that's actually rather exciting, China has produced some pretty entertaining propaganda (hero, anyone?)

I've always wanted to be able to inspire a sense of national identity and pride in a videogame, but its some what of a lofty goal. To succeed at all you would have to break down the barrier that the asshats who spend all day torturing villagers in morrowind build between themselves and their characters, and in this case, nation. The barrier is that someone who starts to play your game will have no loyalty to anything but himself. That mindset has to be put down before the player can build a relationship with his nation.

I think that the first mistake that could be made is to place the player in a position of considerable power over the people. Rulers are always the disillusioned, jaded, enlightened ones who pull the patriotic wool over the eyes of the people. Of course to make the game fun, the player has to be in some important position, right? Everyone knows that being a peasant sucks. I think that the best job for the player is the military hero that rallies the people to victory and leads them in battle. for one, fighting battles for the glory of the rodina is much more fun than managing agriculture. two, i tend to think that a general who is about to charge into battle believes in his nation and his men in a more real way than the beauracrat who sends the men into battle and death, often for less than honorable reasons.

The player, just like a real citizen, has to believe that his country is the "good" one. His only loyalty is to the motherland, and anything that the benevolent leader says is obviously true. The power that he is fighting against has to be portrayed as evil, barbaric rapists that want to destroy civilization. In George Orwell's nineteen eighty four, there are three world powers fighting for control of the world. The national loyalty of a citizen of Oceania is so perfect that the government can be at war with Eurasia, suddenly declare war on Eastasia and ally itself with Eurasia, and the populace barely notices the change. This is due to a certain amount of brainwashing, but also because of the universal truth: anyone who is at war with my homeland is evil.

I'm not saying that you have to brainwash your player to make him loyal to a virtual country, but it's important that the country he represents be a good, all powerful, infallible beacon of justice in a dark world, sort of how some people see America these days. The country can't be a grey area though. Your motherland has to be the light, the invading horde the dark. Any globalist overtones would certainly destroy any sense of national pride you may be able to create. Also I think that a classical time period would be most desirable, since in an information age society everyone is a cynic, and no cynic was ever a patriot. Except Socrates.

I seem to have over extended my self on this, I meant to just comment about hero and I wrote four paragraphs. Well, I hope this was at least interesting to you.

I'll be tackling this from a mmorpg standpoint.

In my experience, people actually caring about the future of their country/nation/whatever is rare. Mainly because these games focus on guilds and clans, not on a national aspect. I haven't played every mmorpg out there, but in Star Wars Galaxy, they eventually added player owned cities. This allowed cities to essentially grow from nowhere, and gain a sort of economic and political power, based on location, with few exceptions. For example, a city with venders and transportation near a good hunting spot was a better, more commonly used city than one located right next to a bigger npc city with everything you already need.

As for WOW, I have not played it, but I think the game has potential with the Alliance vs Horde theme and players waging a 'virtual war' against eachother to give players a sense of patriotism for their respective union.

I have been toying with the idea that, one reason most players in mmorpgs don't feel any patriotism, is because there is nothing they can form together and accomplish politically. To counter this, I think a mmorpg that placed a player within an existing political system, with the ability to join or form some type of political group that is able to affect the outcome of the world.

For example: In this example mmorpg there is a 'king' for the good alliance, and they are fighting the evil undead empire. A king is usually not all alone on the political tree, so to speak. There are high standing noble factions always fighting for power and favoritism with the king. So, perhaps you can have a noble house system, where you can establish a house to take on quests for the king. As you complete these 'noble' quests, your status with the king is raised for your faction. You will then be able to make requests of the king, dependant upon your status and compared to other factions. So, you might be able to receive military assistance from the king, or the king might hold a feast in your honor, spreading around to the npc and player characters your house name, and so on. Basically: Get the player involved in an already established political system, rather than sticking a bunch of players together and letting them form their own.

So, if you read through all that rambling, I salute you. Just some random thoughts about this topic. I believe the mmorpg genre has yet to really crack into this part of the community, but when they finally figure it out, I think it will be something to watch.

Well... you must have in mind that RPG is all about freedom of play. So forcing the player to care to their country is the wrong thing to do. So you must convince they someway to do that. And, of course, it is impossible to convince everyone. Unless you force them.

Some ranking system and propaganda could help a little. But i think the best way is run a country like a clan. That means, as sven said, to give the country to players hands. You could even put sites run by players to the country. I dont fell the need to make a political system (it would be cool :) ), but the country must have a game feel as if it was theirs, so they'd care about it.

Other thing you must have in mind is the sense of achievement. Without that, hardly they-re willing to lose their precious time being an errant for their country, even if he likes his country. So they must win or have something if their country be sucessfull.

One idea is making new services available to the country only for their citizen, low prices, new itens etc...
Other idea is semanal payment to all citizens based on the country's sucess.
Another one is you make the county expand its land influence, and give some tangible advantage to the player in each part of his land, just for them. (shop, hiremen, full map view, a train, etc...).

Well, in FFXI, when you fight and gain xp in a given region, you earn conquest points for your country. Periodically, the conquest points are tallied and the country with the highest conquest points get control of the region. Gaining control of the region gives you several advantages, if you are from the country with control. Specific goods from the region will be available in your country, you get certain travelling related privileges, not to mention some armor that add certain stats when you are in regions under your country's control.

Gaining xp in a region isn't just the only way to help your country gain control of a region, but you can also take on special expeditionary force missions where you can only have party members from your country joining. Of course, when all countries do horribly in a region, the beastmen gain control, which is no good for anyone.

So, the economic impact of region control creates an indirect sense of patriotism, not to mention boasting rights when your country is ranked #1 after a tally. Oh yeah, country ranking also affects the types of "free" (sort of) armor/weapon available to you at your home country.

So, I guess that's one motivation for being patriotic.

Quote:Original post by Wavinator
What would it take to inspire your loyalty to a fictional nation-state?

I was thinking that, given the gameplay you're planning for your game, part of this might be already solved. If the player has some investment in this state, mainly in terms of NPC relations, it will probably inspire him/her to protect it. If he lets it be nuked and flees to another town, all of his contacts and comrades that might otherwise help him in difficult situations will be lost.

I think it should be done a different way. You are all thinking in real-life terms: as though the one were getting to form an attachment to the governmant in queastion were a real human being: the PC. This is a perfectly valid approach, and the one I would ahave chosen, if you hadn't beat me to it:) Also, I've never played republic.

The one we're trying to get to form a connection with the government is the player; so by looking at other games that accomplish this, we might be able to do it. Civ II was a beutiful game, and still is. basically, this is the ultimate exmple of what I'm talking about, because the pc IS the government, so of course the standard player/pc relationship develops.

Perhaps there's a way to emulate this without becoming another civ. basically, you set up a simulation where you have multiple governments, and they have normal, straight-from-a-history-book, types of intergovernmental relationships. It need not be nearly as complex as a civ clone, but it should be believable by the player. This is made easier by the fact that the player is a single being, whose perspective of the government is a little more obfuscated than in civ anyway, so just enough to make it believeable(sp.).

On top of the civ layer, is the pc, who interacts with one of the goverments in whatever capacity is appropiate for the type of game(politician, soldier of fortune, explorer, spy...). On top of the pc, is of course the UI, and of course, the player. The trick then is to make the government an important part of the pc's everyday life, kind of like a second arsenal. in Knights of the old republic, there were force powers, in your game, you have your relationship with the government. Of course, the relationship with the government takes quite a bit more managing than force powers!

Simply put: if the government is an extension of the pc, and the player cares about the pc, then the player will care about the government too, to some extent.

Edit: sorry about the double post. pforgot to log in :P

It all depends on what benefits the player most in the context of the game. The government, being huge and multifaceted, can usually be adapted to whatever kind of game it is. if your a great military leader, you get trust from the ruler of the nation, and more say in how it's run. More strategic freedom. More assets. Wierd new technologies. If the decisions you make are good ones, resulting in more coolnesses that benefit the government(more control over the people if they are communist, more control over other nations if they are capitalist). in the case of an oppressive communist regime, you could help the regime, but always you would have to deal with stupid decisions by people higher up. There would never be the absolute trust that you could get from helping the resistance movement. In helping the resistance, you get the help of the people, but less absolute obedience. in a mission for the resistance, if you are a well known hero(lot's of trust), there's a higher chance that J. Random Dude on the street will whip out a gun and blow somebody away at an opportune moment, but working for the regime, J. Random is more likely to attack you.

Basically it can be represented as a system of coefficents: with the regime, you have a lower trust coeficient, it's harder to get trust and position, but more loyalty(because of big brother). You also get a morale duality with this: The regime's troops are more likely to do just enough to get by, but they are not likely to be dispirited, becuase they have the whole might of a nation behind them ,and they don't know how powerful the resistance really is(propaganda).
In the resistance, you get higher trust, but the sort of people who are likely to be in a resistnce are going to be more likely to do things thier own way. You get more people who are likely to go above and beyond the call of duty, but they are uncertain about thier position, because they are going against the whole might of a nation.
Working for a capitalist government, or military, achievements correlate directly into benefits, but trust can be built up with individual offices, and it's possible to go against the grain openly without getting shot.

That sort Of thing. I've tried to make it as general as possible, because i don't know waht kind of game you are doing. Good luck!!