Games with Intellectual Content

[Jester]

Hi,

Relative to most gaming communities, the Lounge is fairly 'brainy', populated by gamers who are interested in games qua games, but perhaps also in games that make you think a little extra, or deal with interesting ideas.

So, this thread is about that. What are your favorite games that deal with 'bigger' issues, whose stories or concepts are more than just wallpaper for the gaming experience itself?

I'll put down a few of my favorites in chronological order.

1) A Mind Forever Voyaging. Steve Meretzky's remarkable experiment in dystopian science fiction using a tool (interactive fiction) that had previously only been used for mindless "use brass key on red door" games. Political, touching, unusual, and far ahead of its time.

2) Hidden Agenda. This is a wonderful and under appreciated piece of political edutainment. You play the president of a small Latin American nation following a revolution. It models with remarkable realism the impossible dilemmas faced by Latin American governments in the 1970s. It offers a perceptive and largely balanced look at the realities of both left and right, being neither simplistically symmetrical nor trivial.

3) Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Possibly the 'smartest' game ever made, this game is a tour de force, almost an encyclopaedia of science fiction literature and political philosophy, all wrapped up in a classic story of human self-advancement and conflict. Smart is not surprising from Firaxis, but even by their standards, this game makes you think.

4) BioShock. Perhaps this game is too popular by half, but this Ayn Rand inspired world is, to my mind, a masterpiece. It is a sympathetic-yet-brutal look at science, freedom, and the primal things that really drive humanity. As the world's least likely objectivist, I find myself somehow more sympathetic with its ideas after playing, despite the dystopian setting. (And, as has been pointed out many times, this game is really all about setting.)

These are just a few that come to mind, all of them relatively political, although not all interesting games are. Each of them is less impressive as a 'game' than it could have been. But all of them are memorable for the ideas they grapple with, in a genre which all too often declines to make any meaningful comment about humanity.

-Jester

Edit: I am condemned for eternity for misspelling the name of Sid.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

These are just a few that come to mind, all of them relatively political, although not all interesting games are. Each of them is less impressive as a 'game' than it could have been. But all of them are memorable for the ideas they grapple with, in a genre which all too often declines to make any meaningful comment about humanity.

-Jester

To quote Charles Schulz, via Charlie Brown: "I love humanity, it's people I can't stand.";)

To quote a Hydralisk: "I love humanity, when dipped in salsa."

To quote someone: "Oh, the humanity!"

As to intellectual games: Diplomacy, the board game.

Occhi

[Hammerskjold]

The '- Shock' game series (system shock1&2, bio shock as you mentioned) are good.

The Metal Gear Solid saga starting from the PS1 version IMO, ranks up there as well. Though again IMO, Hideo Kojima reaaaaly needs an editor.

Deus Ex is another one.

Fallout 1.

And to show that 'intellectual' and 'political' doesn't have to mean humourless, StarControl 2. 'Cause it's all about frungi, the true sport of kings. (Though the time limit really makes it a flawed masterpiece IMO.)

Not to take anything away from the LL, but for an interesting site that discusses videogames I usually go to this, for their articles at least.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/

Gamasutra is another.

I limited my reply to video games, because that's what you seem to be talking about. And board games, PnP\hybrids are pretty big and wide and can probably use it's own topic heading. Having said that, I can't resist breaking my own rules and I seem to remember there was this interesting game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_(video_game)

I didn't play it personally, but I knew someone who did briefly. Don't remember what he thought of it, because he got into evercrack soon after. Interesting concept nonetheless. Gives the 'OMG black helicopters are over my house i knew this would happen if people voted (insert the party they think is ruining the country etc)!' crowd something to do at least. ;)

[Wyrm]

A game I was rather pleasantly surprised with a while back was Beyond Good and Evil. Aside from the amazing presentation of the game, the story seems a little simple at first but twists and turns its way around some pretty intriguing stuff.

Another game I can't help but mention as a thinking game is Xenogears. Has one of the most sophisticated plots ever put in a video game.

I also get a lot of enjoyment out of the Suikoden series of games. They don't even pretend to be as simple as good vs. evil or save the princess plots. In most of the games, you can actually make a convincing argument about whether your character is on the side of the good guys or the bad guys.

There are quite a few others that have made me think, but those are the ones that kinda resonate the most when I think of games that go deeper than you'd expect.

[--Pete]

Hi,

What are your favorite games that deal with 'bigger' issues, whose stories or concepts are more than just wallpaper for the gaming experience itself?

I came up blank, but that might just be me. Most interesting games 'teach' you something, if you'll let them. The games that I've tried that are actual teaching games (WFF 'n Proof comes to mind) are usually not that much fun. Totally mindless games (e.g., Tetris) are good for those times when you just want to murder time.

--Pete

[Jim]

Hi.

Does Myst, Riven, & Uru Live count as a games with Intellectual Content or are they just Great puzzle games?:wub:

[Maitre]

I'll stick to the two games on your list that I've played:

Maybe I missed something in system shock2: I didn't find it all that brainy. Sure there were some overtones of moral when the game shows you the consequences of entrusting ourselves to computers that design their own organic species, and then decide that their creation has grown beyond control (wow, did you see that parallel coming?). But then again, the Chronicles of Riddick movie said some "interesting" things about the consequences of blind loyalty to a code (Vako's "keep what you kill" closing line), or a person (what's her name's buy in to Riddick's method of visual improvement), and I consider that film little more than entertainment for the reptile portion of my brain. Curse you, now I'm in the mood to watch it again.

Re: MGS for PS1, okay, there are some reasonable threads of message, but overall I'm left thinking "when is this cutscene going to end so I can blast something with my remote control missles." The story element in that game lost me when it deliberately broke the fourth wall, and then more or less required me to do the same thing 30 seconds later (yes I'm talking about the dialogue/fight with Mantis), and then it prompted me to make a correction IRL immediately thereafter like telling me "hey, by the way, we're going serious again." For anyone who hasn't played it, one of the villans demonstrates the power of his mind by making your controller vibrate after telling you to "put the controller on the floor." Then, in the fight that ensues, if frustrate yourself long enough without being able to land a hit, one of the characters phones you and tells you to "plug the controller into port 2" to prevent the villan from "reading your mind." After the fight, the game gives you a message saying "Please plug your controller back into Port 1." And don't you dare cry about spoilers, the game is 10 years old.

I think the intention to deliver involving gameplay/plot by introducing higher minded elements is fine, but I have a real problem with games that take themselves too seriously. Yes, books and movies have conveyed messages to the masses, and maybe video games are the 21st century method of diseminating political or social commentary, but I'm not buying into it yet. If you have a story to tell (a, singular), do it in a book or a movie where I don't have the illusion of cotrol. If you make a game, don't make me the lead character of your morality play, I don't play games to think (at least not too hard).

[Jester]

I think the intention to deliver involving gameplay/plot by introducing higher minded elements is fine, but I have a real problem with games that take themselves too seriously. Yes, books and movies have conveyed messages to the masses, and maybe video games are the 21st century method of diseminating political or social commentary, but I'm not buying into it yet. If you have a story to tell (a, singular), do it in a book or a movie where I don't have the illusion of cotrol. If you make a game, don't make me the lead character of your morality play, I don't play games to think (at least not too hard).

I'm not sure I quite understand this perspective. Are you arguing that it's not really possible to use games as an interesting medium for transmitting political ideas? Because that's an idea as old as the hills, or at least as old as Monopoly.

Some people don't watch movies to think, either. Same with books. But that doesn't mean that the genre isn't/couldn't/shouldn't be used for that, at least by those who feel they can express themselves that way. If you're really not into games that go down that road, then obviously there is no requirement that you play those games.

Games have a power that movies, plays and novels do not: they put the player into an engaged perspective, often a first-person perspective. This can be used for interesting and powerful effects that can make people think through their assumptions in ways they would not otherwise do with more 'passive' media, because they have to directly engage with their choices, even if its only a fiction.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm not sure I quite understand this perspective.

I believe what Maitre was saying is that a book or a movie puts you in the position of a spectator. The author has the freedom to teach and preach, and if he does it well enough, you'll at least listen to what he has to say. A game should put you in a different position, that of a participant. All too often if the author of the game has a message to impart, you no longer have the freedom to participate (or, at least not on a level significantly beyond the participation of turning pages). At the least, your choices are greatly limited (e.g., SimCity where public transportation and nuclear power are the only viable alternatives).

So, the question is whether it is possible to simultaneously give the player a true freedom to participate and still impart something beyond game-play. And that is a poorly formed question, I think. Some people will learn something from the most mindless game and others will learn nothing from anything.

--Pete

[Jester]

I believe what Maitre was saying is that a book or a movie puts you in the position of a spectator. The author has the freedom to teach and preach, and if he does it well enough, you'll at least listen to what he has to say. A game should put you in a different position, that of a participant. All too often if the author of the game has a message to impart, you no longer have the freedom to participate (or, at least not on a level significantly beyond the participation of turning pages). At the least, your choices are greatly limited (e.g., SimCity where public transportation and nuclear power are the only viable alternatives).

Well, combinatorial explosion prevents games from ever truly giving a "realistic" range of freedom in a game. You are participating in a kind of drama, a play that doesn't always have the same script or ending, but which isn't just improv, either. Participation is necessarily limited, but I think that's a potential advantage of the genre that must be dealt with carefully, and not necessarily a disadvantage.

There are games which offer some realistic, meaningful choices, and give feedback on those choices that are not just railroading the player down the "right" path, vs. the "wrong" path. (BioShock is both a good and bad example of that kind of choice.) For a positive example, the game Hidden Agenda that I mentioned in the first post offers a very wide range of potential policies, constrained by the kinds of constraints that actual governments faced: lack of money, underdevelopment, diplomatic pressures, military coups, etc. Acknowledging the obvious limitations of a game made in 1988, it really does feel like you have substantial freedom to make your own choices, and also suffer the consequences in a way which models reality.

There are also games, albeit fairly experimental ones, that actually do try to model a realistic range of action, overcoming combinatorial explosion by limiting the scope in some other way. Emily Short's IF game "Galatea" is like that: the whole game is essentially one dialogue with one character, but within those bounds, you are more or less free to act as you choose (and the game responds intelligently to almost every reasonable action or dialogue choice.)

So, the question is whether it is possible to simultaneously give the player a true freedom to participate and still impart something beyond game-play. And that is a poorly formed question, I think. Some people will learn something from the most mindless game and others will learn nothing from anything.

It is, but some games try to push against those constraints more than others. Tetris teaches geometry, forethought, pattern recognition, hedging against risk, and path-dependent reasoning. But, for most people, it's just stacking blocks, and even for the most sophisticated observer, it's still just stacking blocks, plus the things you can learn from stacking blocks. Alpha Centauri, on the other hand, offers a gallery of quotes, concepts and references to dozens of philosophers, poets, authors, and science-fiction ideas about the future. You learn a little about all sorts of stuff, from Asimov to Aristotle. So, I think it's fair to say that they're trying, and I think succeeding, to do something above and beyond, say, Tetris.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well, combinatorial explosion prevents games from ever truly giving a "realistic" range of freedom in a game.

Depends on how the game is written. If the author wrote a game, you'd be right. If the author wrote a meta-game, then with sufficient cleverness, it might be possible to write a game that did give a realistic range of freedom. Or passed the Touring test. But that's moot.

What does matter is whether a player feels constrained while playing. I'm sure we've all had those 'but that should work' moments in a game.

You are participating in a kind of drama, a play that doesn't always have the same script or ending, but which isn't just improv, either. Participation is necessarily limited, but I think that's a potential advantage of the genre that must be dealt with carefully, and not necessarily a disadvantage.

I'd hesitate to call a limitation an "advantage of the genre". There may be circumstances where limitations, especially self imposed limitations, may be of value, such as in writing sonnets. But externally imposed limitations are seldom advantages, though they may be useful challenges.

There are games which offer some realistic, meaningful choices, and give feedback on those choices that are not just railroading the player down the "right" path, vs. the "wrong" path.

Someone has to assign cost and value to each of those choices. That means that there is some limited number of 'right' combinations. Gaming the game is simply a matter of figuring out those combinations. Once that's done, one can determine the author's agenda. And, no, I don't mean that game authors go around intentionally trying to spread propaganda. But they do come to the table with their preferences and prejudices and those cannot help coming through.

For a positive example, the game Hidden Agenda that I mentioned in the first post offers a very wide range of potential policies, constrained by the kinds of constraints that actual governments faced: lack of money, underdevelopment, diplomatic pressures, military coups, etc.

Never played it, so I'm not really entitled to an opinion. From the Wiki link, it appears to be a sophisticated descendant of Hammurabi.

. . . it really does feel like you have substantial freedom to make your own choices, and also suffer the consequences in a way which models reality.

And that perception is a lot of what this is all about. But is that perception based on the freedom the game givers you, or the fact that you and the author of the game think within the same 'box'' on these topics. Might I find some game that you feel is relatively unrestricted to be very binding because I think that murder squads, secrete police, and torture are valid ways of running a country and you would never consider them?

There are also games, albeit fairly experimental ones, that actually do try to model a realistic range of action, overcoming combinatorial explosion by limiting the scope in some other way.

Yeah. I used to game OAB a lot;)

. . . from Asimov to Aristotle.

Hmmm. Are you using an affine infinity or a projective infinity? For one case this is the null set and for the other it's the universe. :whistling:

--Pete

[Jester]

And that perception is a lot of what this is all about. But is that perception based on the freedom the game givers you, or the fact that you and the author of the game think within the same 'box'' on these topics. Might I find some game that you feel is relatively unrestricted to be very binding because I think that murder squads, secrete police, and torture are valid ways of running a country and you would never consider them?

There actually is a murder squad in the game, LIMPIA, which is based on groups like the Salvadorean Contras and the Colombian Autodefensas. If you choose a miitaristic, rightist path through the game, you can encourage them to make people who you don't like disappear in particularly ugly ways. If you're a centrist, they can be a significant thorn in your side, because the leftists will be constantly harassing you to imprison them, but the right wing of the military will also protect them, and keeping up the pressure can easily result in civil war. If you play to the far left, they end up fleeing the country, and returning to fight against you, possibly with CIA aid if you've pissed off the Americans.

So, no, your freedom of action would not be limited in that particular way. Oppression and murder are tools in your toolbox, and their use has positive and negative consequences, just like foregoing them. But one thing the game is particularly good for is not just representing your character, the president, as a kind of celestial manager, who controls the country from on high. You interact with other 'characters', representing different factions, interest groups and organizations, and make your decision between what the person wants, and what your minister suggests. You pick your ministers, but you don't have autocratic control; you can override their wishes, but you can't just make up whatever you like. So, when you choose the 'death squad' option, you don't just magically command your death squad to do your bidding, but instead give the wink-and-nod to their leader, who then takes matters into his own hands, killing union leaders and other 'subversives'. If you fail to rein them in as a centrist, they kill people anyway, even if you beg and plead with them to stop. You can try to use the army to control them, but you find quite quickly that the rightist colonel is quite sympathetic to their cause. And so on. Similarly tricky, but not trivially symmetrical, problems face left-wing governments.

I suspect the author was at least vaguely sympathetic with a center-left human rights viewpoint, but the game takes seriously the idea that there are a variety of 'successful' ways to run a country, along with a whole lot of unsuccessful ones. I don't think it is a 'fact' that the game adheres to my viewpoint, but does a fairly interesting job of presenting a historical package of viewpoints.

As for similarities to Hammurabi, I never did play that, but the major difference would be that Hidden Agenda uses few numbers. You can look up graphs to see how your country is doing in various ways (usually badly), but you can't ever say "borrow 5 million dollars" or "allocate twenty grain to the army" or anything. So, it's a 'management' game of a sense, but it focuses much more on political choices, rather than technocratic expertise in figuring out and managing a system. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it might detract from the point of this particular game.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

So, no, your freedom of action would not be limited in that particular way.

Sounds like an interesting game -- which I'd assumed anyway, given that you enjoyed it. However, while the particular example I gave might have been wrong, the concept that freedom of action is relative to the actions one wants to take is still valid. As is the fact that different people want to take different actions. I do not, for example, find that the law against homicide has any effect on my personal choices. A psychopath or mob boss might.

. . . Hidden Agenda uses few numbers.

On the surface, perhaps. But to work as a computer program, it has to be based entirely on numbers. Unlike, say, non-computer Diplomacy, which is a totally non-numerical game (although it can, in principle, be modeled numerically by game theory). People push concepts around, memes, feelings, hunches. All those inexact, squishy things. Computers come, at the closest, to this type of thinking by using probabilities and random numbers. So far, not even nearly close. And if we take our Gödel neat, we conclude it will never happen.

--Pete

[Jester]

On the surface, perhaps. But to work as a computer program, it has to be based entirely on numbers. Unlike, say, non-computer Diplomacy, which is a totally non-numerical game (although it can, in principle, be modeled numerically by game theory). People push concepts around, memes, feelings, hunches. All those inexact, squishy things. Computers come, at the closest, to this type of thinking by using probabilities and random numbers. So far, not even nearly close. And if we take our Gödel neat, we conclude it will never happen.

Diplomacy could be made into a computer game with no loss in information. In fact, it has, several times, although I've never played them. You could think of the board game as a bunch of ones and zeroes, if it suited you, and you could think of the computer version as if it were just the board game, and both would be perfectly valid. The fact that the computer can't model the "inexact, squishy things" is true, but only relevant if you're trying to build an AI; human players making these choices will be every bit as influenced by their cultural memes and gut feelings as if they were playing it on a board.

-Jester

[Bolty]

I'm surprised Planescape: Torment hasn't been mentioned yet - pretty much the gold standard of superb storytelling within the confines of a role-playing game. More of a book than a game.

And to quote others, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri kept me up for many a night, while Star Control 2 is of course one of the all-time greats (and free to download nowadays, too!).

-Bolty

[Jester]

I'm surprised Planescape: Torment hasn't been mentioned yet - pretty much the gold standard of superb storytelling within the confines of a role-playing game. More of a book than a game.

I only didn't mention it because I've only just now started playing it.

And to quote others, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri kept me up for many a night, while Star Control 2 is of course one of the all-time greats (and free to download nowadays, too!).

I'm presuming you mean the Ur-Quan Masters, the SC2 open source project, which is now way better than any original release of SC2, combining the best features from all the versions. Can't thank Bolty enough for recommending it, I've now played it maybe 5 times. Pure gold.

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/

And yes, that is one of the all-time classics, and I suppose does have some ideas beyond just very nice (and very funny) wallpaper for the game. The Ur-Quan are just about the best villains ever, and made all the more awesome by their doctrinal debate: yes, they're both tyrannically insane, but they manifest that in marvellously divergent ways. One almost finds oneself rooting for your Kzer'Za overlords, just because the Kor'Ah are so... stark. What is worse? Perpetual enslavement, or utter annhilation?

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

This post contains no brains nor any live organic material...

Hi,

Thought you were Pete for a moment...

...the Lounge is fairly 'brainy'...

OH WAY TO GO, Jester.

Now they are coming. They will be here any moment now.

Now we all have to get our anti-undead tools out of storage.

Thanks. grrr. Thanks a lot.

I am condemned for eternity...

Yes, just like the rest of us, now.

We are doomed to be hunted all our lives, doomed to eventually succumb, doomed to search for brains for all eternity (or until somebody decapitates us).

All thanks to you.

[Hammerskjold]

And yes, that is one of the all-time classics, and I suppose does have some ideas beyond just very nice (and very funny) wallpaper for the game. The Ur-Quan are just about the best villains ever, and made all the more awesome by their doctrinal debate: yes, they're both tyrannically insane, but they manifest that in marvellously divergent ways. One almost finds oneself rooting for your Kzer'Za overlords, just because the Kor'Ah are so... stark. What is worse? Perpetual enslavement, or utter annhilation?

-Jester

To me, the Ur-Quans earned their top place in 'greatest and memorable villains in the now and forever pages' because once you learned their history, and how they became pretty much insane, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel some sympathy for them. And I'm not talking only talking about how they overcame the 'hypnotoad' mental enslavement.

As for what's worse in terms of the Ur-Quan doctrine, well the Spathi loved the idea of being behind an impenetrable planetary shield. (not counting the Umgah prank with the switched flags) And the Utwigs probably sees the Kohr-ah method as a possible reserve solution should their depression reach a global low. (who would want to live without the Ultron anyway, if you can even call it 'living')

So I guess I'm saying it's all relative.;)

[Hammerskjold]

Hi.

Does Myst, Riven, & Uru Live count as a games with Intellectual Content or are they just Great puzzle games?:wub:

My answer to that is, yes.

I'm not even a fan of the Myst series, I'm more of a 7th Guest guy myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7th_Guest

But I have to give credit where it's due to Myst.

[Jester]

To me, the Ur-Quans earned their top place in 'greatest and memorable villains in the now and forever pages' because once you learned their history, and how they became pretty much insane, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel some sympathy for them. And I'm not talking only talking about how they overcame the 'hypnotoad' mental enslavement.

As for what's worse in terms of the Ur-Quan doctrine, well the Spathi loved the idea of being behind an impenetrable planetary shield. (not counting the Umgah prank with the switched flags) And the Utwigs probably sees the Kohr-ah method as a possible reserve solution should their depression reach a global low. (who would want to live without the Ultron anyway, if you can even call it 'living')

A truly monumental study in relative culture, if you think about it. I mean, sure, of about 20-odd races, only three or so aren't actually jokes in one form or another. But the fact that they managed to make *that* many interesting, well-crafted races, and make them react to each other (especially to the Ur-Quan, and to a lesser extent, the Precursors and the Chenjesu) without the whole thing coming out a complete mess... it was a feat.

<spoilers, in case anyone cares>

.
.
.
.
.
.
.




And yes, the Ur-Quan are shockingly sympathetic, all things considered. When the Kzer'Za Lord 48 (or whatever) took me aside, admitted that he'd probably lose to me in a fair fight, and then proceeded to explain in perfectly logical terms why destroying his fleet was a tremendously bad idea... well, I almost believed him. Choosing that option ends your game, of course. And even if it didn't, it's just like the initial Chenjesu-Mrrnhrmm merging plan, it is flawed in that the Kzer'Za will not win the doctrinal conflict, no matter what. I really wish there had been a "tell Chenjesu about Kor'Ah" option. It would have made things a whole lot easier on my conscience; I always felt bad about creating the Chmrr... it somehow seemed kind of like genocide, and against the nicest, smartest, most reasonable... uh... crystalline entities in the galaxy.

-Jester