Oh I''m not disagreeing at all, but I thought your question was whether there was a point to such messages, and what people felt was the best way to get them across?

quote: Did anyone here player Metal Gear solid? There was a speech at the end of the game, that was the designers way of getting across their message and again in the Metal Gear solid 2 there was a 30 minute speech at the end of the game.

They got their message in, but did anyone really care? How many people walked away from that speech to get a drink, grab a sandwich or just take a whiz?

That example is the club upside the head, and really - did it serve a purpose other than a) make the designer feel better about himself and b) annoy a bunch of players who felt stuck listening to this drawn out speech?

Those are rhetorical questions, btw It just shows what everyone has been saying; it''s a combination of what you, as a programmer/design, WANT to do, and whether or not you care if the message is actually received or not.

Allright, heres my nibble on this. The basic point in question here seems to be the perception of the whole medium of gaming as a medium of expression - are people willing to accept it as ''true'' art in the same manner as books or music or paintings or even movies, or is it just mere entertainment(of course, I for one have never understood why ''fun'', ipso facto, has to be mindless.). Because in the latter case, they will not want any moral element in it at all. Of course, regardless of whether they want it or not, their actions WILL be a moral commentary on themselves. So when youre gleefully splattering gore all over the place in an universe, that might just be your monster in anime, but of course not in a conscious manner. I guess I''m going off-topic, so I''d like to end by saying this - because people usually play games for enjoyment and not for moral-intellectual cogitation, the club approach and the thitry minute speech may not be a very good idea. "Subtlety", in the form of imagery(not blatant imagery, but maybe more impressionistic) and meaningful dialogues(again, not harangues) may be a better bet. BTW, I thnk the artistic worth of games is sufficiently important to merit a seperate thread

Logos Incarnatus

zander76:
"well I live in the real world its not that much fun. It has its moments but playing is ment to be fun."
Really, Whats it like? I never been there myself but the broucher looks nice.

I''m not suggesting shocking people into accepting my message all thats one of the blunt force tools that could be utilized. Besides how does having a message in a game make it not fun? Thats like saying stories make games boring.

EricTrickster:
Yes my question was not so much wether to include a message but what the best method to get that message across.

Lets be honest the blunt force method isn''t very effective. While the subtle method which can be more effective can easily lost in game. I''d rather be subtle because lets face it people are more likly to apprecite the message about perserving are environment went its introduce as part of the background to the whole game. As opposed to a 30 minute speech spouting off my opinions before you can face the final boss Ubu the Tree eater.

I guess the real issue is that I feel the subtlely will be lossed on gamers or go competely unnoticed and that only way to get across a message is with 50 foot neon sign thats says" Drugs are Bad"




-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

There was a game I played, I think it was Deus Ex, which had an anti-war message that was pretty blatant. Everyone I talked to kept trying to get me to choose the non-lethal methods of dealing with people. I choose the sniper riffle and killed everyone I saw. Much funner.

I''ve seen scenes like you mention where there''s a poor town that''s starving, etc. but that just mean more target practice, if the game allows.

The problem you run into, is people see games as being games. Why feel sorry for some unknown character in the game that''s not real? Why should I feel sorry that Tinny Tim just got his head shot off with a shotgun? Why shouldn''t *I* take a shot at him?

If you''re trying to get people to think about non-leathel ways to accomplish your mission you need to do two things:
1. Make the lethal part an option. Other wise your gamer will be saying "oh, if only I had a BFG right now..."
2. Make the non-lethal part funner to use.

A bad example: The game Oni. She used martial arts along with ranged guns. If you used the guns, you could kill from a distance, (where''s the fun in that?) but at the same time, you''d draw attention to yourself and quickly get swamped by baddies. So for 90% of the game, you relied on your martial arts, which were funner to use anyways. You also had the problem of limited amo, so you really couldn''t use a weapon for everything anyways, unless you were really good and rarely missed. (even durring a swarm of attacks)

I consider Oni a bad example because her martial arts where still lethal.

quote: I guess the real issue is that I feel the subtlely will be lossed on gamers or go competely unnoticed and that only way to get across a message is with 50 foot neon sign thats says" Drugs are Bad"

95% agreement here, and the 5% left is only because I don''t think it''ll go unnoticed - but it will be lost on most.

But again, risking being repetitive it all goes back to the question of what kind of game you''re designing. If you''re making a Quake clone you can pretty much expect that no one will care about any message you put in, no matter how blatant and blunt it is.

If you''re making a war story-driven adventure, single player, then you do have opportunity - but it has to work within the context of the story you''re writing out. If it''s a complex, thought-driven story then you very well can get away with subtlety. If your story is pretty much "Get into location X, survive, get objective Alpha, get out safely and make it back to location Y" then there won''t be a lot of room for sending moral messages.

So...I guess my answer to all this is if your script/background story is very in-depth and thought provoking and your gameplay is very involved with that story, then absolutely you will have an audience more appreciative of any subtle messages you decide to put in.

People have very strong defences against anything being forced into them, be it a message or a spear.

If you want someone to have something then you must give it to them and they must consciously take it.

For example I hate war, but I love wargames, if You were to have a 10 minute pontification about the evils of war durings some interlude, I would switch off regardless of how much I agree or disagree. Morality is about choices and the effects of choices, being a passive observer in an emotive discussion just makes people restless, nervous, irritated, and possibly angry.

Games commonly make the enemy some form of pure evil, or mechanistic construct just to keep the situation morally unambigous. This is so that the player doesn''t start being resentful of fighting a bloody and unremorseful war for the ''good guys'', and finally having the emotional rewards for achieving victory robbed from them, due to the concerns of a morally ambiguous quest.

The simple method then for delivering a powerful anti war message is by having the causes for war be ambiguous, illicit the resent at fighting for foggy and emotive causes in the player. Have the generals on both sides be more or less good people but they issue orders that may be somewhat moraly unaware, have the player make decisions based on the consequences of following these orders. "What, you want me to shoot them sir?, but they''re prisoners of war, OK so I''ll just march them into those woods over there fire off a fiew rounds and they won''t ever bother you again!".

However I believe you should allways give the player a way out in the end, a clear path that absolves them of anyting they may have had to do in preceeding encounters.