308: The State of Gaming Nature

Andrew Bell

New member
Apr 13, 2010
14
0
0
The State of Gaming Nature

Judging by Fallout: New Vegas and Red Dead Redemption, centuries-old philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau would've made pretty good game designers.

Read Full Article
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
Definitely an interesting take on the games. I never really saw them that way, but you do have a very good point.
 

Embz

Pony Wrangler
Mar 17, 2010
296
0
0
Good thought provoking article. I really enjoyed reading this and the comparisons made between the game were interesting and original :)
 

ChupathingyX

New member
Jun 8, 2010
3,716
0
0
Ahhh it's always great to see someone who understands the true meaning behind Fallout: New Vegas, and the original Fallout's too.

I see too many people complain that New Vegas sucked because it isn't "post-apocalyptic" enough.
 

Dark Harbinger

New member
Apr 8, 2011
273
0
0
That was indeed an excellent article, very thought provoking and carefully structured with deep analysis. I am siding with Red Dead Redemption's outlook on it however, with the simple belief that while the old west was harsher than modern society, it was more honest, as people knew morals and how to conduct themselves properly without needing 'society' to beat it into them. In a place like the old west, people with malicious intent cannot expect to last long in a world where people will defend themselves and each other.

Plus I'm a sucker for a good old six-shooter. ^^
 

violent_quiche

New member
May 12, 2011
122
0
0
Interesting take. RDR did a wonderful job of evoking sadness at the passing of a way of life, but I had never thought of it as a bookend to Fallout. Makes sense though.
 

toquio3

New member
Nov 7, 2006
43
0
0
I think that rousseau is right in a way. Man is enslaved by our current society. But our society if very flawed and doomed to fail. In different kinds of society, man would be born free, and could continue to live freely.

In the end, I would go with the New Vegas message. Without civilization of any kind, Humans are little more than animals. Our civilization isnt perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as the evolution of life, so the evolution of societies will keep improving on what we have now.
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Andrew Bell said:
The State of Gaming Nature

Judging by Fallout: New Vegas and Red Dead Redemption, centuries-old philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau would've made pretty good game designers.

Read Full Article
What's interesting to me about both Hobbes and Rousseau is that neither seemed to really get into how the genesis of "society" plays into our state of nature. They seemed to speak as though Society was somehow imposed on us by an outside force, some unseen "zookeeper," rather than constructed by mankind itself. Society isn't in conflict with our nature. It reveals our nature, or rather what we feel about our nature, because we created it.

The nature of a man, when you get right down to it, is self. Myself and my needs are the first things I know and understand, all else be damned. I'm hungry, so I cry until food is brought. I want a cookie, so I take it from the jar. We are selfish by nature.

Now, the problem with that statement comes when we try to assign a moral weight to being "selfish." Selfishness is morally neutral, neither good nor bad on its own. We are only so because, at the beginning, Self is all we know. Later, we begin to learn to utilize other people to help meet our needs (such as crying because we understand it will cause others to fill those needs). Even later, we begin to understand that behaving in certain ways (sharing, being polite) greatly expedites this process.

Much later, after much practice, we begin to really understand and empathize with others. We say, "Please," and "Thank you," and, "I'm sorry," because we understand how we would feel in the other person's shoes... but still, we are understanding those feelings through the filter of self.

In the end, society and its rules developed for two reasons: fear and empathy.

Hobbes focuses on the fear: We'd love to take whatever we want, but we know that a world in which that is permissible means it can be done to us. There will always be someone stronger, so we know that we would constantly have to protect what is ours. In a sense, we fear the freedom that others might have, so we forfeit a bit of ours to establish something of an armistice.

Rousseau focuses on the empathy: As social creatures, we understand that we need each other to best survive and thrive. Your broken leg means neither of us will eat tonight, unless I help you. Additionally, if I help you when you're in need, you'll do the same for me when my time comes.

And both men are right, though seemingly opposing. They're entering the same room through different doors, and that room is Self. In the Hobbes-ian view, we fear for our Self and what others might do against it. In the Rousseau-ian view, we empathize with the Self of others because we know what they can do for our own.

Rousseau's angle is the more advanced, to be sure. A person has to be willing to put aside or delay gratification of the Self to truly feel and act upon that empathy. But the fact that such a thing takes effort (and, for many, law) demonstrates that something about it runs counter to our nature. Meanwhile, Hobbes's approach doesn't account for the fact that society somehow emerged from that brutal and selfish nature--something about the "law of the jungle" also conflicts with our nature.

As for the games themselves, I really found New Vegas to provide a more accurate representation of our nature, in that it doesn't put the player in either camp. It shows us both sides (with the raiders on one end, and the Followers on the other, and other factions strewn in between), and then lets us choose--gradually. It's not just a matter of "choose to do combat and leave the helping," or "choose to do the helping and shun the combat." You can make those choices within a single quest, based on how you resolve it.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Very well thought out article OP, that was a cracking read.

In a way both games deal with the same issue however: the loss of a way of life. RDR mourns the loss of the old ways and resignedly gives them up to the inevitable march of 'progress', whereas F:NV carries a more positive message in the desire of mankind to recover the civilisation that it has lost. Or maybe it's just that the grass is always greener on the other side of the field...
 

ivc392

New member
Aug 26, 2010
194
0
0
Just wanted to add that in F:NV you can choose to kill Mr.House and drag away the NCR and Caesar leaving Vegas in complete anarchy.
 

II2

New member
Mar 13, 2010
1,492
0
0
Well written and thoughtful article. Nutritious food for thought.
 

Cabisco

New member
May 7, 2009
2,433
0
0
That was a great and thought provoking article, A very good first piece. Though I can't speak for everyone but reading about Red Dead Redemption always makes me romanticise the game, strangely for what little you do at times in that game I still remember it so fondly, just like GTA4 in fact.
 

Trolldor

New member
Jan 20, 2011
1,849
0
0
The article only reminded me of the absurdity of pre-darwininan social philosophies.

Civilisation is in our nature, the only reason it exists is because we evolved in such a way that fostered its development.
Our horror, our aggression, our selfishness are as much a part of our nature as our compassion and our sympathy and our generosity.
Man, by his very nature, is a contradiction. We serve others that we deem worthy and condemn those we don't. Each man has his own scale by which he measures the world.
The man who hoardes his wealth and scorns the very idea of charity is as much a victim of his genes as the man who endures suffering so that others might escape it.
If we want to 'rise above', as it were, it is not some long-dead philosopher who's going to help us. It is going to be our own recognition of our natures and our whims.
The true marvel of the human brain is its ability to deny the genes their control, but only if we are aware of 'instinct' acting on us.

As for games, the only one that has even come close is GTAIV. Every character is a victim of their nature, and Nico is the aggregate of all the ideas expressed throughout the game.
As he says himself, he doesn't want to kill but it's the only way he knows how to live.

In Red Dead Redemption you - as Marsden - proceed to murder your old life one gang member at a time. To say that civilisation is the only corrupt force in the game is a little absurd considering that Marsden himself was, prior to the game, a murderer and thief. If he is supposed to represent the 'best of man', then he has left a lot to be desired. This is not to mention that you are very often beset by bandits who plague civilisation from their hideouts in amongst the wilderness. And that the Wilderness itself often likes to come tumbling out at you in the form of a mountain lion or - god forbid - bear.
Marsden's death represents the end of the Old West, but it hardly represents the end of a more 'moral' world. It represents the end of an era and the beginning of a new, uncertain and unclear future. Good and bad are no longer so clearly defined.

As for New Vegas, the Mojave isn't something in need of restoration. It's humanity that is broken. The world itself operates as it always has.
As for the factions:
The NCR is the middle ground between independence and Caesar's Legion, because if you act properly you can actually have all the groups work in tandem with the NCR which brings the greatest balance of stability and freedom to the region.
Independence is absolute freedom. Caesar's Legion is absolute Stability. The NCR is neither absolutely free, nor absolutely stable, but rather than sacrificing one for the other, by sacrificing a small measure of both you gain a level of balance between the two.
 

minkr1

New member
May 18, 2011
3
0
0
Andrew Bell said:
The State of Gaming Nature

Judging by Fallout: New Vegas and Red Dead Redemption, centuries-old philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau would've made pretty good game designers.

Read Full Article
even more to the point is how games are effected by philosophy, morality and politics. (the most important thing is that the sentence still works if you replace the word 'games' with the word 'art')
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
On the other hand. Given the number of quests in RD:R that involve you fighting bandits who, given the oppertunity, would & do burn down everything & everyone in their way for the fun of it. It is arguable that RD:R is also Hobbian, just in a bittersweet way in that for all the beauty & simplicity of life that a character like Marston could find in the Wilds, it's still a brutal place in which he has comitteed more than his fair share of atrocities. It's as much about finding the little things that make even a horrible life worth living (but a life that, ultimately, can only be happy when it ends), as an ode to the desirability of the wild life.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
Great article.
However. I kind of felt like Fallout had examples of the Rousseau perspective as well. In the locations where humans carried on the mantle of civilization (the vaults like vault 11) they often met more brutal ends than if they had embraced the anarchy of the wasteland.
 

Zom-B

New member
Feb 8, 2011
379
0
0
I guess I'm in the minority here, because aside from the brief mentions of Hobbes and Rousseau, what is this article saying? Nothing. Brief summations of two games with no real commentary on either.

I haven't been reading the Escapist that long, relatively speaking, but week to week, month to month the content seems to be getting thinner and thinner.