this before and he had no idea how his fans would react.

Fortunately, the game was a smash hit. People responded to Richard's message. Why? Well, that's debatable. But I think they responded well because Richard's message was a very positive one. Richard went out of his way to not denigrate any existing religion, culture or belief system, but to suggest one of his own design that he hoped might inspire people of any stripe to "live better".

If Lorne's message is as overt as the linked article suggests it is, then it doesn't sound like his message is going to be very positive. The odds are good that the people he most wants to communicate with will avoid the game like the plague, leaving Lorne preaching to the converted.

I'm currently plotting an RPG. RPGs tend to have lots of story elements and it's difficult to tell a story without expressing some kind of message to the player/reader. I've acknowledged this to myself and I'm trying to ensure that my final message to the player is a positive one. And no, my game is not a commentary on any current sociopolitical situation :)

[cliffski]

I just don't understand the aggression in this topic. If some developers want to makecomplex political games (http://www.democracygame.com) that are involving, stimulating and actually have some meaning, rather than just another *match 3 colored fruits to win points* style of game, surely thats up to them. Its not like they are spending your tax dollars on it.

If you want to make a mindless game do it, but dont get upset if not everyone wants to make (or play) games like that.
We were discussing this at work today when i heard ANOTHER WW2 game is coming out.
I'm 34, been playing games since pong. Ive matched a lot of coloured blocks over the years and shot lots of monsters. Now I'm looking for something a bit more interesting and complex. And I'm sure other gamers my age are too.

As someone else said, if you don't like it, don't buy it, but don't try and stop people making intelligent games. Thats like saying you can only make movies like 'american pie'.

[Promaginy]

Why don't more developers load their games with expressions of opinion and stories critical of society?

Cool topic!

I think this is because developers are representative of the larger society. Most people don't pay attention of social or political issues - so most developers make games that don't pay attention of social or political issues.

Most people look to games, movies, music, etc for entertainment or escapism. They are not looking for insight or understanding. But we must be careful not to judge or critcize this behavior - some people will never be interested because they can't be bothered.

I am currently reading Jospeh Campbell's the Power of Myth. In it he makes the distinction between myth and folklore - the first is meant to teach us something about life, the latter is for entertainment. Few games are mythical in stature (ie Ultima IV or Black & White) because they promote mythical values. I encourage everyone who wishes to add a deeper level of meaning to their game to read this book.

[Ricardo C]

I just don't understand the aggression in this topic. If some developers want to makecomplex political games (http://www.democracygame.com) that are involving, stimulating and actually have some meaning, rather than just another *match 3 colored fruits to win points* style of game, surely thats up to them. Its not like they are spending your tax dollars on it.

If you want to make a mindless game do it, but dont get upset if not everyone wants to make (or play) games like that.
We were discussing this at work today when i heard ANOTHER WW2 game is coming out.
I'm 34, been playing games since pong. Ive matched a lot of coloured blocks over the years and shot lots of monsters. Now I'm looking for something a bit more interesting and complex. And I'm sure other gamers my age are too.

As someone else said, if you don't like it, don't buy it, but don't try and stop people making intelligent games. Thats like saying you can only make movies like 'american pie'.

I don't think anyone objected to tentons or anyone else making any type of game. If there are any such posts in the thread please point them out to me.

I, personally, objected to having games that didn't conform to tentons' idea of a "game with a message" described as "pointless wastes of time". That is all.

[punchey]

One thing he noticed was that a lot of people seemed to be drawing the wrong conclusions about him because of how the game had been programmed - the easiest way to get ahead in Ultima III was to steal as much stuff as you could, then sell it back to the very shopkeepers you stole it from.

Richard realized that people were getting messages from his games even though he hadn't explicitly placed any there, and once he did he felt a responsibility to use that power well. Ultima IV completely changed the tone of the Ultima series. It introduced a series of virtues into the game that the player had to master in order to win.

Very interesting. I think, however, it would have been better, rather than introducing artificially imposted "virtues", simply to model reality more closely and let the players reap the natural consequences of their actions. For example, if you continuously stole from a shopkeeper, it would ruin the economy and that shopkeeper wouldn't be able to afford to buy anything back from you. People would quickly learn that looting and plundering the productive by force accomplished nothing but the destruction of value and that nothing could be gained from it in the long-term. It's just a natural cause-effect. He would only have had to introduce some kind of internal "money" or "wealth" value for each shopkeeper that changed as things were bought or stolen and would then effect future dealings with him.

But this is also a very interesting example that you've raised because it shows how a sort of political or social message can exist in a game without it ever being consciously placed there. This point almost requires game designers to consider the POTENTIAL political and social messages contained in their games that they haven't even considered.

[tentons]

I, personally, objected to having games that didn't conform to tentons' idea of a "game with a message" described as "pointless wastes of time". That is all.
And I recognize that those are the wrong words to describe what I meant by that. :) Because I really, truly need to pointlessly waste some time every now and then.

I didn't mean to belittle it in any way, because I think it's very necessary and healthy. I just would rather play a game that has more substance, if given the choice. Which is one reason I'm making games--to increase the number of games that offer something different.

BTW, I love Joseph Campell's writings, and have several of his books.

[tentons]

This point almost requires game designers to consider the POTENTIAL political and social messages contained in their games that they haven't even considered.
So the next time someone says that games are not an art form, be reminded of this and ask how what they said can be true. :)

As you also pointed out, showing the natural consequences of your actions is exactly why I love this medium so much. You can't do that with a book or a movie. You can't put someone in the situation, literally, and let them explore it from the inside. Games allow this, and that's the real power that few have tapped into. (Controversial as it is, this is why I respect the concept behind the JFK game.) That's the direction I hope games will go in the future, as technology becomes less novel.

So I wish developers would stop trying to make movies out of games and start making games out of games!! It's such a powerful way to express a view or explain a situation--to actually get right into the middle of it and view it from inside someone else's shoes.

[Promaginy]

I, personally, objected to having games that didn't conform to tentons' idea of a "game with a message" described as "pointless wastes of time". That is all.

I know that Tenton already responded, but I just wanted to say that IMO it is better to waste one's time than to try and change the world in the fashion of extremists and other crazies!

A 'time-wasting' game is much less harmful than one that promotes violence and hatred (such as Postal). But, I would also argue that a game that promotes insight and mythical values is more valuable than a 'time-waster'. Value in this context is not economical or market-based, but more humanistic-progressive values.

[tentons]

...it is better to waste one's time than to try and change the world in the fashion of extremists and other crazies!
I don't disagree with that, but everyone should be allowed to promote whichever view they want so long as it isn't forced on anyone.

[Triple_Fox]

I had to jump in this discussion because the game I am making(which has barely started, and will need a good deal of fleshing out) intends to be very view-oriented(as in a view on views). For those who are familiar with ZZT and MZX, I can say that I intend to draw primarily from that line of gameplay, which is a very action/adventure/story type of play. I wish to present scenarios that are good material to ponder over; the final resolution of the story is a typical "heroic" one but side conversations and events along the way should let give me room to have some fun :)

Games even from the 2600 era contained content which was thought-provoking(if not thoughtful) - Missile Command is an obvious choice, with the basic futility of nuclear war spelled out in "THE END." More sinister to me is the rare Mangia, which is also based on futility - a boy that must remove the endless plates of food his mother gives him, either by eating it(which eventually kills him) or by tossing it(which if discovered results in the punishment of more food). A stupid game overall, but it creeps me out more effectively than the average horror movie.

At one time I wanted to do "game design." Then I realized that game design was simply another reproducable technical part of the game, and what I wanted to do could be more accurately defined as a "game experience" - the final impact of the game on the player, which ideally would make my games so unique and fulfilling that they could never be touched by competition in the way that a straight-up puzzle or arcade game might ;) The gamble here is that I can manage to achieve this "huge impact" and gain fans that stumble over themselves to buy the game and all my successive games. A tremendous amount depends on the production values here and I've solved that problem by keeping the characters very simple - the environments may take time, but nothing beyond my abilities.


Humor is also one of the most effective tools for brainwashing as it bypasses the critical thinking faculty. What's more, after it has done so, it is difficult to challenge because people can then always fall back on the defense "it's only humor". This often allows people to even deceive themselves as to just how much they have been influenced by it.

This is something I had to pull out from way back since it's so true. There are some "humor sites" around the Internet that at one time I found funny, and then later on realized that I really didn't like anything on them. So I started to investigate the general themes that these sites were getting their content from. I finally decided that it was really that the easiest humor to come up with, and to understand, and that these sites used most frequently, was the hateful kind; everyone enjoys a bit of schadenfreude once in a while. The problem with that is that eventually one becomes desensitized to the whole concept and ends up pulling(or getting amused by) some really nasty stuff. Kid tries to ride his bike into a steep wall like a halfpipe and breaks his jaw? One guy bodyslams another from a roof and cripples both of them? It's sickening, yet hilarious after developing the proper mindset. Maybe I'll address this in my game.

[Promaginy]

I don't disagree with that, but everyone should be allowed to promote whichever view they want so long as it isn't forced on anyone.

So what is the difference between promotion and forcing?

To me, promotion is marketing. These are the methods used to educate people about a product (could be a political cause) and asking them to take action. The customer must make the final decision.

Forcing a product (or political cause) on someone is where you get into economic monopolies or poltical dictatorships. The customer makes no decisions in this case.

Also, do you think that every view should be allowed? If a developer created a game whose purpose was to improve the efficiency of Nazi death camps, is this worth protecting?

I am honestly split in this area - on one hand I think that it is better to let the ugliness show so that we don't forget about it, but on the other hand I find myself repulsed and think that there are far more benefical things to spend time developing. Reading a book about Nazi death camps is considered educational, but acting as a virtual manager of such a camp is hugely controversial. I am truly stuck. :confused:

[Raptisoft]

on one hand I think that it is better to let the ugliness show so that we don't forget about it

This goes back to my earlier point. God knows we're in danger of forgetting all the ugliness in the world. :P

The job of an entertainer-- and that's what we are guys-- is to let people forget all that bullsh*t for a while.

Scientists make the world better. Artists help get people's mind off the idea that the world is bad while we're trying to make it better. When artists leave that and decide to be "open minded" or "political" or "diverse" or whatever, then we get depressing decades like the 60's, 70's, and 80's. As a child of the 80's, no writer, cartoonist, or musician gave me a moment to forget that:

1) Nuclear war is coming!
2) You're going to get kidnapped!
3) Your parents are going to get a divorce!
4) You're going to get AIDS!
5) You could become homeless AT ANY SECOND!!!

I find this self indulgent behavior ("Join my pain, it makes me feel better") from artists/writers/etc very disgusting. I know it's probably inevitable that it'll get into games at some point, but I don't have to cheer it on as a new renaissance.

If games get meaning, it'll be a step backwards. We're entertainers, not evangelists.

[cliffski]

"We're entertainers, not evangelists"

No we are people, nothing more. We represent a true cross section of society. Some of us have views.
Im sure that when 'moving pictures' were first invented, and films of 'bloke riding bicycle' were first made nobody expected to get schindlers list.
And when the first phonograph recording was made, people didnt expect it to be used to record Malcolm X or Hitler.

games are just a medium, like books and music and plays and films. The existence of Schindlers List and Farenheight 9/11 doesnt stop people enjoying Pirates of the Carribean. Nor should it.

Theres room here for all approaches. Its just that until very very recently, only the entertainment aspect of the medium has been utilised.

[Promaginy]

The job of an entertainer-- and that's what we are guys-- is to let people forget all that bullsh*t for a while.

If games get meaning, it'll be a step backwards. We're entertainers, not evangelists.

I completely disagree that all Game Developers are entertainers. :( You are completely fogetting about the real and positive possibilities that games represent. GDC is hosting the first Serious Games Summit that will disucss how games can be used to promote better education and policy development. This is really positive in my opinion. I would love to be active in such an endeavor in the future.

You have quite a hang-up with artists whp critically analyze society. You need to remember that their messages are not being forced on anybody - People always have the power to choose to ignore what they say. People can make you despondent only with your permission.

[Raptisoft]

People can make you despondent only with your permission.

Yup... like by turning on the TV, reading books, going to public schools, listening to music, and soon, playing video games.

(Again, don't misconstrue what I'm saying here-- I'm not advocating the muzzling of free expression. I'm merely suggesting that to look forward to this eagerly is a doomed prospect. There has been very little philosophical critical thinking since the 30's and 40's, especially in writing, so I sort of expect "expession" in games to come across like the Communist Manifesto as written by a third grade girl).

[tentons]

An interesting article I came across today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4086299.stm


After bubbling under for some time, online games broke through onto the political arena in 2004.

The US presidential election provided a showcase for many, aimed at talking directly to a generation that has grown up with joysticks and gamepads.

Experts say this reflects how video games are becoming a mainstream part of culture and society.

(Edit) And, similarly http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3653294.stm


By early 2003, the team already had an idea for their first online "newsgame".

Titled September 12th, it was based on the US-led invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks.

"It looks just like a shooting game," explained Mr Frasca.

"You have this view from the air, and you have this Middle Eastern town, and you have this target.

"You see civilians walking on the streets, and these little black and white characters that are supposed to be terrorists."

The game has some straightforward instructions. Players can shoot, or not. If you decide to shoot, a missile will smash into the targeted area.

"What happens is when you kill a civilian, you destroy the houses and environment, but then you see people coming by the dead bodies and they start crying," said Mr Frasca.

"After a while, they transform themselves into terrorists. So, the more you shoot, and the more you destroy, you may kill terrorists, but you will encourage more and more people to become terrorists."

In other words, September 12th is a game you cannot win.

[Air]

There has been very little philosophical critical thinking since the 30's and 40's, especially in writing, so I sort of expect "expession" in games to come across like the Communist Manifesto as written by a third grade girl.
Perhaps there isn't less critical thinking since the 30's and 40's so much as the mundane majority of the population has been empowered via mass-media technological advancements and information distribution. Where once the world was largely shaped by powerful people and/or free thinkers-- adaptable people with strong convictions and motivations-- it is instead now largely shaped by the people who are easy to sway and sell to. This is what I see on this very topic. Before the advent of television and the internet the people many of us are trying to sell games to simply wouldn't have even been considered a strong market to sell to. Go-getters and successful people had the money to spend, and it was often too hard to reach people who were not pro-active/educated to make a profit of it. But now we're given the tools to bottle feed 3/4ths of america at minimal cost... and so the adaptive people, free thinkers, et.al., seeking success for themselves, often spend their time trying to cater to the shallow wants and desires of easy-to-sway, convictions-deprived bulk audiences.

So the same as 50 posts ago: There's nothing wrong with artistic, creative, or politically-enamored games, except that as a rule of thumb the potential for profit will always be considerably lower (and in an industry where oft-times profits are already a bit thin that's not a very good prognosis). I don't think anyone here is against politically-oriented games for any other reason than they don't make money. Correct me if I'm wrong... is anyone actually saying that they think political games give a bad rap to the game industry, or that they think it negatively impacts society or is bad for their kids? anything?

But that's ok. Money's a fine reason to make decisions, and for a lot of people it might be just about the only reason to make decisions. That's called adaptive thinking.

[Anthony Flack]

Very well put, Air.

[tentons]

From Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041227/takahashi_01.shtml).

Game designers can justify what they put into their games by falling back on the First Amendment or the idea that the only requirement for a game is fun. But that doesn't necessarily get designers off the hook.

"We as an industry do have a moral responsibility," says Peter Molyneux, CEO of Lionhead Studios and creator of hits from Black and White to Fable. "Anyone who does something for a mass market has a responsibility. You tread carefully on the lessons that you teach. That line that 'if a game is fun, it is okay'-that sounds trivial. If it is obvious this is an artificial world and you can't do these things in real life, then that is more acceptable. But if it parades itself as a real world, you have to be careful about that."

Some developers see the current state of game ethics as crying out for change. Educational games might be considered higher ground than games whose sole purpose is fun. Ben Sawyer, who moderates the Serious Games message group, says that the medium of games is powerful but under-exploited when it comes to exposing people to real-life training, simulation, and learning. "We need to grow the pie and create new forms of gaming that emphasize deeper ethical issues we can explore in interesting ways," Sawyer says.

The fact that most games are for-profit endeavors opens the door to accusers who say that games profit at the expense of others' misery. Kuma Reality Games has tried to use this medium to deliver news in a way that CNN or daily newspapers don't, says Keith Halper, CEO. The company has created an episodic, subscription-based game that uses current events as the basis for its first-person shooter combat. Since its modding tools allow it to come out with a new scenario within weeks, the company has begun adding current events such as the capture of Saddam Hussein and the resurgent story of John Kerry's Swift Boat mission. Players can put themselves in the roles of soldiers fighting the actual battles and see how the tactical situation unfolds in a way that reading a news bulletin cannot.

The ethics of game design has entered a new era in which the developers offer the players ethical choices of their own. In games such as Fable, where you can become a hero or a villain one choice at time, Molyneux puts the ethical choices in the hands of the player. You can slaughter an entire village, but the consequences come back to haunt you. Word will spread about your reputation and no one will trust you anymore. People will recoil in fear. Or, if you choose to be good, your good deeds can reap rewards from total strangers.

Molyneux likes this type of game because it teaches people how to make ethical choices and lets them learn something both about themselves and the consequences of their actions.

[halodrake]

Yes, they should be a waste of time. You are creating a diversion for people, an escape


Alot of people studying the way play (video games and etc) effects the mind and social rules of society say that playing is never as simple as escapeism, but instead tries to help us redfine ourselves in society and the rules that govern us.




I would lay $100 down on the table right now that anyone in this era, of this generation, who is trying to add meaning to a video game will take the "everything is hopeless" route. If I'm wrong, that's great... but the Oddworld example above doesn't give me much hope. The philosophy of Generation X comes in two flavors: "It's hopeless man" and "They're out to get us, man."


And when I get a game out the door I'll gladly take your money. I wonder how legally binding this is....

Outside of the realm of video games, Post-Modern writing has taken a very positive spin on existential meaning in books. Originaly, writers like Sartre and Camus wrote about the meaninglessness of life (the great absurd play we all enact in), and that life without meaning is pointless. OTOH, mot post-modern authors relish in absurdist, they see nothing to be frightened of, nothing to give us nasua, but instead a freedom, a jouyous release from the structures of religion and ethics. A good example of this is the movies done by whats-his-name, who did Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation and Being John Malkovitch.

It doesn't need to be silly teen angst to explore real themes. For me, my favorite themes will always be freedom vs fate and the concepts of memory and self. Freedom vs Fate is a great one for video games, since it can explore the nature of how the player interacts with the world at hand.

[mahlzeit]

. . . playing is never as simple as escapeism, but instead tries to help us redfine ourselves in society and the rules that govern us.
If I remember correctly, it was Robert McKee (screenwriting instructor) who said that people don't go to the movies to escape life, but to find it. I think he's right.

[BedroomCoder]

My two cents:

A game should be fun to play, as top priority. But if you can get a (feasable) message in there, or a personal opinion - especially one that effects the direction of the game, then I think I'd probably find the game a lot more captivating. Eg, something along the lines of some big nuculer company laying off maintance jobs in the game plot, and then maybe on the way, some supervisors complaining that saftey checks havent been done, and then, halfway through the game, the money grabbing boss of the factory (sitting on the top floor in his bigshot office) is killed because the factory falls down due to unsafe foundations or pipes that havent been checked, then you could say he gets his come-up-ance, and that prehaps its a message to companies out there to not skimp on the basics of saftey. Sure, the message is a bit plain and probably corny, but the actual message of it wouldnt occer to me until AFTER the big impressive scene where the boss gets his ass crushed by his own crippled, money grabbing scheme (when I'd then be laughing at him and thinking "Owned", just before being put back into the eyes of the player that has to escape the falling building).

(Note, I made this message up on the spot. it includes no personal opinions or reflections/referances to any incidents in any way.)

[Michael_Le]

Metal Gear Solid 1/2 provided great philosophy views on what makes a human being from genes, and what makes a human being from society.