cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/51946282
I am aware there must be exceptions but they must be incredibly few and far between as I can't name one nor anyone I know.
Even Stardew Valley reaches a point where you need to occupy space with all sort of machines and contraptions in order to win the game, so I can't name it as a candidate.
The easiest argument for this is that such a game would be boring. But unless one gets created, we'll never know.
I have a board game where you have to plant a forest and create the conditions to rebuild the ecosystem, while preventing forest fires. It is complex and requires strategy.
I could see something along the lines like this in a computer game, with added challenges.
In my hobby of writting, I make an effort to insert ideas like this. I'm so tired of enshrined violence and destruction of all kinds.
It's easy to view destruction. Disaster movies make excellent pop corn eating time. But when the monsters get killed or go away, the action ends and heroes won someone has to pick up the pieces. And that is a lot more complex afair.
3 Comments
9point6@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
How are forest fires not destruction?
That might help me figure out where your line is, because there are plenty of games out there without even that level of "destruction". Think cozycore indie games, various management sims, abstract puzzle games, dialog-driven adventures, I could go on
KokusnussRitter@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 3d
Terra Nil comes to mind. But I understand the broad argument and would like to add to it. I think you are right on why destruction is very popular in games, but I think there is another reason for it. My thoughts are as follows: I think there are two types of violence you described. Violence as in physical violence, combat, war. And Violence as in destruction of nature to achieve non-combat driven goals, as in the removal of trees to build a house and occupy/urbanise space. The first is avoidable, the latter -in my opinion- is not. All live changes their habitat. Whether it's a predator killing prey, a beaver building a damn, or humans building a house. This is why I believe destruction is pretty common in games, it is rarely reflected upon and fully accepted as necessity.
qyron@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 3d
It is a good aproximation. I like that concept. Maybe one day I can play it.
Regarding eco systems. It is one thing to adapt it or alter to better suit us; many animals do so as well. But that is not my point.
We are the only life form that goes beyond necessity to enter into exploitation and active, willing, knowing destruction.
In my mind I go back to the bell curve meme. Early on, Nature controls everything. In the middle of curve, there is the need to control Nature. At the exit, it is enough to be part of it.
Most games put everything as an enemy. The solution is destruction. But there is no concern with the aftermath.
There is a game I often revisit (Silent Storm Sentinels) where destruction is the objective but there are consequences if it goes unchecked. Civilian deaths have to be compensated, as well as team mates. It's small but creates a sense that there is something happening after.
There is no sense of consequence in the general entertainment media culture nowadays, in my understanding. And that is a lacking. A very large one. Entertainment where that is addressed should have more space and reach.