In search of the truth, I set my sights on the RTS genre, to find out just exactly what was lurking beneath it's exterior!
© Copyright 2007 Paul Davis, All Rights Reserved.
What's wrong with this picture?
There's games out there, that teach us in a very efficient way, to devour all the natural resources, destroy the environment, use those resources to build more killing devices, and when all the resources have gone, to move onto a new area and repeat the process.
Just what is this game?, the RTS...
Since when was destroying our environment fun?
To give a brief history of the Real Time Strategy genre, it's essentially a game called a 'resource manager', you generally mine 'gold' or 'oil' or other non-renewables in order to build an army to destroy the 'enemy' who is doing the same, so essentially whoever rapes the earth first wins. I'm not kidding.
Could these games be any more one-sided?, why not make an RTS that atleast gives the option of using renewable energy sources, one that offers the possibilty of working with the enemy for a greater goal. Since when did destroying the earth and killing people become fun?
I believe that in our democratic society games should show both sides equally, and give people the choice of free will, a game should try to emulate life situations as closely as possible, so that people can play that RTS game and realize themselves, that destroying the environment and killing the enemy is a lose-lose scenario, and through trial and error they could learn that renewable resources is indeed the better strategy.
A game where nuking the enemy polutes the whole battlefield killing your own men as well. And what could be more powerful or realistic than that, a situation would arise where neither side could attack due to the nuclear bomb threat, just like in real life, and the players would be forced to think, to come up with better solutions, don't we atleast owe that to the players, and ourselves?
After all what kind of a strategy game is it, when the only strategy is death...