Game's nonviolent conflict "A Force More Powerful"?
by Dan Choi 
{ Oct 28th 2005 at 5:43AM }
Can a game teach the strategy of nonviolent conflict? That's what a former student-resistance group founder (who
helped topple Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic from power) and a developer known for its serious games
(for doctors and the military) are aiming to release in early 2006.
A Force More Powerful is intended to help "human rights activists to organize pro-democracy movements" around
the world, but there may be something of value in Force even to the typical Blizzard strategy buff, as players
engage in "scenarios [such as Gandhi's struggle for Indian independence or the civil rights movement in the American
South]… to demonstrate the effectiveness of nontraditional 'weapons' such as strikes, boycotts, and mass protests."
[Note: AFMP is a turn-based game.]
Thank goodness for another game that celebrates nonviolence. If popular with traditional strategy buffs, the title
might even bring new meaning to the RTS phrase "rally point." Visit the
developer's web site for a 62MB video of interviews and a full version of the screenshot above.
[via Wired News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
stupid idea @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
"to demonstrate the effectiveness of nontraditional weapons such as strikes, boycotts, and mass protests"
"the zerg are boycotting!! go on strike, quick, before the terrans protest!!"
R @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Yet another blog with this story, yet another post by some ignorant gamer who's only interested in a game if it involves mass destruction!
The "violence is the only answer" creed of video games is really starting to bug this gamer. I could also actually see this game being a very interesting take on the RTS genre.
BlackYoshi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
"Civil disobedience is still disobedience"- Maddox.
Rob X @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
So it's like America's Army for Serbian political organizations?
Bah @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
"Yet another blog with this story, yet another post by some ignorant gamer who's only interested in a game if it involves mass destruction!"
Oh please! Get off your high horse for a second. There is no need to go around insulting people. We buy games primarily to entertain ourselves. The political agenda that motivated this game might be respectable but for this to turn into good gameplay is very unlikely and we all know it. Just consider how little gameplay was actually on show in the video.
LaughingTarget @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
You know, this is a damned good idea. I would love to get my hands on this one. It is a fresh new idea for a RTS and if done right, can have some damned good play mechanics.
Alan in Boston @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
...quick, move your protesters dressed in turtle costumes to block the path of the diplomat's motorcade...oh no!, riot police, use your "slogan power" to get the media's attention!
This is well intentioned but should make for boring leftist gameplay.
ill trooper @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
This could be awesome if they added guns.
Just kidding!
Sounds interesting, although the concepts and reactions in a real-life passive movement seem difficult to honestly and convincingly represent in a video game.
If the engine was dynamic enough, with all sorts of common factors that the game could use to set up a situation, they could have current events as quick downloads, to see what other methods of diplomacy might work. They mention that the engine is open enough that you can create your own.
Honestly, I don't see a LOT of gamers getting into this, but rather the often-heralded 'non-gamer' that games like Nintendogs, et al, are supposed to be attracting.
I love the way the interface looks, and a good name. Could be a good one for a portable.
Cool that someone might be making a new genre: The "FPH," or "First Person Hunger-striker."
traumzustand @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
The reason many play games is to escape reality, or to be able to do things that you can't do in real life. I don't see the point to calling this a game. At most it should be called a simulation.