You here it all the time in sales pitches in RPGs. How the game rife with intrigue and no good guys. Do you think we need some clear cut sides in gaming or is it a good literary device that other games need
Political Intrigue in Gaming?
- Thread starter gyrobot_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I dunno I would argue Valkyria Chronicles (1st one dont know about the second) did not have a (morally) good side and a bad side it painted the enemy initially as the bad side because the game is written presentation wise as a history and the winners get to tell it how they want and thus the enemy are all faceless to make it easier to dehumanise them but look at how it showed the leaders on the good side not exactly people of high moral integrity for the most part in fact they are shown in a worse light than the enemy commander in many ways. Then we have the political intrique of weapons of mass destruction and their use on both sides (Valkyries) which are actual humans or rather sentient creatures if you prefer who are alienated and used merely as tools by their superiors to further their cause, to them they are not people but things to use and we get to see that there is not much separating either side really each have their own reason for fighting.inu-kun said:
It also tackles things like racism pretty well albeit using the colour of the hair rather than the skin and in my opinion tackles themes of war well rather than going oh wars bad mmkay it shows how war brings out extremes both good and bad and while it still comes off more anti than pro it dosent force its opinion on you but wants you to make your own. I did not really enjoy the flying pig but it was a nice nod to the ridiculousness of what happened and how it is spun by the winners at least thats what I thought anyway. There were other things as well but I think it had a lot of political themes in it as well as strong characters on both sides.
As for the original post I dont care if a game has a clear cut and bad or is more ambiguous either directly like say the Witcher or in a more subversive way like Valkyria Chronicles different games and writers prefer different things you can tell a good story with clear cut sides and you can tell one without some people prefer one and some another and others dont care a good story is a good story regardless of themes. Outside of very wide reaching parameters I dont think there is a right and wrong way to tell a story and I am sure some writers would thrive on proving others wrong if they were told things had to be just so.
Most of the time, even a "good" country or group isn't completely good. Look at Skyrim--you've got the Stormcloaks and the Imperials. The Stormcloaks were formed by Ulfric Stormcloak, who straight up murdered the previous king of Skyrim. But, he did it because he felt the Imperials had gone over the line with the White-Gold Concordat, which banned worship of Talos. So to him, he was dethroning a king who allowed a foreign nation to hold sway over them and ban integral parts of his nation's culture.gyrobot said:
The Imperials, on the other hand, want to bring Ulfric to justice and end the rebellion to bring order back to Skyrim. However, they're still infidels with a military foothold in foreign lands.
Both groups are jerks in some way or another. Your choice when deciding who to ally with in Skyrim isn't exactly a choice between good an evil, just one type of jerkiness versus another.
Ultimately it depends on the story being told. Some games like Mario or Zelda work best with an unambiguous bad guy, because that makes the focus of the game getting to the bad guy rather than sorting out who's the bad guy and who isn't. But having groups which aren't fully good or evil works best in games like Skyrim, because having a completely good or completely evil camp would seem very shallow in a world which is supposed to be very deep.
As completely mechanically broken as it was, I really liked the storytelling in Alpha Protocol. It's a spy/secret agent political thriller RPG with a really cool branching choice system that ensures there's never a right answer in any situation. Any choice you make will always have a major drawback to balance out the benefit, and they usually make you choose in a very limited time limit. In the end you aren't really a good guy or bad guy. You just did what you thought was best and now the world has to deal with the consequences. I really wish another game would take this approach to storytelling, but with combat mechanics that don't make you want to give up after the second mission.
I tend to prefer having clear cut sides. I find it hard to care when a story tries to make all the sides ambiguous - I think that's what happened in my experience with the Witcher series. I felt thrown into a world that had already worked itself up into a confusing conflict featuring characters I had no reason to care about. A story with some "good versus bad" would would be easier to become invested in, at least in the beginning.
My sweet spot would be to start with clear cut sides, but then subvert the resulting expectations a little bit.
My sweet spot would be to start with clear cut sides, but then subvert the resulting expectations a little bit.
There are always more than two sides - the "two sides" are typically the two rival power factions battling each other for domination over some segment of land and people. The "third side" is the people themselves, who wish these douchebags would just leave them alone but are never so lucky.
Note that the "good guys" are actually the lesser evil in the eyes of the people - ala the Jedi in Star Wars who control minds to get what they want. The "noble" Jedi can never be trusted since their righteousness knows no bounds.
The Jedi need the Sith, since without some kind of threat the people would never accept them. The lesser evil which wants to rule always requires a greater evil to justify itself.
In terms of political intrigue then, I wouldn't mind a happy kind of game for a change where the "third side", the people themselves, depose BOTH the lesser evil and greater evil and finally free themselves of all rulers. I'll play that if it's reasonably well implemented.
Note that the "good guys" are actually the lesser evil in the eyes of the people - ala the Jedi in Star Wars who control minds to get what they want. The "noble" Jedi can never be trusted since their righteousness knows no bounds.
The Jedi need the Sith, since without some kind of threat the people would never accept them. The lesser evil which wants to rule always requires a greater evil to justify itself.
In terms of political intrigue then, I wouldn't mind a happy kind of game for a change where the "third side", the people themselves, depose BOTH the lesser evil and greater evil and finally free themselves of all rulers. I'll play that if it's reasonably well implemented.
CutesySiren said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. DA2 has it's share of political intrigue. It is a story of a family and of the city, which by definition makes it political ( word "politics" comes the the Greek word "πόλις", meaning "city"). Not subtle, nor well executed, but it's there.
His take on characters may be oversimplified, but not outright wrong either.
most the time I'm just happy if the story is interesting enough to make me care about whats happening. More complex stuff like political intrigue is nice, if some one that actually knows how to write has the pen
The 'people themselves' form their own power factions - they are not a unified side. The oppressed become the oppressors, and all that jazz. "No, people... YOU are the politicians!"briankoontz said:
And Star Wars is a very bad example - the Jedi and Sith are not leaders (Except when the Sith are, because they're power-hungry like that). The leaders are the various political factions - Rebels and Imperials, Separatists and Republic, Trade Federation and Senate, etc.
Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.
Depends. If its grey vs grey where both side have legitimate reason for doing what they are doing and have positives and negatives I tend to enjoy it. If it's black vs black where everyone is just an unlikable asshole (or they pass the idiot ball around too much in order to create negatives) and the story is overly bleak it makes me just not give a shit about anything and it's hard to get invested in the story.
Final Fantasy Tactics did a pretty good job of this, for the vast majority of the game. Both sides were run by mideavel bastards who were out for power, the church is corrupt and your former best friend is a total backstabber(not only to you but pretty much everyone else he "befriends"). Unfortunately, around the end of the game most of that falls away and the plot become "Stop people from becoming demons and doing bad things".
Also, Radiant Historia had a fair bit of "Both sides of the war are run by jerks and neither really cares about their citizens, not to mention doing morally nasty things", set against a backdrop of "ecological calamity is slowly killing the world", which is the real threat and stopping the war in progress is the main goal.
Also, Radiant Historia had a fair bit of "Both sides of the war are run by jerks and neither really cares about their citizens, not to mention doing morally nasty things", set against a backdrop of "ecological calamity is slowly killing the world", which is the real threat and stopping the war in progress is the main goal.