Had an interesting dream last night. It struck me as potential videogame material since it had a lot of strategy, tactics, logistics, and sneak missions involved. The set-up is this: at the beginning two races which have a long history of prejudice between them are gearing up to take the conflict to a new level - an all-out war with an implied goal of wiping out the other race. This change is being driven by "war hawk" politicians. They are considering instituting a draft of all able-bodied warriors. The social atmosphere is somewhat like the nazi movement, feverish nationalism coupled with the vague promise that life will be great if we just wipe out those annoying bad people who are polluting our world. There are of course some people on both sides who don't agree, although it is getting more dangerous to speak up against the war. You the player are a member of one of the races; you have a lover of the other race, which is both evidence that you don't believe this nationalist racism propaganda, and one of your major motivations for trying to stop the war, because you want a world where you can live peacefully with your lover.
So, the question is how can you stop a war or minimize the damage it does, without putting yourself in too much danger? In the dream what I decided to do was kidnap a bunch of the more pacifistic people from both sides and place them at a new settlement from which they would be unable to live, and would have the opportunity to learn to respect each other and get along. Meanwhile either the kidnappings would distract the government enough to delay the start of the war, or perhaps the most violent-minded people would kill each other off. Or a few strategic assassinations could be carried out. I don't know, do you think this would make a good game plot? What would you want to do to solve this problem if you were the main character? I was thinking the setting would be a low tech feudal or renaissance culture but with fairly developed magic tech.
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Random story idea - interfering with a racial war
To answer the question of how to stop such a war you should first ask what caused the war. If the social atmosphere is Nazi-like you ought to read up some WWI and early WWII history. An understanding of 20th Century corrupted Darwinism is essential. Racism isn't as black and white as often portrayed.
I'm vague on all of this, but my understanding is that WWI was caused by Austria-Hungary's over-reaction to the assassination of their leader by rogue Serbian terrorists. The networks of alliances that kept a balance of power in Europe were scared into mobilising their forces. From this point, war couldn't be stopped without massive concessions of power. Such concessions were unacceptable to either side.
The resulting war left Germany poor and powerless. They were promised various things to encourage them to surrender, but many of these promises were broken. That must have been used to justify and amplify German paranoia. The same paranoia that drew empires into WWI was reinvigorated in Germany - gaining ever more weight and popular support.
Paranoia means erring on the side of preemptive action - acting on the slightest signal of danger. That's, of course, very dangerous when the stakes go beyond half a billion lives.
Darwinist ideas were widely discussed, extrapolated upon and corrupted during the 20th Century. I'll only touch on a few key points:
1) Survival of the fittest.
2) Competition for resources is most fierce between species (or races) that are most closely related - because they fill the same niche.
3) If species are to grow, competition for resources is inevitable.
Hitler was somewhat of a war hero in WWI. He volunteered for the most dangerous job: runner. He received medals for serving his country. He had long been unstable for various reasons, some of which I've mentioned. I'll briefly add that he failed his loving parents, becoming a failed artist and later homeless prior to WWI. There's too much to try to cover.
Hitler's later actions were terrible and inhuman, and overshadowed any redeeming qualities he might have had. But it's worth looking at the whole picture if we wish to learn anything.
[color="#1C2837"]
I'm vague on all of this, but my understanding is that WWI was caused by Austria-Hungary's over-reaction to the assassination of their leader by rogue Serbian terrorists. The networks of alliances that kept a balance of power in Europe were scared into mobilising their forces. From this point, war couldn't be stopped without massive concessions of power. Such concessions were unacceptable to either side.
The resulting war left Germany poor and powerless. They were promised various things to encourage them to surrender, but many of these promises were broken. That must have been used to justify and amplify German paranoia. The same paranoia that drew empires into WWI was reinvigorated in Germany - gaining ever more weight and popular support.
Paranoia means erring on the side of preemptive action - acting on the slightest signal of danger. That's, of course, very dangerous when the stakes go beyond half a billion lives.
Darwinist ideas were widely discussed, extrapolated upon and corrupted during the 20th Century. I'll only touch on a few key points:
1) Survival of the fittest.
2) Competition for resources is most fierce between species (or races) that are most closely related - because they fill the same niche.
3) If species are to grow, competition for resources is inevitable.
Hitler was somewhat of a war hero in WWI. He volunteered for the most dangerous job: runner. He received medals for serving his country. He had long been unstable for various reasons, some of which I've mentioned. I'll briefly add that he failed his loving parents, becoming a failed artist and later homeless prior to WWI. There's too much to try to cover.
Hitler's later actions were terrible and inhuman, and overshadowed any redeeming qualities he might have had. But it's worth looking at the whole picture if we wish to learn anything.
[color="#1C2837"]
So, the question is how can you stop a war or minimize the damage it does, without putting yourself in too much danger?[/quote]
[color="#1C2837"]Sometimes that's not possible.
That could be a cool setup for a logical thinking puzzle sand-box. The problem is, that kind of sand-box -- where you can carry out all sorts of socially disruptive actions -- requires a quite in-depth social, political and strategic simulation.
That could be a cool setup for a logical thinking puzzle sand-box. The problem is, that kind of sand-box -- where you can carry out all sorts of socially disruptive actions -- requires a quite in-depth social, political and strategic simulation.
Exactly. I've little faith that such a game would be convincing.
When I read your idea my mind jumped straight to a Splinter Cell / Bond style game. Sabotage around barracks, assassination of leaders etc. Problem is this is more likely to be a catalyst for the war than anything else, particularly if the fearless leaders are even slightly media-savvy. Blaming everything on the other side (proven or not) is a time honoured tradition after all. Then I thought a little more about 'media-savvy', and the current situation in Egypt/Jordan/Tunisia/Libya and started wondering how to turn that into a game.
You could have the player running some sort of pirate media program (radio or TV) to spread your hippy message of peace and love. Maybe sneaking from place to place to set up and broadcast, maybe breaking into media outlets to broadcast using their equipment.
You could sneak around the streets putting up posters or (though I hate to encourage this in any medium) graffiti while evading patrols / curfews of some kind.
Maybe you could be sneaking around trying to turn the web (and social media) back on. Or add a third race to the mix, and your job is to convince them to step in as peace-keepers. Or to totally destroy the tone I've gone with up to now, make it a more comical game, switch street signs, edit maps, spike the food in barracks/camps with booze or drugs and watch the tanks go merrily off the wrong way. Just brainstorming
You could have the player running some sort of pirate media program (radio or TV) to spread your hippy message of peace and love. Maybe sneaking from place to place to set up and broadcast, maybe breaking into media outlets to broadcast using their equipment.
You could sneak around the streets putting up posters or (though I hate to encourage this in any medium) graffiti while evading patrols / curfews of some kind.
Maybe you could be sneaking around trying to turn the web (and social media) back on. Or add a third race to the mix, and your job is to convince them to step in as peace-keepers. Or to totally destroy the tone I've gone with up to now, make it a more comical game, switch street signs, edit maps, spike the food in barracks/camps with booze or drugs and watch the tanks go merrily off the wrong way. Just brainstorming
Author
That could be a cool setup for a logical thinking puzzle sand-box. The problem is, that kind of sand-box -- where you can carry out all sorts of socially disruptive actions -- requires a quite in-depth social, political and strategic simulation.
Well, a simulation is not necessarily the only option. I was thinking more like an action-adventure game, but with more of a branching storyline that allowed the player to select what goal they were trying to accomplish and use any of several methods to accomplish that goal. There would be some simulation aspects in the "multiple methods to accomplish any goal" such as destructible walls and bombs, but not a simulation to the extant that NPCs would be independently wandering around building up their armies like RTS enemies.
Author
When I read your idea my mind jumped straight to a Splinter Cell / Bond style game. Sabotage around barracks, assassination of leaders etc. Problem is this is more likely to be a catalyst for the war than anything else, particularly if the fearless leaders are even slightly media-savvy. Blaming everything on the other side (proven or not) is a time honoured tradition after all. Then I thought a little more about 'media-savvy', and the current situation in Egypt/Jordan/Tunisia/Libya and started wondering how to turn that into a game.
You could have the player running some sort of pirate media program (radio or TV) to spread your hippy message of peace and love. Maybe sneaking from place to place to set up and broadcast, maybe breaking into media outlets to broadcast using their equipment.
You could sneak around the streets putting up posters or (though I hate to encourage this in any medium) graffiti while evading patrols / curfews of some kind.
Maybe you could be sneaking around trying to turn the web (and social media) back on. Or add a third race to the mix, and your job is to convince them to step in as peace-keepers. Or to totally destroy the tone I've gone with up to now, make it a more comical game, switch street signs, edit maps, spike the food in barracks/camps with booze or drugs and watch the tanks go merrily off the wrong way. Just brainstorming
Drugging NPCs was one of my first thoughts but I hadn't thought of messing with street signs or maps, that would be a nice addition. The game you describe here does seem very interesting, I'd like to see someone make a game like that. But I personally don't do modern settings. I'd pick a setting that was pre-printing presses and newspapers, so 'media savvy' would be more like gossip, speeches, eavesdropping, possibly sneaking into a building to steal papers, and being sensitive to morale.
I think it would be fun if the player could decide how to end the war either killing off the enemy or making peace with them. I love games that give me the option to make my own decisions that affect and change the game as a whole.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
