Philosophical Questions Raised While Worldbuilding For Video Games

From Jelly Paladin Wiki
Revision as of 05:51, 30 September 2013 by Jelly Paladin (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Overview

With the exception of visual novels, I firmly believe in designing video games of every genre from a gameplay-based foundation--even including RPGs with stories. Not all RPGs do have stories; sometimes dungeon crawlers and roguelikes don't. With that in mind, though, when you choose[1] to make an RPG and it does have a story, but you start from gameplay and then flesh out story and setting, strange things happen. Unusual questions come up. You begin having lengthy, mysterious, and possibly unanswerable dialogues... with yourself.

This page lists some of the questions I've had to ask myself while worldbuilding. Notes will be used like footnotes, not typical wiki citations.


Warning

This page lists some of the questions I've had to ask myself while worldbuilding.

Before reading, please be cautioned:


  • Almost all of my questions are philosophical in nature and some may present deep or challenging concepts[2] if you take time to consider them instead of skimming. I approach philosophy mostly from an a priori[3] perspective (or as a priori as can be given the topic). Furthermore, most of my questions don't have provided answers. I almost named this page a Socratic Monologue[4] because of how little I realized as I grappled with all of these issues.


  • Some of my questions center around faith. None of them should challenge anyone's faith in God (I consider myself a disciple of Jesus Christ[5]) nor should they challenge anyone's lack of faith (I grew up agnostic[6]) While I can't guarantee that they won't, I assure you I didn't write this page with intentions to convert anybody to Christianity, agnosticism, or any other belief. I wrote it as a counterbalance for people like me; while it's easy to criticize some games' stories for being incoherent or having plot holes and there's nothing wrong with doing so[7], it's also true that making a perfectly sensible plot sometimes means tackling problems and paradoxes that have plagued philosophers since ancient times, especially if your setting has any fantasy elements.


  • By my interpretation of "political," none of my questions are political and I hope you'll feel the same. While I'm no longer agnostic when it comes to God, I remain agnostic on countless philosophical topics, which also means by definition that I'm agnostic on every associated political topic.[8]


  • My questions are disorganized and travel quickly in unexpected directions because I allow tangents to go where they will; I'd rather travel down their paths then cut off communication.


  • Finally, if it doesn't show by now, the writing style on this page is usually more formal and stuffy than other pages. I'm sorry about that. To be honest, unless I'm writing in character for a character like Leaf or Jig, I've kind of forgotten how to "turn off" my formal voice when I'm writing about philosophy. Maybe I've gotten one too many red marks from professors used to dissecting the most obtuse language. (And I'm an A student. I can't imagine how much commentary others had to read through.)

The Question of Audience

Starting Point

  1. If my species are mostly made of energy, do they have muscles or bones?
  2. If not, then how are their body shapes so much like humans? Actually, even if so, then why are their body shapes so much like humans?
  3. Is it because that's more familiar for artists? Is it because that's more familiar for people?
  4. Should I change their body shape? If so, why and in what way?
  5. Am I designing characters with another audience in mind or primarily for myself? Is one of these routes better?

Branching Path 1: Designing Characters For Another Audience

  1. If I design characters for another audience, does that mean I'm not respecting my own authority and intention as a creator? Am I, like Socrates in Athens[9], acceding to the will of the majority to the detriment of myself?
  2. If I do not create my own vision, then is there anyone else capable of creating my vision? More relevantly: is my vision worthy to be created?
  3. Can I reach my potential by measuring myself against and developing myself according to an external standard or only by measuring against and developing according to an internal standard? If the former is possible, then can that external standard be of an earthly source? Is there wisdom in numbers, as in the ideal of democracy and the Bible's Proverb of safety in a multitude of counselors, or can there be equal wisdom in a single great mind, as in Plato's philosopher-kings and the King Solomon who wrote that said Proverb?
  4. What qualifies as a great mind? If I had one, would I know? Could I, like Socrates, claim that I know I am wise for recognizing that I know nothing? Or would that declaration itself imply that I do know something, which is that I know nothing, and therefore I am not wise?
  5. Does a mind that is not great question whether it is great?
  6. If I design around the opinions of others, am I then more vulnerable to confirmation bias? (Furthermore: would I be advancing acceptance of confirmation bias?) Is it substantively different to surround myself with a majority opinion of people who validate one another than to surround myself with "yes men" who validate me? Is it substantively different to surround myself with "yes men" who validate me than to validate myself?
  7. Following the thought experiment implicit in Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative[10], what would happen if everyone designed characters for their audiences? If we were to design characters based exclusively on proven statistics, would those very statistics not become a self-fulfilling prophecy, akin to a black hole drawing everything toward its center? Would that not also be Plato's greatest nightmare--an infinite progression of derivatives, copies of copies of copies?[11]
  8. But Plato's disdain for copies rested on the assumption that copies of an ideal grow ever more flawed in comparison to that ideal; must that be so? In the physical world, a closed system begets decay due to entropy, but creative thoughts abstract rather than physical? If so, must their properties be similar to the physical world or subject to similar laws?

Branching Path 2: Designing Characters For Oneself

  1. If I design characters primarily for myself, is that an act of pride (in the negative sense of arrogance, not the positive sense of self-satisfaction)?
  2. Does it mean rejecting the opinions of others? And if so, is that tantamount to willfully hiding in a bubble? Will I fail to grow and reach my potential if I do not, as Einstein's saying goes, stand on the shoulders of giants?
  3. Who counts as giants?
  4. If the answer is "experts," then can there be an expert on a subjective topic?[12] Even if there can, then how do I know who's an expert? I know whether someone is an expert on the product of seventy times seven because I myself know the product of seventy times seven[13][14], so must I in any case already know an answer before I can judge whether someone else's answer is correct?
  5. If I already know an answer, would I still see any benefit from consulting with others on a question?
  6. Is benefit the end goal of consulting with others? Should it be? If it is and it should, then must that benefit be solely my own or can it be a benefit to others?



Footnotes

  1. ↑ I say "choose," but that might be considered a loaded word. A determinist or Calvinist would say I didn't choose anything since free will is an illusion (albeit an illusion that we may benefit from pretending is real, depending who you ask).
  2. ↑ Depending on your definition of "deep" and "challenging." I only took enough philosophy courses to make up 60% or so of a philosophy minor, so my knowledge may be limited compared to some of you.
  3. ↑ A priori knowledge is knowledge that can be derived without tangible, empirical investigation, i.e. knowledge derived from the definitions of words and their relations to one another. Two plus two must equal four given specific definitions of "two," "plus," "equal," and "four."
  4. ↑ The Socratic method is a teaching method developed by the Greek philosopher Socrates, who asked audiences a series of questions that would spur their critical thinking. It's often juxtaposed with didacticism, a teaching method that presents audiences with an unchallenged foundation for them to internalize.
  5. ↑ Albeit not nearly as far along as I'd like. To name a few positives, I'm very quick to forgive anyone (except myself, which I've always needed to work), one friend told me I'm the least confrontational person he's known and another told me I'm "such" a submissive type (she meant it in a positive way that she could talk openly without ever worrying about ruffling feathers), and I don't curse anymore. I've also read the entire Bible, minus the lengthy genealogies, and the New Testament twice. And I love and feel sorry for, like, everyone. All of them. Even the most hate-filled people--I just want to understand them, not hate back or dismiss them. Even though I haven't talked politics for about ten years, someone once told me that, of all the things and all the topics, she felt like she understood me most when I did talk politics because I seemed like a "bridge" between people instead of a wall. I've always appreciated that analogy and I hope it will always be true of me. Still, I have a long, long way to go in areas like charity, continuing to study the Bible, and disconnecting from certain societal assumptions, among many other things. I won't pump myself up as a superbeliever who has everything under control by any means.
  6. ↑ If the sheer number and types of questions here aren't enough to make that easy to guess!
  7. ↑ Criticism isn't the same as hate. I can name so many plot holes in Tales of Symphonia I might give it a wiki page just for fun, but I still love that game and its story like a sister--one of my top five of all-time and I've played almost a thousand games. Most of the reason I noticed plot holes at all is because I played it so many times. Tales of the Abyss has fewer plot holes, but much more gaping ones, and still ranks in my top 5%.
  8. ↑ This includes topics that are relevant to majorities of the Church. I'm not the Church and I'm not an exact representation of a statistical average in a major demographic. I'm an individual.
  9. ↑ According to Plato's representation of Socrates' death, or at least the accounts I've read, he talked his friends out of rescuing him from prison because he believed that he should be subject to Athens' decision since he chose to live there.
  10. ↑ Immanuel Kant built an a priori ethical framework around the notion of logical contradiction and the premise that an action could only be moral if that action would be moral for everyone at all times. So, for example, it would be immoral to steal because nothing can be stolen unless the concept of property exists, but if everyone were to steal at all times, then the concept of property ceases to exist. It would be immoral to lie because lying can't exist without the concept of communication, but if everyone were to lie at all times, then communication would cease to exist because its purpose (to foster understanding) would be lost. (Don't think of that second example like when kids play "Opposite Day" or like understanding Moonside in EarthBound; in most cases there's more than one way to lie. I could say the sky is pink, green, or yellow and that 1+3=8, 13, and B.)
  11. ↑ Interesting note: I've heard interpretations of the Ten Commandments that the commandment to not make graven images extends as far as not making drawings. The first time I encountered that, I thought of Plato, who would have either censored, controlled, or thrown out the arts in his ideal Republic because of the potentially deceitful power of art. Seen from twenty-first century lenses, these views can seem extreme, but I've always believed it's not my place to judge the past. Who can fully imagine the world of a hundred years ago? It's a world with no cell phones, much less iPhones or iPads. It's a world with no cultural icons, no Mickey Mouse or Mario or Superman--because there are no commercial televisions, no comic books, no anime, no manga, and no video games. Movies are in their infancy, arguably even a fetal stage. Authors use typewriters and there is no "backspace" key. Global travel is much less commonplace; after all, in this world the airplane has only existed for ten years. International trade is also less common for that reason--that and because the Internet hasn't destroyed various global barriers. A powerful weapon of war is mustard gas, not a nuclear bomb. On the other hand, it's a time when a global electromagnetic pulse wouldn't effectively shut down the world. Percentage-wise there is more church attendance (though I can't say whether there is more faith). It's a world where no one has gone into space; many may wonder if such a thing is possible. The refrigerator has only just been invented this year (1913) and is a long way from becoming widespread. The microwave won't exist for another three decades. As I write this in 2013, I consider the world of only one hundred years ago virtually incomprehensible from my perspective--because other than breathing and blinking, there might not be one thing I do on most days today that I would have done then. Even the way I eat and drink is different because of food storage. To judge the past is a fool's game unless we can understand it--and I question the extent to which we can.
  12. ↑ I'm not even going into the question of the "appeal to authority" fallacy, but it's there for the taking.
  13. ↑ I originally wrote "7 * 7", but couldn't pass up a chance to make a Bible reference. "Seventy times seven" was, from what I've read, a phrase used in biblical times to describe an unimaginable number--like how we'd say "I have a million things to get done today" without literally meaning a million. It was famously used when Peter asked whether he should forgive someone who sinned against him up to seven times and Jesus' answer was, essentially, every time. Some Bible translations render this as 77 ("seventy-seven times") instead of 490 ("seventy times seven"). When in doubt, I make like it's an anime and go back to the original languages of Hebrew and Koine Greek, but in this case they're actually no help--both are legitimate translations. Good thing that the literal number isn't the point anyway.
  14. ↑ This digression on experts and whether they can be recognized feeds into the earlier footnote about understanding cultures of the distant past too, of course.
Retrieved from "http://jellypaladin.com/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Questions_Raised_While_Worldbuilding_For_Video_Games&oldid=130"