By Loyd Case on 7/31/00

Article Discussion Forum

Good and Evil versus Right and Wrong

While a vast array of game titles focus on the conflict between good and evil, few of them seem to deal with right and wrong. There is an "the end justifies the means" mentality in a lot of game design, and part of the problem is that the conflicts are framed in such stark black and white terms. Face it: real ultimate bad guys, like Adolf Hitler, are few and far between, but was Napoleon Bonaparte evil with a capital "E"? Was Alexander? Julius Caesar? You tell me. Yet most games that have conflict in them seem to focus on creating an adversary that is of such pure evil that any means justifies the ends, when, in reality, evil can come in much more banal forms.

But even that is a cop out. Even if you are fighting the ultimate evil, there is no excuse for creating an environment in which anything goes. Lord of the Rings is a wonderful story that deals with this very issue at some length. Boromir is a very good man, corrupted by his very goodness and his desire to defeat evil. In the end, his redemption lies in a heroic deed that costs him his life, and as this happens, he is very aware of the consequences of his decisions.

The end of Tolkien's trilogy deals with the consequences of heroism, of doing the right thing. Aragorn becomes the crowned king, but with the crown comes huge responsibilities. Frodo returns to a Shire that is corrupted and must be set aright. But even he is no longer the same, unable to sleep without dark dreams and living in constant pain. The elves make the supreme sacrifice, giving up their very existence to do the right thing. Lord of the Rings is really not a story with a happy ending. Yet the ending seems "right" somehow.

Recently, I have spent a lot of time with Age of Wonders. There is one facet of the game that disturbs me because the designers almost got it right, but in falling short, they may teach the wrong lesson. When you take over a neutral city, races currently allied with your adversary may hold it. The correct thing to do in gameplay terms is to "migrate" in a race friendly to your side. In the real world, this is called "ethnic cleansing." But In fact, you can positively influence neutral races by handing a city over to them. Would it not be great if there were some way to win the inhabitants of the city, whatever their race, over to your cause? Would this not add another dimension to the game?

In a game like Tiberian Sun, the soldiers you recruit are mere cannon fodder. Send them into harms way to be slaughtered, just so long as it weakens the enemy. After all, you can always build more. I was somewhat touched, yet somewhat disappointed, in the Joan of Arc scenario in Ensembles Age of Kings, where a character is killed. After his death, another character comments, "Alas, he gave his life for France." It was wonderful that the dead character was acknowledged, but then the game simply moved on, stopping at that. How about a burial and blessing?

Tragedy and Triumph

Curiously, the one event that set me along this path of reflection was last year's hit movie, Shakespeare in Love. I am not going to suggest that it was great art by any means, but the way it managed to end in both triumph and tragedy was, for me, a moving experience. Certainly no game has ever brought a lump to my throat in that way.

Yet perhaps that is both the problem and the opportunity with game. Movies, theater and literature, while able to engage the viewer or reader to a certain point, force you to give up control. Games give the player a huge amount of control over what occurs, and since most of us are averse to pain and also like to "win," we would much prefer a triumphant game ending to a tragic one. What many game developers seem to have missed is the inherent opportunity in the experience that is gained by "losing." Let the game be winnable, but when a gamer does lose, create an experience that really drives it home, not just "game over."

Characters with Character

Now that the fourth chapter in the Tomb Raider series is out, we are finally going to learn a little more about Lara Croft: her history, what drives her and even a bit of a relationship. I am only sorry that it took three games to get to this point. Contrast this with Indiana Jones; certainly Indy is as much a pulp character as Doc Savage, but we still know something of his fears, his family and his history. It makes him more real to us somehow.

But games do not have to focus on a single character to give them substance; there are other ways to make them seem real. Another game I have played lately is Combat Mission, Charles Moylan's magnificent attempt to reinvent the computer war game. It is a fascinating game, once you get used to the unique approach to the old "turn-based versus real time" argument and the 3D battlefield. What is really cool is that you start to get really attached to the men in your company. They have names; they get scared; they break. They also perform acts of incredible bravery. Some of the "near run" battles have a level of tension which I have never before experienced in games. It is not quite a moving experience, but the promise is there. Maybe if the designers force you to write letters "home" for every soldier that is killed...

Moving Experiences

To end, I do not think every game needs to aspire to artistic pretensions. But I would love to see more games try to create an emotional response, and I do not mean anger because your sound card does not work with the game. And that is my challenge to the game developers of the world.

Go ahead. Make me cry.



<< Back to Page 1