The dumbest messages in video games.

[Magellan]

Okay, this is coming from someone that actually like Path of Radiance and played through it 3 times.

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn has got to have the dumbest message I’ve ever seen in a game. 3/4 s into the game, the Goddess of Order gets tired of everyone fighting (I mean once all the old faces from Path of Radiance recognized each other, you think they would’ve just talked it out) and decides to turn everyone to stone. Of course your characters avoid it. So then they decide that the Goddess of Order is a bitch and enlist the help of the Goddess of Chaos (who just happens to be a nice person) to help them go after the Goddess of Chaos. So along this journey the goddess of Order sends a few henchmen after me, and during the breaks between each fight, the characters actually COMPLAIN about it being peaceful with everyone else being turn to stone and talk about how good it felt to be fighting during the henchmen battles. By the time I actually make it to the Goddess, she actually asks if I wish to battle her, and seems genuinely surprised that I’m trying to kill her. No shit bitch, I only went through tedious map after tedious map to deal with your cheating cheap ass boss battle. And in the end I kill the Goddess of Order and for some reason Chaos goes away also, and in a Disney (I can’t believe Word is making me capitalize that) moment every stone person is returned to normal and they magically stop fighting. And holy shit, this game has some horrible voice acting.

[Bakustra]

So what's the dumb message, here, exactly?

[Magellan]

If someone gets mad at you for being a twat, kill them. And apparently chaos is a good thing.

[Bakustra]

If someone gets mad at you for being a twat, kill them. And apparently chaos is a good thing.

So, what totalitarian ideology do you hold so dear that chaos is never good? Not to mention that you're really misinterpreting the events of the game here. Also, who exactly is getting mad at who for being a twat and who is being killed in this scenario?

I can just imagine what would happen if you were exposed to the Shin Megami Tensei series. You ever see Scanners?

[Magellan]

Okay ... if you don't like my example, then let's hear someone else's.

[Bakustra]

Okay ... if you don't like my example, then let's hear someone else's.

Chaos, for lack of a better word, is good. Chaos is right, chaos works. Chaos clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Chaos, in all of its forms, chaos in life, in society, and in the world has marked the upward surge of mankind. And chaos will not only save Tellius, but also the other malfunctioning machine known as this thread. A perfectly orderly world is a perfectly boring world. Chaos introduces fun, excitement, risk into the world. Chaos is essential to the modern world and has been essential to every world before it.

Sorry, I just had to get that off of my chest. But I'm genuinely interested in why exactly you took that message from the game and why you think the chaos half of said message is so bad. I mean, I think that your description is inaccurate, but I'm not going to dispute the message you interpreted.

But if you want another example, then I think that Final Fantasy XIII has some truly disturbing, antisocial messages implicit in its refusal to incorporate NPC dialogue, or, really NPCs at all, reducing its cast to plot-important characters and the hoi polloi, who are themselves mostly invisible. So what do you have to say to that?

[Darth Yan]

too much chaos is a bad thing though.

[Stofsk]

Starcraft has some frankly idiotic messages as far as base defence goes. Don't put your bunkers in front of the only entrance to your base, where the enemy is likely to come at you. No no - put all your food and supply dumps and the place where your troops sleep there instead.

Okay ... if you don't like my example, then let's hear someone else's.

Chaos, for lack of a better word, is good. Chaos is right, chaos works. Chaos clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Chaos, in all of its forms, chaos in life, in society, and in the world has marked the upward surge of mankind. And chaos will not only save Tellius, but also the other malfunctioning machine known as this thread. A perfectly orderly world is a perfectly boring world. Chaos introduces fun, excitement, risk into the world. Chaos is essential to the modern world and has been essential to every world before it.

Why do I have an image of you in my head lording over a stack of Chaos miniatures from Warhammer as you wax over the merits of Chaos?

edit:

'The societal benefits of Chaos are worthwhile.'

too much chaos is a bad thing though.

Thank you for that self-evident remark.

[Darth Yan]

was it self evident to baku though?

[Stofsk]

Well if it wasn't then, it is now!

[Ford Prefect]

was it self evident to baku though?

He's about 50000000000% smarter than you are, so I imagine that he was aware of your inconceivably obvious observation.

In any case, Bakustra's statement was not suggesting that all order be discarded in favour of chaos, but rather that we shouldn't be so quick to discard chaos entirely. In a world without any chaos, we're left with nothing but stagnation. Progression leads to chaos, and as societies respond to that chaos, society changes. Sometimes that change isn't for the better, but that doesn't make change bad in itself.

[Axiomatic]

It doesn't follow the strictest definition of a video game message, but I still love one GTA: San Andreas FAQ about having a girlfriend.

Specifically, it told the reader that "If you kill your girlfriend, she will no longer be your girlfriend."

[Formless]

Not a videogame specifically, but since its used as the base mechanics of several console and computer RPGs I'm going to count it: the alignment system of D&D. Its so oversimplified as to be disgusting, leads to self contained (and thus pointless) discussions (like the Law VS Chaos discussion seen in this thread-- never mind that everyone just plays chaotic good or neutral good anyway), and almost always leads to characters with moral codes that seem more like a caricature of real people than even most escapist fantasy novels. Note especially the "lawful stupid" phenomenon where something is right because the game says so and the players can't use their own judgment. In video games you can see the influence of this thinking in moral choice systems that force you to either be a baby eating monster or Mother Teresa. When you boil it down to that, the stupidity is pretty self explanatory.

And its sad because its not hard to come up with a workable moral choice system that doesn't suck. I really like D20 Modern's system of "list three values, loyalties, preferences, motives, etc. that this character has in order of importance/priority." Its not only more realistic, its simpler because you have to come up with a character's motives anyway. Might as well make that their "alignment".

[Serafina]

Go read some Michael Moorcock, or similar works.
Chaos and Order can very well be opposed principles that need to be kept in balance, and neither has to be good or evil. An excess of either would be bad for (intelligent) life - change is needed for life to happen and to have meaning, but stability is also needed. Chaos might be unreliable, but Order is too strict and inflexible.

Chaos and Order don't really work as moral principles similar to good/evil if both are present. You'll note that most worlds (that are not stupid) where Chaos is evil has an absence of an opposing force of Order, so it's really just "Destruction" by another name. However, if both are present(ed intelligently), then both have good and bad sides to them.

By the way, the D&D alignment system is not the most sophisticated, but the flaw Formless is talking about is not a necessity. The problem is that too many games present "lawful good" as the top of the pyramid of moral choices, while "neutral good" is slightly worse and "chaotic good" more evil still! That's just wrong, a chaotic good character just wants to do as much good as a lawful good character - the difference is in the method, not the goal.
By giving such a hierarchical structure, those games are really making Order and Chaos substitutes for "good" and "evil", which is blatantly misrepresenting those concepts.

[Eternal_Freedom]

/it doesn't say it per se but in Sins of a Solar EMpire, you get the wonderful idea that if you want to incoporate alien worlds into your Empire, don't bother trying to talk to them, or understand them, or reason with them. Blow up their defences and nuke em from orbit. Then send your kids to go build a playground in the blasted remnants of alien cities.

We'll even build our biggest and best weapon, so we don't have to send our brave boys into harms way to nuke civilians. We'll do it from the comfort of our own home!

fun huh?

[xthetenth]

I forget where they say it, but the developers did say for that that you're basically blowing the piss out of the government structures rather than the whole place. Kind of a contrast between that and the mushroom clouds your guns throw up. But it does make sense given how the culture overthrows work mechanically.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Blowing up government structures? Hmm. Looks like generic indiscriminate bombing of the equatorial regions to me. And there is no way the Novalith Cannon can be used just on government structures. Especially as it reduces the planet's max population by 40% for a long time and stops you colonising it from a while due to radiation.

[Axiomatic]

Yeah, the damn explosions cover entire continents. You can't tell me those are only government structures.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The fireballs reach low orbit. The Novalith's fireball is an appreciable fraction of the planet's diameter.

Anyway, I tihnk that's certainly a questionable message. Deal with aliens with collosal nukes dropped indiscriminately from orbit. fun and games.

As for other stupid messages....hmm. I suppose I should bring up games like GTA and Mafia 2 or Assasins Creed for glorifying criminals, but I like GTA far too much to complain about it's underlying social messages.

[lance]

The problem is that too many games present "lawful good" as the top of the pyramid of moral choices, while "neutral good" is slightly worse and "chaotic good" more evil still! That's just wrong, a chaotic good character just wants to do as much good as a lawful good character - the difference is in the method, not the goal.
By giving such a hierarchical structure, those games are really making Order and Chaos substitutes for "good" and "evil", which is blatantly misrepresenting those concepts.

It kind of makes sense in an in universe way of what people think. Lawful Good is more organized, and is thus more capable of winning the propaganda war in establishing a hierarchy of goodness.

[Serafina]

Can we limit the meaning of the word "message" to such instances where the game is advocating or praising a certain behavior? Where it's actually giving out a message?

Because Sins really doesn't have much of a story, i don't think it actually qualifies here, because the game doesn't give us any of the above. You don't get praised for blowing up planetary populations there, after all.
Likewise, just playing a criminal in a game doesn't mean that the game praises or advocates such behavior. It is certainly possible to make such a game without any moral commentary at all, and there are also those where you get shown what's wrong with your activities.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Just to be picky and difficult, I would point out that I wasn't complaining about GTA and I agree with you that SINS doesn't actively encourage genocide, but you must see that the game is made in such a way as to have nuking be the predominant method of dealing with civvies.

Now, I'm gonna sto talking about SINS because I agree with you on the messages thing.

So what woud you say is a game with a dumb/poor/bad message Serafina?

[Formless]

Go read some Michael Moorcock, or similar works.

Why should I care about how some unrelated Fantasy author chose to present the concepts? I'm talking about D&D, the video games that it inspired, and the stupid brainbugs they contain. Even if Moorcock was the inspiration for D&D's Law/Chaos axis (which I have no real reason to believe) it wouldn't change a thing.

Chaos and Order can very well be opposed principles that need to be kept in balance, and neither has to be good or evil. An excess of either would be bad for (intelligent) life - change is needed for life to happen and to have meaning, but stability is also needed. Chaos might be unreliable, but Order is too strict and inflexible.

Read: those are metaphysical constructs that only apply to the fictional worlds they were set in. Hence the "self contained, pointless discussion" comment. In the real world, the terminology is too vague. Hence, it makes any message vacuous until stated in more coherent terms.

If it makes more sense, every time the word "law" gets used substitute it with the word "logic" (note that D&D often uses the descriptor "axiomatic" to describe things that have "lawful" properties), and whenever the word "chaos" gets used substitute it with the word "entropy" (see: the plane of Limbo, the embodyment of chaos in D&D). Then ask yourself if the dichotomy makes any goddamn sense at all.

And before you say anything about "anarchy vs. rule of law", yes that is a valid dichotomy. However, D&D is not consistent about law and chaos representing only law and anarchy. Law can mean order, it can mean reason, it can mean authority, and so many other things and all those ideas are present in D&D and its progeny. Chaos can mean anarchy, it can represent Free Will, it can represent random chance, and many other things and all those ideas are present in D&D and its progeny. Hell, it can even be representative of the "conservative vs. liberal" dichotomy... and the "conservative vs. progressive" dichotomy (a good example of D&D and its ilk glossing over real life nuances).

Giving characters strong motivations, on the other hand, removes ambiguity and interpretation from the discussion. That's why its a better way to keep track of "alignment" or (in video games, so as to keep this from straying too far off topic) present moral choices. If you are really attached to them, the system can even encompass the D&D alignments; say your character is dedicated to doing "good" above all else. Instead of having to call him "neutral good" you would just call him.... "good".

Maybe I should have made that clearer in the original post.

By the way, the D&D alignment system is not the most sophisticated, but the flaw Formless is talking about is not a necessity. The problem is that too many games present "lawful good" as the top of the pyramid of moral choices, while "neutral good" is slightly worse and "chaotic good" more evil still! That's just wrong, a chaotic good character just wants to do as much good as a lawful good character - the difference is in the method, not the goal.
By giving such a hierarchical structure, those games are really making Order and Chaos substitutes for "good" and "evil", which is blatantly misrepresenting those concepts.

What do you call a "no true scotsman" fallacy when its applied to nouns other than people? Obviously, the games that do this (D&D 4e, KOTOR, Bioshock, etc.) were what I was talking about. I have no idea what part of that was confusing to you. The message "you are either a monster or a saint" is pretty devoid of reality, and possibly dysfunctional if you take that attitude into real life.

[Falarica]

Yeah, the damn explosions cover entire continents. You can't tell me those are only government structures.

Maybe all the structures are government owned?

Dumb messages in too many strategy games:

Enemies will never surrender, even to your unstoppable doom legions/soldiers/spaceships.
Crushing your opponents is the only way to secure victory (No diplomacy or espionage).

[Formless]

Come to think, I can summarize that long ass post. My problem with D&D style alignment/moral choice systems is that if you are going to present a moral dichotomy in a work of fiction, it should be a valid and relevant dichotomy to people in the real world. Good and evil are valid and relevant, if somewhat ambiguous and not descriptive of their causes. "Law" and "chaos" are neither valid nor relevant.

Edit: Also, I hate metaphysics, and I hate it twice over when it coincides with morality. Who wants to live in a world where a "detect evil" spell is all it takes to convince a judge and jury you're guilty of something?