[XMark]

Haven't played it yet? :)

One of the main characters (Kalrin) is an insurgent, but Bokk, the main character, is one of the top officers in the Pruthian army, who also serves as King Alnor's personal bodyguard. He's actually fighting against the insurgents in the beginning, thwarting their assassination attempt against the king. The king, however, is shown as a more level-headed leader who regards war as a last resort when everything else fails.

It's when the king is accidentally blown up by one of the weapons of the ancients (a grenade, he didn't know what it was so he pulled the pin) that his son Damien takes power and decides to crush the rebellion in Zydnia by launching an attack using the weapons of the ancients that he has discovered, though he ends up killing mostly innocent civilians. That's when Bokk switches sides and starts to fight against the Pruthian empire, though not necessarily alongside the insurgents. The rest of the game, the main characters are dedicated to taking Damien out of power, especially when they learn that he has discovered nuclear weapons.

I should also mention that the Zydnian thing is only a small part of a bigger conflict between the Pruthian empire and the Vaknuan empire on the other continent.

I suppose the whole analogy could get turned on its head by the fact that it's Damien himself who has the weapons of mass destruction. The "terrorist" analogy could really go both ways, left up to the player to decide.
_________________
Mark Hall
Abstract Productions
I PLAYS THE MUSIC THAT MAKES THE PEOPLES FALL DOWN!

[Mandrake]

[biggerUniverse]

[XMark]

JRR Tolkien had major problems with that. He didn't intend his story to be symbolic of anything, but people immediately started drawing parallels with World War 1 and 2 from the Lord of the Rings. Even now, there's people like this :)
_________________
Mark Hall
Abstract Productions
I PLAYS THE MUSIC THAT MAKES THE PEOPLES FALL DOWN!

[Mandrake]

Actually I don't think that's the downfall of a good writer. I think it's the best sign that someone is a good writer- that their writing exists beyond the limitations of the author's intent. In fact, one could say it's the nature of tackling challenging themes- that you end up making it outside of your own scope on the level of implementations.

Anyway, I think that in order to tackle a philosophical idea in an RPG you need to do several things, several important steps. This can also enhance the writing of the work even if the player doesn't notice the actual "larger scope" of the game. It will feel fuller and more actual.

1. Establish from the outset one major philosophical point you wish to make. Limit yourself to only one. Most philosophical ideas are terribly abstract, and therefore contain within them lots and lots of subtle nuances. Using more than one can get confusing. Example of Philosophical points: Existence before personality (whether we are born with a personality or we create one). The nature of time (does time control us? do we control time? how does time shape our lives)? The nature of death (and of course with it, the nature of the afterlife). Nature of love, nature of hate, nature of ignorance....you get the idea.

2. Research your ass off. Read all you can on it, even if you don't "get" most of it. If you don't intellectually represent all sides to a philosophical statement then you will just end up preaching to the audience. Look into every angle. Then, pick the exact point you want to make. Sum up this point in one statement. For example: I want to show that death is the end of everything.

3. Did you remember to research? Good, it should pay off in the next step. Design a game plot that would revolve around this basic idea and give you chances to show all sides but to "prove" your point. Don't over do it- subtlety is the key here. The more subtle you are, the less the player will feel like he has just been forced somebody else's ideals.

4. Create a theme (or mood rather) that will be throughout the whole game that compliments your philosophical point. Desperation would work well with the nature of death being final. Betrayal would work well for the nature of existence is to survive and kill.

5. Look over your plot and find ways to enhance it by adding subtle touches of the theme and the mood to the game. Apply these to all levels of the gameplay- the way character's speak, the way the music sounds, sound effects and art. The theme and the mood need to be felt at all points. You can also add in small symbolic touches. Not too much- but enough. Look towards mythology and Joseph Campbell's interpretations for common thematic symbols. White horse common symbolized death, snakes symbolized knowledge

6.To enhance the theme and the philosophical point by going through and adding sub-concepts. Related concepts. For example, the nature of memory is also related to the nature of self. These are sub-concepts, and should exist as sparse garnishing around the major concept. They should be used to fill out the gaps and add more substance.

7. Pruning. Make sure there is a game in there somewhere, that the character feels like he is interacting with. Let him explore places, and do things for himself. Make sure there is enough plot/philosophy to keep things moving, but not enough to stifle the game aspect.

Anyone agree, disagree care to elaborate?
_________________
"Well, last time I flicked on a lighter, I'm pretty sure I didn't create a black hole."-
Xmark

http://pauljessup.com

[Rainer Deyke]

Mandrake, you talk about adding philosophy to the plot, but you don't mention where the plot comes from in the first place - does this mean you want to add a philosophical point to a plot that is already finished? If so, then that's different from how I would do things. I would either start from a philosophical point and create the plot from there, or start from a plot and let the philosophical apsects come naturally.

I'm not saying that the technique is wrong, but it is different from how I do things. I don't want to make a specific philosophical point - that would be preaching - but I want to introduce ideas to the player's mind and let them draw their own conclusions. The best way to do this, IMO, is to force the player into a moral dilemma and let them make their own decision.

[white_door]

For many of us, the indie game scene is based on a gift/reputation economy. (like the open source community) Basically we give our games out as a gift hoping in return to gain a large or impressive reputation as a game developer. So in many ways we want to make something that other people will not just enjoy but be impressed with.

It’s clear that people aren’t going to be blown away by our visuals or sounds... So this is where we have to stretch the envelope if we want to create something that is going to be beautiful or significant. Using some random piece of philosophy to underpin our theme is one great way of doing this. Making a game that is extremely unique and blows away some existing RPG convention could be another.

However the more ‘artsy’ it gets, the fewer numbers of people that will be able to get it. The only important question in this case is, would those people have enjoyed it anyway? You aren’t losing any reputation to lose the same audience for a different reason. And if that makes the audience you have like your game more... it could be advantageous.

Actually that would be an interesting question... what aspects of a story are interesting to people?

[Mandrake]

[Rainer Deyke]

[Mandrake]