🔒 Locked

Second opinion

Started by Midas Sep 4, 2006 at 2:13 PM 12 replies 2.2k views

Original Post

Sep 4, 2006 at 2:13 PM

Right, so the first time I posted my game idea it was a mixed bag. After some agree/disagree/learn posts I've decided to give this a second shot... Game: Revolution! Revolution! Genre: 3rd person Sandbox Action/Some sort of stratergy that I can't put my finger on. Basic story: In 2016 the Russian Federation breaks down into civil war, with the entire country slipping back to comunisim. Seperatist rebels break away with the help of a large portion of less than loyal military and form the small nation of Volstaken in 2017. During the first year of the nation's existence an ambitious and extreamly violent military genius climbs the ranks of the Volstaken army with the main character, a hired ex-SAS Welsh soldier paid to train the armed forces, as his right hand man. When you cannot take the violence and twisted nature of your superior any more, you atempt to resign. The General doesn't take your resignation too well, you having seen far too much, and has you shot and thrown into a river(Hehe...) You are saved by a street boy in the slums on the outskirts of the city. Presumed dead, you go into hiding for three years. In 2020 the president of Volstaken is assasinated and your former general begins a bloody military coup with the entire armed forces behind him. Your job is to come out of hiding and lead a resistance force against him in anyway you see fit. Here are some Quotes from the former thread so that we don't have to have the same arguments again... "The idea of an npc forming an opinion of the player has been done before, mostly in Lionhead games. The problem of over working the processor could be solved by having the peoples different opinions set aside and giving the player an 'aura' baised on his actions. This preception of the player would of course be based on what was actualy known about his or her actions - therefore allowing for full GTA violence if that is what the player wanted, just keep it behinded the scenes for the people. As far as knocking on there doors and asking for them to vote for you, well that would just be silly. A revolution doesn't have to involve an election and almost always happens on the streets. I would sudjest just giving each faction of people an overriding set of prefferences and then certain individual preferences. As for there memory being updated all the time, that is far from necicary. There would be something along the lines of a newspaper that tracked your 'known' actions and it's current status would be used to determin reactions on the spot baised on the afformentioned faction disposition and personal preferences. On to dipplomacy well just look at Bioware's RPGs, they have been doing perfect stem based conversations for years. Sure so this limits the flexability and how many could be in the game but it is still perfectly possible. Hell look at what they are doing with the Mass Effect conversation system and tell me it's not possible. Of course there would be a branching story but that does little to nothing to restrict a player if he or she just takes time between story driven events." "Though it is deffinatly true that you would be dealing with large amounts of NPCs I'm slightly banking on the power of the next generation of consoles to tip the scales somewhat, and that's also why I would go the factions route. I was thiking that personal prefferences could be put on a scale of -3 to +3 for different things. The player beating a revolutionary opponent in the back alleys of the slums for instance, when seen by a gang member who has a +3 disposition toward violence will have a positive effect to the whole gangs ideas of the player though not necicarily on the individual level. I think the game would feature missions as a faster more scripted way of gaining a following, though not necicarily a compolsery method. Much of the diplomacy would take place in the missions. But prehapse you could set a type of thing to be saying to the people and then walk around, this would effect you current 'aura' and the language could be done in a sort of russian-like gibberish like the Sim's approch to language." "That is why I wanted to swing more toward the 'Spur of the moment' idea. When a crowd of very cold and very pissed off people are being given a speech from someone they already hate then all it can take is someone to throw an empty bottle at the podium. I was thinking far less political than we seem to have swung. But all are valid points that deffinatly need addressing. Maybe it should aim more at learning what the people want and then exicuting it in the right situations to get the desiered result. Talking could be entierly based on a chosen topic that when near people - your character will attempt to speak about thus causing an effect. Topics could span from "Follow me." to "Bad mouthing the opposition." So it would become important to gather information before attempting anything, adding to the stratergy." Any ideas or sugestions would be great, I'll show some concept art once I get my scanner going again...

frob

Sep 5, 2006 at 2:17 PM

>> Right, so the first time I posted my game idea it was a mixed bag. After some agree/disagree/learn posts I've decided to give this a second shot...

Great. I suppose that means it is fair game to critique.

>> Genre: 3rd person Sandbox Action/Some sort of stratergy that I can't put my finger on.

You might want to clarify that a little. [wink]

>> Basic story: In 2016 ... climbs the ranks of the Volstaken army with the main character ... When you cannot take the violence and twisted nature of your superior any more, you atempt to resign. ... your former general begins a bloody military coup with the entire armed forces behind him. Your job is to come out of hiding and lead a resistance force against him in anyway you see fit.

As was mentioned in the quotes from earlier, you are going to have problems with the "any way you see fit" aspect. You have ventured into the land of Non Sequitur. It does not follow that your character would be able to logically reach the desired goal.

If your character really was against the violence, you will need to have a bloodless (or nearly bloodless) revolution, wresting control from a very violent military coup. That's going to be tough to develop, and difficult to emotionally convey to the player. It probably isn't impossible to do in a fun game, but it sounds difficult.

If your backstory included that your character was okay with violence but not okay with "the twisted nature", which I assume means torture and abuse, you will have a hard time explaining how your own character can justify mass murder and mayhem in the name of bringing peace. "I'm okay with mass murder, extreme destruction of property, and killing thousands of parents, but harming a child is unconscionable." That's not going to go over too well.

If "any way possible" includes the knocking and doors and convincing the population to peacefully revolt, you will have a very boring game.

A diplomatic solution to a coup is not going to happen either -- somebody who executes a "a bloody military coup" is unlikely to sit down to a negotiating table and discuss how to surrender power to a former subordinate they tried to murder.

Consequently, I suggest you change the main character's motivations.

Xai

Sep 5, 2006 at 2:35 PM

Actually, humans have a near infinite ability to put fine distinctions on issues to fit their mismatch of feelings to their self perception of their morals.

For instance people can kill abortionists and murders and think themselves godly. People can steal from large corperations and think themselves good. People can beat on innocents as long as there is some way to classify them as "different" ... historically via class / race / religion / economic status, etc.

A "hero" is only usually good from the point of view of his side. Occasionally the opposing sides have similar enough histories and moral groundwork to judge each other on a common scale (ie talking about the opposing general's honor, courage, or fairness). More often than not however we vilify the enemy to the point of dehumanization. Just look at WWII propaganda. Its so scary to see the way pro German propaganda presented things before we entered the war, and then again to see how insane the anti-German propaganda presented things a few years later. There was no middle ground, no logic, and no truth ... just pure tampering with human emotion for political goals.

Midas

Sep 5, 2006 at 3:38 PM

Firstly, thank you. For being constructive rather that destructive. Now to the point I see exactly what you mean about the motivation. I was thinking of editing the back story a little and instead, having you 'killed' prehapse because you knew too much - maybe you opened one too many locked doors... This way the games primary motivation for the main character would be revenge, he would be a pretty dark person after being shot and thrown in a river, and as you play you could swing from revenge to pretty much whatever suits your fancy.

Next to deal with the concept of 'whatever suits your fancy'. No door knocking. Period. There are special places in hell for people who make boring games, I'm not joining them. Freedom on the street would be to talk to people and gather mobs/crowds to use for protests from storming gun factories to hippy chains infront of bulldozers headed for your beloved slums... Throw bottles at people while they give speaches, save a hobo from bored soldiers, spraypaint things. Everything should affect things in little ways adding up to your overall loyalty percent for the area or faction. Most if not all the politics would take place in optional scripted missions.

Well those are my ideas anyway... Comments/Crit?

frob

Sep 5, 2006 at 4:47 PM

Revenge works. It's overused and cliche, but it works.

>> Freedom on the street would be to talk to people and gather mobs/crowds to use for protests from storming gun factories to hippy chains infront of bulldozers headed for your beloved slums... Throw bottles at people while they give speaches, save a hobo from bored soldiers, spraypaint things. Everything should affect things in little ways adding up to your overall loyalty percent for the area or faction.

I hope you have a rather large staff of experienced programmers and scripters for that. Each new facet of possibilities increases the complexity of the game.

If you don't have a large staff (like most people), I suggest you begin with a more modest goal, such as just gathering mobs that don't really do anything, vandalizing propaganda, and throwing bottles. Hopefully you have an engine capable of handling all those because it would be a pain to write.

Trying to implement group logic of hippies chained together in front of bulldozers, and mobs of people storming a business will be quite a difficult task, and probably one you should defer until later.

MSW

Sep 5, 2006 at 6:14 PM

So its GTA crossed with V for Vendetta?

Midas

Sep 5, 2006 at 11:35 PM

Hey well yeah I've never looked at it that way. Slightly less masked people though...

makeshiftwings

Sep 6, 2006 at 4:12 AM

Storywise, the politics seem a bit jumbled. Most fans of "revolution", both in actual politics and in movies, generally like the idea of revolting against their current government. In other words, movies like Fight Club, V for Vendetta, and games in that style revolve around revolting against capitalism and corrupt democracy. Revolting against russian communism is going to be less exciting; McCarthyism is dead and a lot of people, especially revolutionaries, find it kind of ridiculous at this point.

Also, I couldn't figure out what exactly the main character is revolting against. You say Russia has gone communist again, but Volstaken rebels against it. Volstaken supports capitalism then? But then the president dies and the general tries to take over. Does the general support communism? Or is he just supposed to be a random mean guy? Either way, in this situation, it's actually the evil general who is the revolutionary: the assassination of the president and ensuing coup is the revolution. The main character then seems more like a counter-revolutionary, trying to restore the old order and make sure the current government stays in power and that the revolution doesn't succeed. That doesn't really sound as appealing.

frob

Sep 6, 2006 at 9:38 AM

>> The main character then seems more like a counter-revolutionary, trying to restore the old order and make sure the current government stays in power and that the revolution doesn't succeed. That doesn't really sound as appealing.

It worked for Star Wars.

Midas

Sep 6, 2006 at 9:48 AM

Yes the general is most definatly a communist, he wants Volstaken to rejoin the now communist Russia. If it would make it more appealing we could push the timeline back a year and assume that he has already succeeded in becoming dictator and you then step up as a revolutionary. Though I have to say is a counter-revolutionary not still just someone fighting for their cause and to change something? But I see now the story is a bit jumbled, I'll revise it sometime nd give it a full write up.

Yvanhoe

Sep 6, 2006 at 12:15 PM

Non-violent means are numerous. If you can find a copy, give the board game "Kremlin" a try. A hierarchy is modeled, where some people move up, down, get jailed, get sent to retirement or simply die (of old age). Each player secretly put "control points" (corruption points) on each character. This is a completly non violent mean of action : corruption, intimidation, cross-corruption, police abuse, power abuse, nomination of "friends" to key roles.

It is not funny, it is cynical. Exactly in a "V for Vendetta" way (the comics, not the movie, mind you) where the main reason of success for a revolution is the careful arrangement of influence networks, biased information and the sudden failure of the whole system. If you only saw the film, go read the comics, and see the gears of a revolution, it is guaranteed to give you ideas.

Midas

Sep 6, 2006 at 2:56 PM

I've only seen the movie I admit but not by choice, good comics are hard to come by here in SOuth Africa. Your not the first to say that though so there must be something there.

makeshiftwings

Sep 6, 2006 at 4:38 PM

Quote:
Original post by frob
>> The main character then seems more like a counter-revolutionary, trying to restore the old order and make sure the current government stays in power and that the revolution doesn't succeed. That doesn't really sound as appealing.

It worked for Star Wars.

Well, I guess in some ways it comes down to time. The Empire in Star Wars was around for twenty years or so before the rebel alliance ousted them. The Empire was the official government, and had (more or less) the support of the people. The movies would have had a different feel if the Jedi were the rulers of the universe, and then Vader came along and tried to take over, but the Jedi stopped him. You lose the feeling of being the underdog taking on the government and changing the world; instead you're just working for the government and stopping terrorists. Either one can be fun I guess, but the second doesn't have the whole revolution "vibe" if you know what I mean.

Quote:

Yes the general is most definatly a communist, he wants Volstaken to rejoin the now communist Russia. If it would make it more appealing we could push the timeline back a year and assume that he has already succeeded in becoming dictator and you then step up as a revolutionary. Though I have to say is a counter-revolutionary not still just someone fighting for their cause and to change something? But I see now the story is a bit jumbled, I'll revise it sometime nd give it a full write up.

This is just my personal and highly biased opinion, but playing as a hero who's out to instill good old fashioned american values and bring capitalism and christianity to thoese godless russkies is not at all something I'd want to do in a game about revolution. I know you didn't necessarily mention america or christianity, but that was a big part of the push behind the McCarthy era when they tried to build up racism towards Russia and get the US to believe that communism was some sort of evil demonic mind control.

Now, I'm not saying communism is a good idea, however, most revolutionaries and revolutionary-wannabes (fans of V for Vendetta and Fight Club who don't have any actual political cares) will agree that capitalism also has some pretty big problems and that corruption is pretty prevalent in today's capitalist/democratic societies as well. Communist revolutionary propaganda works because it grabs the heart of the workers and the poor; it promises them equal treatment and freedom from the oppressive rich and a government that treats them as second class citizens. (Whether or not the leaders actually hold true to their word is a different matter.) Capitalist "revolution" rarely can do that; it can't make believeable promises to the common people since capitalism benefits the rich and hurts the poor; its one saving grace is that in theory it makes it harder for those in power to fully take over the country since there will be a divide between the state and the wealth, and makes the vague promise that if you work hard enough, maybe you can be rich too. That's why McCarthyism tended to ignore the actual debate of capitalism vs socialism and instead focused on painting communists as evil, godless, freedom-haters.

Most revolutionaries want some form of anarchy, socialism, or some other system that will benefit the masses at the expense of toppling the government and the rich. In your story, you're playing the role of someone who wants to ensure that the rich stay rich and that the government stays in power. I'd have to envision that if the evil general has actually won the hearts of some of the people and convinced them that rejoining communist Russia is a good idea, that there must be something bad about the current capitalist country. On the other hand, if everyone there loves capitalism and the evil general is just shooting people in the streets to try and instill martial law, then I don't see how the whole influence thing would work since basically nearly everyone would agree that the evil general's insane and needs to be stopped.

Midas

Sep 7, 2006 at 9:29 AM

Hehe... I think along with perhapse confusing everyone I've confused myself a little. So let me lay this out and we can look at it from here taking into account everyones ideas.

Story: In 2016 a civil dispute ensues in Russia and through corrupt(and communist) high ranking military officials a large portion of the army is used to turn Russia ito a communist state. Now were not slating this as a dissaster since many of the poor people see it as a godsend. With the support many of the poor areas of Russia and a large amount of military might the revolution is a sucssess. To resist all out civil war a the pacifists and of course the rich people/government officials form a seperatist nation - Volstaken.

The general happens to be on of the few military people still 'loyal' to the old Russia and is placed in charge of the Volstaken military. The coup in 2020 is then about taking more power(placing the general as a twisted meglomaniac not a communist) since he already had so much. Placing the game in 2022 where he has sucssesfuly become dictator and oppressed the lower and middle class through military force. Thereby placing you as a revolutionary rising up against a violent dictator and avoiding the whole communist thing. The matter of winning support would be based on showing the people the way through violence/protest/espionage/whatever.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.