Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dynaphus]

I was playing Liberal Crime Squad the other day, and while looking at "Nightmare mode" It hit me

This game could be the basing blocks for "1984" The game?

It would need to be worked on, The difficulty would Spike to a degree were it would make playing minesweeper blindfolded seem like child's play, and would be a LOT darker, But isn't that the Appeal of the Book?...Anyway tell me what you think...Would you want to see a "1984" the game?

To those who have never heard of it, Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the book

Nineteen Eighty-Four (sometimes written 1984) is a 1949 dystopian novel by George Orwell about a degenerated workers' state. The novel depicts an oligarchical, collectivist society where life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, and incessant public mind control. The individual is always subordinated to the masses, and it is in part this philosophy which allows the Party to manipulate and control humanity. In the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue, in Newspeak), protagonist Winston Smith is a civil servant responsible for perpetuating the Party's propaganda by revising historical records to render the Party omniscient and always correct, yet his meagre existence disillusions him to the point of seeking rebellion against Big Brother, eventually leading to his arrest, torture, and conversion.

If this got your attention, I would be happy to elaborate further.

[Sowelu]

Ah, but which *side* would you play as?

[cappstv]

Ah, but which *side* would you play as?

Both for epicness.

I also want a 1984 game. But I dont know if I would prefer a 1984 game or a Fahrenheit 451 game (Imagine playing a fireman.)

[Dynaphus]

The most fun of the two "And by fun, I mean suicidal" Would be the "Brotherhood" Recruiting for one would be much more difficult, If I could it would have a system to let you try to slowly influence their lives, but making you be careful, push them to much and they show signs of weakness, and a stint in the ministry of Love will both Ruin them, and your Good work

Though, If you WANTED to and had some ideas on how to play as the Ministry, I'm always intrested

[Virex]

Ah, but which *side* would you play as?

Both for epicness.

I also want a 1984 game. But I dont know if I would prefer a 1984 game or a Fahrenheit 451 game (Imagine playing a fireman.)

While we're at it, why not a Clockwork Orange game as well?


Anyway, the whole point of 1984 was that you don't win, wasn't it? Making it into a game implies some sort of win condition, which defeats the point.

[ed boy]

Nope. How would one 'win' DF?

[Dynaphus]

No, I can claim acuratley that there was a point, O'Brain admits their most likely IS a Brotherhood...And their VERY subtle at times, How about short tasks like having the tiniest fragment of the Ministry of Peaces Orders changed, causing them to Take a little land other then the most disputed parts, throwing the system of balence ever so slightly, and building from there....A trickle....Becomes a flood

Just to add to that, He said the Brotherhood might be ready in a few hundred years, How about the wait ends then?

[ed boy]

Just because he said that doesn't mean he's telling the truth.

[Dynaphus]

What did O'Brian have to loose at that point, Honestly, And it stands to reason that There would be something, It explains most of the negative force projected against Goldstein

[Eugenitor]

Fahrenheit 451's been done.

[Sowelu]

Remember, one of the assumptions that 1984 made was that all wars would be protracted campaigns with huge invasions and crippling land battles, no way to ever defeat your opponent.  That's why you had Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia (if I remember the names right) constantly bickering:  None of them could win, and the natural boundaries were such that invasions were impossible.

Of course, this was written before the nuclear bomb...

As the Ministry, if you played your cards exactly right, I could see developing enough tech/power that you *could* end the war by glassing the other countries.  Of course, you'd better make it utterly decisive, or you would quickly find yourself at war with two powers at once, not an ally in sight.

That's probably missing the point though, since playing as the Brotherhood is the obvious draw here.  Something like LCS would work--you have more disadvantages because your enemies are so omnipresent, but advantages because they might be distracted.  The farther away from the Party you work, the more openly you can operate (IE cells of more than like, two people one person), but on the other hand the Party can just drop a bomb on the proles whenever they want without fear of repercussion.

There's a few ways it could go.  You could go the Equilibrium or Hero route, where the defining endgame moment is a showdown with the head of the party (or by hijacking enough heavy ordinance and doing it remotely).  You could try and seize power, either as a party member or as a mass insurgency.  You could bring down the entire country leadership and open it up to conventional hostile takeover, allowing one of the other two countries to eventually take it over and then the whole world (and who says a one-world-government would be worse?).  Heck, Eurasia would surely be happy to supply your insurgency, even if you have always been allied with them.

The book was a shining example of a truly hopeless situation.  Would it be a betrayal to allow a win condition?

[Servant Corps]

I'd prefer a strategy game where you play as a Inner Party member running a chunk of Oceania, your goal being to survive, stay alive, and make sure that the war stays a stalemate, with no side winning or losing.

Of course, it's a dream, since Orwell's intellectual property is owned by his estate, so it'll be impossible to make that game without violating copyright laws.

[Pandarsenic]

While we're at it, why not a Clockwork Orange game as well?

<_<
>_>

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=66621

[Ampersand]

The point of 1984 is doublethink. Of course there was a Brotherhood, but the Brotherhood wasn't real. It exists, but controlled and subsidized by the Party, just like everything else. It serves the same purpose as the endless war with East Asia and Eurasia, if those countries even exist that is. An opponent to fight, but never defeat. Victory defeats the purpose of the wars in 1984, as it is the constant stat e of war and violence that feeds the propaganda machine, keeps people afraid and high off of the small victories.

[ductape]

I need to look it up, but I am pretty sure the book implies the the wars are "arranged". The opponent would change as needed and the newspapers and records and history books would all be re-written so the the new enemy was always the enemy.

The three nations would ebb and flow in and out of war with each other as need arose. War means destruction of surplus weapons and humans, so is profitable by causing room for more to be made/procreated. There comes a point where a nation is exhausted of it's surplus and need to back off into build-up phase. Once surplus is again reached the cycle begins again. This is a very productive cycle for a nation, we do it now to some degree and Orwell was commenting on that, I think.