Games

"This is the Police" was a top down simulation game, in the vein of Sim City where, you play as a police chief. It happened to be released during the rise of Black Lives Matter and Gamergate, but went out of its way to say it was "not a political game but a human one", or at least that is what the developers claimed.

This is the Police, as game has a fail state, you have to make certain decisions or the game will end. In the case of your player character you are fired or killed for making decisions that could or would be read as moral, for example, not firing certain officers for their race or investigating crimes that mafia members don't want you to.

Hannah Arendt, wrote of Eichmann, how he wasn't amoral, wasn't a monster, and instead of how ordinary he was. How his motivation to send millions to their death wasn't motivated by sadism but shallowness and carelessness. He didn't think of the consequences of those actions.

Within the narrative of This is the Police, the player is faced with various situations were their own morality may come into conflict with the story. And that should be examined as even if the game is "not political" it does reflect a volatile political situation.

Why are you as a player character rewarded for being corrupt? Examinations of police corruption merit discussion but the game seems more than comfortable in presenting the idea of corruption without inspecting it. It's the nature of the system and as such is immutable.

This gives room for analysis of the actions the game forces you to take, why are those the only possible actions, why were some scenarios added and why not others? Moreover, what does it say about this "human game" as per the developers and its commentary on the nature of humans?

Fire Emblem, a pre-eminent franchise in the strategy RPG genre, has long worn its tropes. The rightful ruler in exile, fighting an evil empire with a color cast of allies and in the end bringing justice, order, and balance back to the world.

Within the franchise however there have been times, were the player, knowingly or not has played less of a liberator, and more as conqueror in their own right. Notable examples of this are in Fire Emblem Gaiden and it's remake Shadows of Valencia where the male protagonist Alm, settles the entire continent as its Emperor.
Fire Emblem Fates: Conquest also sees the player character, Corrin, take the role of conqueror, at the behest of the Evil King/Slime Demon Garon. Throughout the story the player is constantly exposed to the truly villainous nature of the Nohrian conquest but at no point is their an option to rebel and the ending resolves with Hoshido, a now conquered land acquiescent to the new high king on the promise that relations will now be warmer.

A key flaw in the narratives is the player's agency is completely absent. To win you must conquer and while some justification are offered, it could be argued that they're insufficient compared to the players actions. You conquer because that is the objective of the game, the impact of that on the people is immaterial, inconsequential and that's an extremely interesting writing decision.

Is there a such thing as a justifiable conquest?

Video game adaptations have been in a slow but steady trend. It's produced under a variety of important factors such as storyline and fanbase that can make or break the adaptation. League of Legends' Arcane, produced by Netflix, not only succeeds the expectations of longtime LoL and Runeterra fans but also captivates the interests of the non-gaming audience. Its release reignited both adaptations and animated media into what video game lore can achieve.

Analyze the thematic aspects of Arcane that contributed to its engagement and how it relates to the lore of Runeterra, especially since LoL is not an action-adventure game. Take into consideration that Riot Games also has a history of well-made cinematics for promotion of game updates, events, etc.

You can also explore the relevance (and perhaps, risk) of the fanbase in adapting Arcane. Riot Games is known for its heavy fanservice and focus on its community. Is Arcane a gift to the LoL fans? And of course, how has Arcane effectively introduced LoL to a new market? Has it affected the toxic reputation of the game, or has it enticed new players to join?

It's literally become a meme at this point; top text saying "oh this indie RPG uses pixel art and is really an allegory for depression-", accompanied with a gif or short video of somebody leaving a room or closing a door. It's certainly not an idea that spawned from nowhere; LISA The Painful, OMORI, Yume Nikki, Celeste, just to name a few, all have strong themes of depression or mental anguish of some sort as their main focus. And there seems to be a consensus amongst some gamers that it's beginning to become unoriginal. Just two days ago my recommendation of LISA was shot down by a close gaming buddy, on the grounds that it's "just another indie game about depression". But is this negative reputation deserved? Are these games just treading old ground, or do they still have more to say about mental health, a topic that is becoming all the more relevant in an age dedicated to squashing the stigma? And even if they don't, do they still have value in our modern gaming landscape?

With most games filled with action and strong storylines, popular video games such as Animal Crossing and Stardew Valley have created a large fanbase for games highlighting slow living and farm life. What is the appeal to these types of games compared to action-packed games such as Grand Theft Auto? Is the audience different?

Analyze how gamers today condemn and criticize games solely based on limited information and trailers. Specifically prior to the launch of some of the most critically acclaimed games of this year Horizon: Forbidden West and Elden Ring gamers criticized reused animations and lackluster gameplay elements before getting their hands on them. This trend has been increasing over the years with developers being bombarded by complaints and criticism for rather minor transgressions in otherwise fantastic games.

As the Assassin’s Creed franchise continues to grow and explore more of the world, so too has its options for players expanded… Sort of.
More recent assassin’s creed games have allowed players to choose which gender they want their player character to be; such as choosing between Kassandra and Alexios in Odyssey, or choosing how they want Eivor to present in Valhalla. These characters’ stories, however, are frequently defined by their womanhood and their importance severely limited by production decisions.

For example, Kassandra has a male lover and a child in the ‘canon’ of Odyssey (Legacy of the First Blade), no matter if the player turns down male lovers and plays her as a solely sapphic character. In Valhalla, there are certain times during the game where a female Eivor will be presented as male. In earlier games, the female playable characters received even less recognition; Evie is only playable for ~30% of Syndicate, and Elise was initially designed to be a playable character in Unity, but that was scrapped by Paris Editorial.

Why do the Assassins Creed games have such a hard time allowing the player to play as females, and to then not have their gender be a limitation or a core aspect of their narrative? The company needs to have a linear narrative, thus the character has to do certain things so the desired story can exist. However, particularly when it comes to female characters, this often contradicts the player's desired narrative choices for their character.
This topic would examine the roles of RPG companies vs players in determining the female characters' narratives and 'playability' in Assassin's Creed. Should players just accept that their character's decisions are always limited by the company's desired storylines, or should companies be working harder to have inclusive storylines that honour the players and their choices?

The narrative of Horizon Zero Dawn is fascinating, and while there are many potential themes to be examined, I keep coming back to how it handles apocalypse and the end of the/our world. In the game's past, the Earth faces annellation. When all seems lost, the solution is not to cling to some far-fetch hope for salvation, but instead to for pave the way for something new. Obviously, the crises facing Elisabet Sobeck, Aloy, and today's humans are all very different. Nonetheless, I think this game offers some food for thought as we face our own climate crises: do we accept coming devastation and focus our energies on creating the conditions for a new, better world to emerge? Or do we cling to what we have and try to save the world we know? Where do we locate hope for the future? Do we have to chose between what we have and what might be? Is it possible to have hope for the emergence of something new without total destruction (as happens in the game)?