Thank you for your thought-provoking essay. A few month ago, I rented a server to really commit some time to Factorio among friends, and by our third map, I was actively researching and engaging the player relationship with the biters at a purely mechanical level, to such an extent that it raised interesting points I didn't hear/see explored in your excellent video. I will also remark that while you give commentary on the bugs' disgusting (or not) aesthetic, you say nothing of the bar-none HIDEOUS depiction of the player's constructs. Everything is rusty, Kludged-together, leaky-looking - crudely subsistent. Smoke chugs and spews, raw voltage crackles, byproducts back up (and I imagine them stinking). I absolutely noticed and winced at the crimes against beauty I committed with every addition to my factories, and I thought it was a very nice touch from WUBE. "The factory must grow" is not a proud slogan in my mind - it's a confession, an excuse. Regarding bugs, as the active agents of inertia in Factorio, forefront of my mind is that the player is not the only parasite on Nauvis - the biters are also parasites on the player, or at least, on the player's pollution. I've seen some interesting headcanon conversations in various places as to how, exactly, the biters evolve in response to the players' pollution. Is the pollution food for the biters? Or is it an irritant? Is it a selective pressure? In any case, how can the bugs then be seen as any more "natural" than the player? One craves to produce pollution, the other craves to consume it. It turns out that a certain variety of negotiation is possible. I was able to explore these questions via mechanics, which intended or not, is frankly amazing design. While on our first two maps, I focused on speed and production modules for my hideous machinery, on our third map, I leaned heavily into efficiency modules. I didn't want to need to bother as much with fending off the locals. I opted to deforest as little as necessary. But it was when I looked into bug evolution and pollution mechanics that I realized that bug nests are actually the most efficient pollution solutions in the game. So I started building "zoos" of walls and light turret infrastructure around the outlying nests; the optimal strategy was actually to keep the bugs alive, but contained. Before long I could tangibly observe huge dents in my red cloud around these conservation zones. The enemy became a friend. What I still can't stop asking myself is, are my zoo bugs happy? Or really, really angry?
I've been following the development of this game for the better part of the last decade, and my observations are as follows: This game is a rare example of an indie game that not only asks "what if the 90s never ended?" but actually follows through with the premise and delivers in every way possible. It's bold, gritty and overwhelming, and it doesn't give a damn about anything. You could craft the best arguments for and against what's on display, but when you ask the developers, all they're gonna do is shrug and say "we just did what's cool to us" and that's the honest truth of it. Initially, the natives weren't bugs, but naked humanoids living in literal mudhuts. Look up the 2013 trailer to see this version of them. Kind of puts an entirely different spin on things, and I don't think any of the developers really cared too much. Whatever, here you go, it's bugs now, feel less bad about killing them, yes? Somewhat late into development, they hired a prominent OpenTTD modder to do graphics for them, the creator of the very silly NUTS set with googly-eyed snail trains. I still don't know what he meant by making the bugs "cute". It seems like the cuteness was lost on you too lmao. At one point, it was briefly considered that you could form a peace pact with the natives, however the idea was dropped for various reasons, but I don't think "hurting the core message" was one of them. It was mostly because, ironically, the whole enemy mechanic was already looking to be more of a side feature and it was decided that a "peaceful mode" would fit the bill fine enough in lieu of focusing on more automation-related things. As for the goal of freeplay, this changed a bunch, too. Initially, the goal was to build rocket artillery, a kind of superweapon that would act as a "final solution" to bugs of sorts and allow colonists a safe landing on the planet. This was eventually changed to the current space rocket launch, however the plan wasn't infinite research through space science at all - it was indeed supposed to be an escape vehicle. There is still holdover code from this, and it can be activated via easter egg - insert an enterable vehicle into the rocket instead of a satellite (such as a car or a locomotive), and then enter the rocket silo to "ride the rocket" offscreen as you would in the old intended ending. In fact, after this there was a whole another endgame planned, where you would build a spaceship in orbit out of space platform tiles and use that to reach your home planet (the Space Exploration mod somewhat restores a semblance of this, again utilizing unused space code). The whole reason space science is a thing instead is because megabasers wanted a reason to play after the rocket launch, and the scope was already considered too great (the game took 8 years to make). All of this is not to say the game has absolutely nothing to say or that all messaging in it is accidental (nuclear being perfectly green and safe feels very intended), it just doesn't intentionally focus on a strong message all too much and I wouldn't feel comfortable putting much stock in what it does say knowing all the behind the scenes stuff. "It's kinda neat that it wound up like this, you go down on this planet and destroy everything for the natives, they want to kill you but maybe you're the bad guy here?" is a quick, off-the-cuff paraphrased quote from one of the interviews with the lead developer, and I think that pretty much sums up the game's laissez-faire attitude perfectly. It features environmental destruction because it's gritty and cool and melting bugs with flamethrowers never gets old (except when it does, that's when you build up artillery to automate the process). All in all, yeah, the comparison with the Starship Troopers book is on the money. In my view Infinifactory is infinibetter with its messaging. The whale level was disturbing *because* up until that point, resources were established as practically infinite and infungible, with their continued spawning into the level via teleportation from some far-off site being a minor lore detail, a handwave. Then suddenly, the teleporter starts spitting *whales*, arguably one of the most potent symbols of environmentalism, and has you treat them exactly the same as you had spaceship wrecks several levels prior. This is genuinely heartbreaking - and clearly intentionally so. And sure enough, when Zach pitched the level at the office, people were disturbed just hearing about it. When I build a wall to protect from hordes of giant alien bugs, it's a bit too on the nose to take seriously, but the whale level will haunt me forever. Consider that Factorio doesn't even have a story campaign or levels. It was to have one, but it was scrapped it for various reasons, and I'd argue these devs never did have a story to tell in the first place. What they have instead is a cool game that doesn't need a narrative or coherent messaging to top the charts, which is as impressive as it is old-school.
Wow, what a terrific comment! Thank you very much for all of that context; I'm particularly interested to hear about the incremental development of Factorio’s insect enemies from humanoids. At the end of the day, though, to insist that what the author did or did not intend to say constitutes the meaning of a work is to get trapped in the intentional fallacy. The work that was released in 2020 as the ‘substantially final’ version of Factorio is the work that is under study, and whatever impressions and concepts that work imparts to the player constitute its meaning. The ‘early access’ program can definitely flavor someone’s opinion of a game, both the experience of the game and the interpretation of the game. But in the broader consideration of games, films, and novels---one usually only gets access to the ‘substantially final’ version of a project. At any rate, you and I are in strong agreement on two points: that Factorio is cool and fun, and that Infinifactory is a work of art ( thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and-articles/infinifactory-zachtronics-games-as-art/ ).
As someone who's played Factorio since the original trailer came out, this video strikes a chord with me and I think it help nail down an observation. I can appreciate a game where I'm the villain in an environmentalist work, but there really isn't enough agency involved in that role to sell the theme beyond occasional observations of "wow, that sure is a messed up thing I'm doing." Ultimately, in moments like this, I can't help but feel that Factorio is at times marred by its purity and commitment to its core gameplay, because the very focus that allows it to be so highly polished also limits its ability to explore themes and aesthetics beyond that refined core. There's always the question of what could be, what could it explore, if there were just that little bit more cruft?
@@bthomson In this case, unneeded design elements. Bits of gameplay mechanics, units, items, or buildings that aren't strictly necessary, but which add variety. It's been a couple years since I last thought on this, but a mechanic fitting in to environmental degradation for instance wouldn't be strictly necessary towards the "factory game" side of things but would allow for presenting a different set of themes.
This was a very good video summing up my scattered observations while playing the game. I think what the devs tried to do was include some of the environmental impact elements to nudge the player into maybe noticing and possibly exploring those topics while not reorienting the game onto that theme. Factorio is a factory game, not am environmental one, and thus I think they basically knowledged the environmental impact side but didn't change the core gameplay just to make it justice.
I wouldn't say enemies were specifically made disgusting. Developers wrote several bogposts (called FFF) discussing their decisions. They tried to make them look alien to us, but not overly disgusting. Their latest redesign I think striking this balance perfectly. Just look at the biters - their big eyes make them look so cute :3
It's a fair point. While I personally think their designs still ended up fairly disgusting (regardless of the aims behind them), it was inaccurate of me to use the word "intentionally" at that point in the video. Thank you for your comment.
@@TheGemsbok No problem, I personally think that at least spawners look disgusting too. Great video btw! Read FFF-268 if you are interested in devs though process
I love Factorio but your analysis is right. However I struggle to find a way a factory game could have an environmental message, by the very nature of the genre. It feels like the best you could do is either ignore it completely (all the examples at the beginning of your video) or go for "you're definitely the bad guy, but go have fun" like Factorio. Like, I don't think adding a diplomacy or trading system with the biters would really work. But what could work? I feel like there's some cool unexplored design ideas there but I can't find them.
I've thought a lot about that while working on this project: What would a truly forward-looking version of Factorio look like? I think there are many ways this could be done. Here are five options off the top of my head: (1) cast the player-character as an engineer designing more efficient and less-damaging cities and factories to replace existing facilities, rather than creating them where none previously existed; (2) provide a setting that involves genuine moral dilemmas, where the other inhabitants of a space are not designed as despicable and/or where something like survival or escape are ever-present factors; (3) thematically enforce that the player-character has no choice in the matter, as in Infinifactory; (4) create an entirely abstract or entirely fantastical setting that is free from the complications of consumption in reality, as in Shapez; or (5) design the game as involving the creation of 'organic' factories (using pseudo-biology analogous to the pseudo-scientific theming present in Spacechem, Opus Magnum, and Tricone Lab) where the player-character is a creature attempting to gain a foothold in their own ecosystem. The general trend is: remove the colonialist theming, enmesh the player-character in a more cohesive environment/ecosystem, and/or present the player with both difficult decisions and true alternatives.
@@TheGemsbok Love hearing your thoughts! About #5, I thought myself about inverting the theme of Factorio, for instance having you be some kind of Ent crash-landing on a robot planet. But even if you "plant" your factories, the theme would still be about changing the environment to suit your needs. I think you hit it on the nail saying "remove the colonialist theming". Maybe having you be the DEFENDER against an invader would really help out with the theme. I'm thinking of the board game Spirit Island as a good example of that.
Yeah, my first instinct was just to somehow play as the bugs instead. But I had a hard time imagining how to do that while keeping the factory gameplay, when it seems like that would naturally morph the work into an RTS or even tower defense title instead. And your analysis of that hypothetical ‘ent game’ is spot-on. As much as it might appeal to short-sighted back-to-nature thinking, I don’t see an ent ruthlessly clearing out human civilizations as being any more just than a human ruthlessly clearing out ent civilizations. That’s why #5 would have to be a situation where the player-character is a creature within their own environment---like if you were playing a version of Pikmin where the leader is also a pikmin, rather than Olimar.
Honestly, when it comes to making a Factorio-style game with environmentalist themes, I think it could be done with just two ingredients. First, have a dynamic where the player always has a choice in their progression. They can either choose to ignore ecology, which will consistently hurt them in the long run, but have short-term benefits, even if just "it's faster," or they can go green, which will consistently take more setup and consideration/etc, but pay dividends in the long run The second step, then, is very simple. Competitive multiplayer, likely in the vein of Offworld Trading Company. Players shouldn't be blowing each other up or significantly setting each other back, (They can even be incentivized to work together a bit) but they _should_ be in competition to reach a certain goal first. The key is that, if that goal is short-term enough, they're suddenly incentivized to ignore all the damage the non-ecological route does to them because all that is now an externality. They're either not impacting themselves in time to matter, they're hitting everyone equally so it doesn't matter, or they otherwise just can't afford to care, because if they do all their opponents will get ahead of them before any difference it makes can matter. I think right then and there you have a powerful message about how environmentalism plays into competition. And it's one you can tweak just by having different modes of play and win conditions. Co-op multiplayer mode? All that player-driven anti-environmental pressure naturally disappears. Longer game mode? A more long-term focus could be made to mean that more of what players have done will catch up with them, and those that go green could have an advantage because of it in time to matter. Summing it all up, putting environmentalism in a game like Factorio strikes me as being about looking at what drives environmentalism, and just as importantly it's opposite, in the real world, and then finding ways to incorporate those dynamics into the choice players make during gameplay.
That sounds like a great design. The material in your first paragraph is strikingly reminiscent of the main choice in Stardew Valley (between the fast/resource-efficient Joja Mart route and the slow/resource-diverse Community Center route). Having not played Offworld Trading Company, the material in your second paragraph sounds very intriguing to me. I'm always interested in games that find ways to make meaningful multiplayer interactions, as multiplayer gaming is overwhelmingly dominated by sport-like works with minimal thematic content.
For some reason I thought the first rocket was always to run away to your own planet, carry the player to safety. Guess that's probably changed somewhere during the beta :( but it'll always be my headcannon. :\ . You can have your own little challenge to do it as cleanly as possible/reasonable, and without you to support it everything should get recycled back by the biters, yeah.
Yeah that idea changed during development. Before this ending, plans were to build a ship out of components with working machinery inside, defenses for asteroids, etc etc. Then end the game by safely flying the ship home.
I have to agree that one plays as the villain. That much is clear once you see the visible effects (dying trees, polluted water) of your factory, when it's more than merely a red cloud in a specific map-setting. And when I first saw that we could build hand-held nuke launchers and spider-bots, well... couldn't be more obvious to me. But that's part of what makes the game compelling. Sometimes it is enjoyable to play as the villain. Now, perhaps it depends a lot on what an individual brings to the game with them, though. Perhaps a person of a different base ideology would not perceive these - to me - obvious signs of villainy as such and simply accept what you do in the game as natural and non-problematic. I'd say the fault is with the person in question then, though. In Factorio, you basically play as a Captain Planet villain and if you don't realize that while you play it... then what is going on with you, I wonder.
An interesting analysis. And as an interesting extension to the how you noted humanity has always changed the environment. One could expand that statement by saying life has always changed the environment. From the bacteria wearing rocks away from resources, coloring the seas, turning the atmosphere oxygen rich and killing almost everyone, etc; to the lichen covered surfaces, to the forests, to the elephants tearing down trees, and so much more. And with a world fully inhabited, the only way to gain more space and resources to an extent is at the expense of others. In this light the rise of human civilization is just the rise of yet another organism, which has found a way to dominate most of the others on the planet and so grabbed a very large slice of the world. But what does that actually mean in a sense? And what is right? Just because all that which came before did so as well, doesn't mean this cycle must be repeated for all eternity. Perhaps some kind of resolution could be found where the conflicts for resources could be ended and an equitable sharing of resources could be achieved. Though if one does look at it in such a light, it seems like there may be a very long road ahead of problems to resolve. Not just with humanity, but for life in general even. A solution where it no longer constantly fights itself for every scrap.
I wouldn't agree that all organism's future lies with the destruction of their environment. If it true that a common strategy for a organisms own survival is to limit another's, but another common one is in the opposite of that, in mutualism. Wouldn't one agree that when life spread from the earths oceans to the surface, the surface environment wasn't destroyed. The organisms that came before laid way for the next ones to come, to turn the barren stone into dirt. The places where there is most biodiversity are the richest with productivity, not the opposite. The deserts are deserts because of the absence of life not because of the appearance of it. Even our own bodies are the product of life supporting itself, from bacteria in our gut helping in digestion to the mitochondria in our cells being the reason we can harness energy at all.
If you go by the dollar an hours rule it’ll pay for itself in a few days I don’t even know how much it costs and Im Still saying I’ll pay for itself in a few days I played it before the nuclear power was a thing and next thing I know I had 80 hours in it
Dang this is a really in depth analysis... I guess not playing the game is the only way to save the fictional planet. I'm an environmental superhero! *rewards self with steak and bottled water*
Fun fact: landfill used to look like natural tiles. Now it's just a disgusting brown mass, some industrial filler that certainly is not a part of nature. That change was the only time I had an ecological thought while playing tbh. Besides the gameplay related thought of managing pollution to reduce the native's attacks. Or naturally gravitating to nuclear for its low pollution impact and footprint which keeps a hell of a lot more trees around than solar
Ah, interesting! And hence the dilemma that informs this video. It would have been *less* work for Wube to stick with the original ground texture for the fill mechanic. Many elements of design in Factorio are like that, going out of their way to show or even discourage ecological damage. Yet, for all that, as you've also noticed, reducing ecological damage remains very far from being the primary focus of the game or gameplay (and is in fact frequently disincentivized or ignored). Thank you for your comment.
Actually, in its current form, it's surprisingly easy (though time-consuming) to get into---due to a very thorough tutorial, and an in-game library of tips.
"it is precisely because factorio does so much to emphasise the topics of resource scaricity and polution that its weaknesses in the realm of environmentalism shines so brightly" oh please. As a 3000 hour fan of the game I can tell you this: making mother nature my BITCH is exactly the point of this game. trees are the #1 enemy and the indigenous life shall fall to my nuclear artillery as my thirst for ever more iron shall consume this planet as it will the next. THE FACTORY MUST GROW
Resources are finite. Acquiring and processing resources causes pollution. Pollution brings biters, slowly kills neighboring forests, kills fish, turns water green. Trees reduce pollution. Those facts exist in Factorio alongside the many factors that have led you to feel that way toward its planet. Hence the existence of this video.
@@TheGemsbok yes resources are finite. But so is the xenos. And when every piece of ore has been stripped away from the cosmos and lovingly smashed into the shape of that which stole it away, and when the dust of what's left of the xenos settles on my machine empire, I can finally proclaim that the factory is Complete. And I will say onto whatever Gods observe creation: "Look upon my works ye mighty, and despair."
Hahaha. Yeah . . . well, if they can manage to convince humanity to abandon industrialization, then, uh, more power to them. Wilderness would benefit. But I'm deeply skeptical of that being a feasible route toward progress. And in the meantime (as Hiltner argues), a disproportionate amount of environmentalist effort is being spent while ignoring the ways and places that people actually work and live daily.
I think you hit the nail on the head with a lot of things in this video. I've been looking for a criticism of the "resource acquisition genre" of games. however, i dont like your point at 9:58 of humanity being inherently ecologically destructive. I also dont like this ken hiltner quote how it implies no indigenous societies have had a productive relationship with their environment. although humans everywhere have certainly shaped their ecological communities, given they have been established in their region for generations, human societies have lived sustainably for tens of thousands of years. Many indigenous cultures hold intense acknowledgement of their impact on their land and great respect for it as the land is their livelihood, culture, religion, etc. Viewing humans as completely separate from nature and not a part of our own ecosystem is kind of a uniquely western perspective. point is, I think its not useful to view humanity's relationship with nature as one where we are comepletely separate from it. you might already understand this divide in blame for human environmental devastation, but not acknowledging it makes it sound like humans are just inherently incapable of a healthy ecological relationship. i think it also makes a stronger point to acknowledge the awkward disconnect between humans and nature in resource acquisition games as a whole(some more than others) especially in factorio when it accustoms players to environmental destruction. but like, i didnt go read the [...] parts of the quote so you tell me if he mentions this or not. um anyway good video i love seeing environmentalist perspectives in video games.
Of course it does! This video wouldn't exist if it didn't. That's why the opening line of the video is, "Any analysis of the relationship between the player-character and their environment in Factorio must begin with an acknowledgement that Factorio is a game that does considerably more to accurately depict the environmental impact of human industrial development than the vast majority of its peers in the simulation, management, strategy, and puzzle genres."
@@TheGemsbok yes but i suppose my point is what is players motivation if not leaving the planet itself? And it isnt. When you launch the first rocket you still go on. The players motivation is achieving perfection.
The player's motivation is achieving perfection *at consumption. Although, like almost all perfections, it is impossible to reach---as long as they stay motivated players will forever convert greater and greater quantities of the depicted inputs into the depicted outputs. Factorio is a very enjoyable game to play, but that enjoyment does not preclude us from considering what its systems might have to say.
Just because it doesn't promote the good doesn't automatically make the environmentalism a backdrop, plenty of creations promoting environmentalism only show the negative side without actually saying anything on how to help. it doesn't need to be anything more than a mirror to send the message. the game is keeping you from being environmentally conscious on purpose not out of a disinterest of making the environment more than a backdrop. It steers you towards bad guy because humanity is the bad guy. Any small efforts in game to be better towards the environment only come about through incentives because that is how humanity has been through its history, why would the game incentivize anything more than what it already has. Environmentalism has taken hold only recently, in part for a love of nature but largely because we know now if we don't change our ways we will only have harmed ourselves. Short term gain was prioritized because we had no need to worry about the long term because of how limitless the earth seemed. It is the same in Factorio; resources are finite in the moment but it always seems like there's more on the horizon. Factorio is not a game showing humanity in the present but just in the past. Of course harming the environment for your own gain is incentivized, it was incentivized for us in the past too. You have lots of good points but ultimately I feel like once you look at the things you say go against it in a smaller scope they instead become things going for it. This game's first priority isn't about the message its about gameplay so the message won't be the full thing. But it still is a priority which is why they opt to show obvious signs of wrecking the place. I think though we are both reading too deeply for the sake of analysis into what is just a fun game trying to add some atmosphere and could honestly go either way just based on perspective
Thank you for the thorough comment! But I think your assessment is missing the fact that the incentives and constraints in the game do not universally approximate reality. It’s true that the game shows how industrial production can feed into itself exponentially, provide faster processes and transportation, deplete resources, and pollute the environment. These are indeed reflections of reality. But it also paints industrial-style exploitation of the environment as unavoidable, extensive violence against wildlife as both necessary and justified, and enticing futuristic tech like construction drones and spidertrons as guaranteed outcomes of further development. These are not reflections of reality (past, present, or future). In effect, this mixture of productive realism and misleading fiction in the game is precisely the balance that informs the thesis of this video. I would also push back on the notion that harming the environment in the game is for the player or player-character’s “gain.” While it is incentivized in a ludic sense, it is not shown to provide extrinsic benefits to the player-character---only an increase to the expediency of the construction and consumption itself. As covered in the second section of the video, there are no conventional survival mechanics in the game, and there is no ordinary way to escape the planet. Ultimately, when you say “This game’s first priority isn’t about the message its about gameplay so the message won’t be the full thing,” you’re rephrasing the exact concluding notion of the video: that any ‘message’ the game may have (including its arguable environmentalist theming) is indeed a backdrop or background rather than a focus.
I always try to play a as "vegan" as possible playstyle in games but games often integrate violence and resource acquisition through violent means as a core gameplay loop. Even in animal crossing the player (and possibly the NPCs) destroys the environment and takes resources in the name of town beautification, or boredom. 😂 Great video essay dude
I stopped playing this game because Kovarex, who is the lead designer of the game and owner of Wube, is an alt-right tool, who has no issue using the platform of his company to shill his dangerous worldviews. What's kept me away since, though, is the distaste I've gradually held more and more towards the core themes, or maybe lack of themes, around the game. I can't casually look away at environmental destruction, even simulated, anymore, given the state of our world today.
factorio is more interested in being a game than a perfect environmental allegory, which i can't blame it for. the last thing a player needs to be thinking about while figuring out the logistics of a train system is how they're going to sleep at night knowing they're exterminating thousands of innocent natives for simply being in the way.
It is, however, precisely because Factorio does so much more to represent the environmental consequences of development than just about any similar title---that players may find themselves thinking about these topics. The game's intricate logistical distractions from its own theming are some of the exact circumstances that make it worthwhile to consider in an 'allegorical' sense.
I know it goes against the spirit of this channel to some extent, but I really think the point of Factorio *isn't* to address this question in either way, it's a game about wish fulfillment - to allow us to engage in that innate human desire and urge to exploit our surroundings. In short, Factorio is a game about having fun - like the central premise of Unreal Tournament, which provides only a flimsy justification above the fact that the game is, above all else, a glorification and indulgement of the human desire to engage in combat and inflict extreme violence upon their enemies. If Factorio took environmentalism seriously it would not be a good game, period. I can look out at the real world to start worrying about environmentalism. In a game I want to indulge in the passion of building an empire *without* needing to worry about environmentalism. Indeed, in a way, having environmental concerns at all makes Factorio a *worse* game. I personally turn off both biters and pollution when I play Factorio, because to me their existence as gameplay mechanics just completely miss the mark of what draws me to such games.
I must admit that I find your comment somewhat confusing. You say: "I really think the point of Factorio *isn't* to address this question in either way, it's a game about wish fulfillment - to allow us to engage in that innate human desire and urge to exploit our surroundings." That is effectively an exact echo of the conclusion of this video. Yet you then say, "Factorio is a game about having fun" Wish fulfillment and fun are the not the exact same thing; they can be analyzed independently. It seems that you want to put Factorio in a similar thematic category to Minecraft, Terraria, and Stardew Valley. Saying it's principally about fun is actually quite similar to a point I make about Spelunky HD in my video comparing it to Mario---the notion being that the details of those games emphasize light-hearted fun far beyond any other thematic content they might provide. Yet you admit in your second paragraph that you have to completely disable two of Factorio's primary mechanics in order to get the game to provide that kind of experience. (And it's worth highlighting, at any rate, that I do implicitly question that kind of experience in this genre in the introduction of this video.)
Environmentalism is a nonsensical ideal. There is no inherent meaning in having an abundance of resources nor a diversity of lifeforms nor longterm sustainability for human or otherwise populations, ultimately all currently existing individuals of any species will die in a relatively short timespan and the species to which they belong will become extinct sooner or later anyway. Earth itself is just one asteroid impact, gamma ray burst, or rogue solar flare away from being completely depopulated, and in the future will be rendered uninhabitable to all known life by the expansion of the sun inevitably. If maintaining the existence of life in general is to be of import than all human priority should be on the exploitation of resources for the purposes of seeding life beyond the confines of Earth. If the biosphere of Earth itself is of the greatest importance despite it's inevitable expiration date, than the extinction of humanity should be the priority as all experience shows that humans are a net negative drain on life and resources when inhabiting any environment, and platitudes about "thinking differently" offer no material solutions to the fact that for human existence to be anywhere near sustainable on this planet alone nearly seven billion people need to die as soon as possible.
There is something that seems overlooked in that assessment: in much the same way that Archimedes could not have have built a nuclear reactor even with access to all of the planet's resources, so humanity would not at present be capable of "seeding life beyond the confines of Earth" with all resources. Even if progress toward that goal may be accelerated by an increased rate of exploitation, there is no guarantee that the capability to accomplish that would be achieved before this planet is rendered uninhabitable. Time, ultimately, is one of the most crucial resources in that regard. And the only thing that can buy additional time for development of such methods and technologies is the establishment of a relative environmental equilibrium. And I don't see the chance of a cosmic accident destroying us sooner as a noteworthy obstacle---anymore than I see the chance of me dying in a car accident on any given day being an obstacle to me pursuing my life goals.
@@TheGemsbok Humanity's currently existing and near-future technology is capable of spreading life throughout the galaxy with a proper investment of resources, on a timescale of just a few million years. In terms of universal time this is miniscule, and the possibility of this underscores the core of the Fermi Paradox and raises the question of why it hasn't already been done. Keep in mind I'm not referring to human beings specifically, which is a far more complicated investment, but just various biological materials. But, if you conclude that such a thing is not currently possible and that priority should be on a conservation of resources until such a point that it is, the fact remains that environmental conscientiousness isn't a sufficient solution. In that case, again, the focus should be on the death of 7+ billion people and the reduction of the human population to non-critical levels. According to current trends the human population isn't stated to top out until anywhere between 9 and 16+ billion people depending on low and high-end estimates, none of which including the current population are even remotely ecologically sustainable.
Thank you for your thought-provoking essay. A few month ago, I rented a server to really commit some time to Factorio among friends, and by our third map, I was actively researching and engaging the player relationship with the biters at a purely mechanical level, to such an extent that it raised interesting points I didn't hear/see explored in your excellent video. I will also remark that while you give commentary on the bugs' disgusting (or not) aesthetic, you say nothing of the bar-none HIDEOUS depiction of the player's constructs. Everything is rusty, Kludged-together, leaky-looking - crudely subsistent. Smoke chugs and spews, raw voltage crackles, byproducts back up (and I imagine them stinking). I absolutely noticed and winced at the crimes against beauty I committed with every addition to my factories, and I thought it was a very nice touch from WUBE. "The factory must grow" is not a proud slogan in my mind - it's a confession, an excuse.
Regarding bugs, as the active agents of inertia in Factorio, forefront of my mind is that the player is not the only parasite on Nauvis - the biters are also parasites on the player, or at least, on the player's pollution. I've seen some interesting headcanon conversations in various places as to how, exactly, the biters evolve in response to the players' pollution. Is the pollution food for the biters? Or is it an irritant? Is it a selective pressure? In any case, how can the bugs then be seen as any more "natural" than the player? One craves to produce pollution, the other craves to consume it. It turns out that a certain variety of negotiation is possible.
I was able to explore these questions via mechanics, which intended or not, is frankly amazing design. While on our first two maps, I focused on speed and production modules for my hideous machinery, on our third map, I leaned heavily into efficiency modules. I didn't want to need to bother as much with fending off the locals. I opted to deforest as little as necessary. But it was when I looked into bug evolution and pollution mechanics that I realized that bug nests are actually the most efficient pollution solutions in the game. So I started building "zoos" of walls and light turret infrastructure around the outlying nests; the optimal strategy was actually to keep the bugs alive, but contained. Before long I could tangibly observe huge dents in my red cloud around these conservation zones. The enemy became a friend.
What I still can't stop asking myself is, are my zoo bugs happy? Or really, really angry?
Brilliant that you addressed so many counter points (to your own points) within the video itself.
Love your writing style.
That's very kind, thank you. Always nice to read a comment from you.
I've been following the development of this game for the better part of the last decade, and my observations are as follows:
This game is a rare example of an indie game that not only asks "what if the 90s never ended?" but actually follows through with the premise and delivers in every way possible. It's bold, gritty and overwhelming, and it doesn't give a damn about anything. You could craft the best arguments for and against what's on display, but when you ask the developers, all they're gonna do is shrug and say "we just did what's cool to us" and that's the honest truth of it.
Initially, the natives weren't bugs, but naked humanoids living in literal mudhuts. Look up the 2013 trailer to see this version of them. Kind of puts an entirely different spin on things, and I don't think any of the developers really cared too much. Whatever, here you go, it's bugs now, feel less bad about killing them, yes?
Somewhat late into development, they hired a prominent OpenTTD modder to do graphics for them, the creator of the very silly NUTS set with googly-eyed snail trains. I still don't know what he meant by making the bugs "cute". It seems like the cuteness was lost on you too lmao.
At one point, it was briefly considered that you could form a peace pact with the natives, however the idea was dropped for various reasons, but I don't think "hurting the core message" was one of them. It was mostly because, ironically, the whole enemy mechanic was already looking to be more of a side feature and it was decided that a "peaceful mode" would fit the bill fine enough in lieu of focusing on more automation-related things.
As for the goal of freeplay, this changed a bunch, too. Initially, the goal was to build rocket artillery, a kind of superweapon that would act as a "final solution" to bugs of sorts and allow colonists a safe landing on the planet. This was eventually changed to the current space rocket launch, however the plan wasn't infinite research through space science at all - it was indeed supposed to be an escape vehicle. There is still holdover code from this, and it can be activated via easter egg - insert an enterable vehicle into the rocket instead of a satellite (such as a car or a locomotive), and then enter the rocket silo to "ride the rocket" offscreen as you would in the old intended ending. In fact, after this there was a whole another endgame planned, where you would build a spaceship in orbit out of space platform tiles and use that to reach your home planet (the Space Exploration mod somewhat restores a semblance of this, again utilizing unused space code). The whole reason space science is a thing instead is because megabasers wanted a reason to play after the rocket launch, and the scope was already considered too great (the game took 8 years to make).
All of this is not to say the game has absolutely nothing to say or that all messaging in it is accidental (nuclear being perfectly green and safe feels very intended), it just doesn't intentionally focus on a strong message all too much and I wouldn't feel comfortable putting much stock in what it does say knowing all the behind the scenes stuff. "It's kinda neat that it wound up like this, you go down on this planet and destroy everything for the natives, they want to kill you but maybe you're the bad guy here?" is a quick, off-the-cuff paraphrased quote from one of the interviews with the lead developer, and I think that pretty much sums up the game's laissez-faire attitude perfectly. It features environmental destruction because it's gritty and cool and melting bugs with flamethrowers never gets old (except when it does, that's when you build up artillery to automate the process). All in all, yeah, the comparison with the Starship Troopers book is on the money.
In my view Infinifactory is infinibetter with its messaging. The whale level was disturbing *because* up until that point, resources were established as practically infinite and infungible, with their continued spawning into the level via teleportation from some far-off site being a minor lore detail, a handwave. Then suddenly, the teleporter starts spitting *whales*, arguably one of the most potent symbols of environmentalism, and has you treat them exactly the same as you had spaceship wrecks several levels prior. This is genuinely heartbreaking - and clearly intentionally so. And sure enough, when Zach pitched the level at the office, people were disturbed just hearing about it. When I build a wall to protect from hordes of giant alien bugs, it's a bit too on the nose to take seriously, but the whale level will haunt me forever.
Consider that Factorio doesn't even have a story campaign or levels. It was to have one, but it was scrapped it for various reasons, and I'd argue these devs never did have a story to tell in the first place. What they have instead is a cool game that doesn't need a narrative or coherent messaging to top the charts, which is as impressive as it is old-school.
Wow, what a terrific comment! Thank you very much for all of that context; I'm particularly interested to hear about the incremental development of Factorio’s insect enemies from humanoids.
At the end of the day, though, to insist that what the author did or did not intend to say constitutes the meaning of a work is to get trapped in the intentional fallacy. The work that was released in 2020 as the ‘substantially final’ version of Factorio is the work that is under study, and whatever impressions and concepts that work imparts to the player constitute its meaning.
The ‘early access’ program can definitely flavor someone’s opinion of a game, both the experience of the game and the interpretation of the game. But in the broader consideration of games, films, and novels---one usually only gets access to the ‘substantially final’ version of a project. At any rate, you and I are in strong agreement on two points: that Factorio is cool and fun, and that Infinifactory is a work of art ( thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and-articles/infinifactory-zachtronics-games-as-art/ ).
Yeah it's funny how changing the contingent graphic of the natives from humans to bugs made it okay.
the whale level was fun. I have to play infinifactory again. I never got to finish the extra levels where you build big spaceship rooms..
Extremely clear commentary and in depth video. Great job!
Thanks, Tim!
As someone who's played Factorio since the original trailer came out, this video strikes a chord with me and I think it help nail down an observation. I can appreciate a game where I'm the villain in an environmentalist work, but there really isn't enough agency involved in that role to sell the theme beyond occasional observations of "wow, that sure is a messed up thing I'm doing."
Ultimately, in moments like this, I can't help but feel that Factorio is at times marred by its purity and commitment to its core gameplay, because the very focus that allows it to be so highly polished also limits its ability to explore themes and aesthetics beyond that refined core. There's always the question of what could be, what could it explore, if there were just that little bit more cruft?
"Cruft" unneeded code?
@@bthomson In this case, unneeded design elements. Bits of gameplay mechanics, units, items, or buildings that aren't strictly necessary, but which add variety.
It's been a couple years since I last thought on this, but a mechanic fitting in to environmental degradation for instance wouldn't be strictly necessary towards the "factory game" side of things but would allow for presenting a different set of themes.
This was a very good video summing up my scattered observations while playing the game. I think what the devs tried to do was include some of the environmental impact elements to nudge the player into maybe noticing and possibly exploring those topics while not reorienting the game onto that theme. Factorio is a factory game, not am environmental one, and thus I think they basically knowledged the environmental impact side but didn't change the core gameplay just to make it justice.
I wouldn't say enemies were specifically made disgusting. Developers wrote several bogposts (called FFF) discussing their decisions. They tried to make them look alien to us, but not overly disgusting. Their latest redesign I think striking this balance perfectly.
Just look at the biters - their big eyes make them look so cute :3
It's a fair point. While I personally think their designs still ended up fairly disgusting (regardless of the aims behind them), it was inaccurate of me to use the word "intentionally" at that point in the video. Thank you for your comment.
@@TheGemsbok No problem, I personally think that at least spawners look disgusting too. Great video btw!
Read FFF-268 if you are interested in devs though process
I love Factorio but your analysis is right. However I struggle to find a way a factory game could have an environmental message, by the very nature of the genre. It feels like the best you could do is either ignore it completely (all the examples at the beginning of your video) or go for "you're definitely the bad guy, but go have fun" like Factorio.
Like, I don't think adding a diplomacy or trading system with the biters would really work. But what could work? I feel like there's some cool unexplored design ideas there but I can't find them.
I've thought a lot about that while working on this project: What would a truly forward-looking version of Factorio look like? I think there are many ways this could be done.
Here are five options off the top of my head: (1) cast the player-character as an engineer designing more efficient and less-damaging cities and factories to replace existing facilities, rather than creating them where none previously existed; (2) provide a setting that involves genuine moral dilemmas, where the other inhabitants of a space are not designed as despicable and/or where something like survival or escape are ever-present factors; (3) thematically enforce that the player-character has no choice in the matter, as in Infinifactory; (4) create an entirely abstract or entirely fantastical setting that is free from the complications of consumption in reality, as in Shapez; or (5) design the game as involving the creation of 'organic' factories (using pseudo-biology analogous to the pseudo-scientific theming present in Spacechem, Opus Magnum, and Tricone Lab) where the player-character is a creature attempting to gain a foothold in their own ecosystem.
The general trend is: remove the colonialist theming, enmesh the player-character in a more cohesive environment/ecosystem, and/or present the player with both difficult decisions and true alternatives.
@@TheGemsbok Love hearing your thoughts!
About #5, I thought myself about inverting the theme of Factorio, for instance having you be some kind of Ent crash-landing on a robot planet. But even if you "plant" your factories, the theme would still be about changing the environment to suit your needs.
I think you hit it on the nail saying "remove the colonialist theming". Maybe having you be the DEFENDER against an invader would really help out with the theme. I'm thinking of the board game Spirit Island as a good example of that.
Yeah, my first instinct was just to somehow play as the bugs instead. But I had a hard time imagining how to do that while keeping the factory gameplay, when it seems like that would naturally morph the work into an RTS or even tower defense title instead.
And your analysis of that hypothetical ‘ent game’ is spot-on. As much as it might appeal to short-sighted back-to-nature thinking, I don’t see an ent ruthlessly clearing out human civilizations as being any more just than a human ruthlessly clearing out ent civilizations. That’s why #5 would have to be a situation where the player-character is a creature within their own environment---like if you were playing a version of Pikmin where the leader is also a pikmin, rather than Olimar.
Honestly, when it comes to making a Factorio-style game with environmentalist themes, I think it could be done with just two ingredients. First, have a dynamic where the player always has a choice in their progression. They can either choose to ignore ecology, which will consistently hurt them in the long run, but have short-term benefits, even if just "it's faster," or they can go green, which will consistently take more setup and consideration/etc, but pay dividends in the long run
The second step, then, is very simple. Competitive multiplayer, likely in the vein of Offworld Trading Company. Players shouldn't be blowing each other up or significantly setting each other back, (They can even be incentivized to work together a bit) but they _should_ be in competition to reach a certain goal first. The key is that, if that goal is short-term enough, they're suddenly incentivized to ignore all the damage the non-ecological route does to them because all that is now an externality. They're either not impacting themselves in time to matter, they're hitting everyone equally so it doesn't matter, or they otherwise just can't afford to care, because if they do all their opponents will get ahead of them before any difference it makes can matter.
I think right then and there you have a powerful message about how environmentalism plays into competition. And it's one you can tweak just by having different modes of play and win conditions. Co-op multiplayer mode? All that player-driven anti-environmental pressure naturally disappears. Longer game mode? A more long-term focus could be made to mean that more of what players have done will catch up with them, and those that go green could have an advantage because of it in time to matter.
Summing it all up, putting environmentalism in a game like Factorio strikes me as being about looking at what drives environmentalism, and just as importantly it's opposite, in the real world, and then finding ways to incorporate those dynamics into the choice players make during gameplay.
That sounds like a great design. The material in your first paragraph is strikingly reminiscent of the main choice in Stardew Valley (between the fast/resource-efficient Joja Mart route and the slow/resource-diverse Community Center route). Having not played Offworld Trading Company, the material in your second paragraph sounds very intriguing to me. I'm always interested in games that find ways to make meaningful multiplayer interactions, as multiplayer gaming is overwhelmingly dominated by sport-like works with minimal thematic content.
I love that Starship Troopers scene lmao
For some reason I thought the first rocket was always to run away to your own planet, carry the player to safety. Guess that's probably changed somewhere during the beta :( but it'll always be my headcannon. :\ . You can have your own little challenge to do it as cleanly as possible/reasonable, and without you to support it everything should get recycled back by the biters, yeah.
Yeah that idea changed during development. Before this ending, plans were to build a ship out of components with working machinery inside, defenses for asteroids, etc etc. Then end the game by safely flying the ship home.
No planet B. -haha
I have to agree that one plays as the villain. That much is clear once you see the visible effects (dying trees, polluted water) of your factory, when it's more than merely a red cloud in a specific map-setting. And when I first saw that we could build hand-held nuke launchers and spider-bots, well... couldn't be more obvious to me. But that's part of what makes the game compelling. Sometimes it is enjoyable to play as the villain. Now, perhaps it depends a lot on what an individual brings to the game with them, though. Perhaps a person of a different base ideology would not perceive these - to me - obvious signs of villainy as such and simply accept what you do in the game as natural and non-problematic. I'd say the fault is with the person in question then, though. In Factorio, you basically play as a Captain Planet villain and if you don't realize that while you play it... then what is going on with you, I wonder.
Ah, another video by the most underrated creator out there! Love the vid!
Whoa, very kind sentiment! I guess you haven't met my fiancée; she rates my work very highly. Heh.
An interesting analysis.
And as an interesting extension to the how you noted humanity has always changed the environment. One could expand that statement by saying life has always changed the environment. From the bacteria wearing rocks away from resources, coloring the seas, turning the atmosphere oxygen rich and killing almost everyone, etc; to the lichen covered surfaces, to the forests, to the elephants tearing down trees, and so much more. And with a world fully inhabited, the only way to gain more space and resources to an extent is at the expense of others.
In this light the rise of human civilization is just the rise of yet another organism, which has found a way to dominate most of the others on the planet and so grabbed a very large slice of the world.
But what does that actually mean in a sense? And what is right? Just because all that which came before did so as well, doesn't mean this cycle must be repeated for all eternity. Perhaps some kind of resolution could be found where the conflicts for resources could be ended and an equitable sharing of resources could be achieved.
Though if one does look at it in such a light, it seems like there may be a very long road ahead of problems to resolve. Not just with humanity, but for life in general even. A solution where it no longer constantly fights itself for every scrap.
I wouldn't agree that all organism's future lies with the destruction of their environment. If it true that a common strategy for a organisms own survival is to limit another's, but another common one is in the opposite of that, in mutualism.
Wouldn't one agree that when life spread from the earths oceans to the surface, the surface environment wasn't destroyed. The organisms that came before laid way for the next ones to come, to turn the barren stone into dirt.
The places where there is most biodiversity are the richest with productivity, not the opposite. The deserts are deserts because of the absence of life not because of the appearance of it.
Even our own bodies are the product of life supporting itself, from bacteria in our gut helping in digestion to the mitochondria in our cells being the reason we can harness energy at all.
All I have to say is, damn good video
Thanks, Zac! Glad you enjoyed it.
Super interesting. I haven't played this game yet because it never goes on sale, but I am planning to. Thanks for the awesome video!
Dont bother wait for sale, the devs said they are not going to give discounts
Oh, OK. Thanks, I didn't know. I guess I'll just move it far down my wishlist and maybe get it some day if I get a better job.
The game has a free demo, so you can try that out first
If you go by the dollar an hours rule it’ll pay for itself in a few days
I don’t even know how much it costs and Im Still saying I’ll pay for itself in a few days
I played it before the nuclear power was a thing and next thing I know I had 80 hours in it
Great Vid!
Thank you!
Super interesting takes in this one. Gonna have to look into this Ken Hiltner guy.
Dang this is a really in depth analysis... I guess not playing the game is the only way to save the fictional planet. I'm an environmental superhero! *rewards self with steak and bottled water*
Uh, if the only winning move is to not play Factorio, then I have failed and will continue to fail. Ha.
Fun fact: landfill used to look like natural tiles. Now it's just a disgusting brown mass, some industrial filler that certainly is not a part of nature.
That change was the only time I had an ecological thought while playing tbh. Besides the gameplay related thought of managing pollution to reduce the native's attacks. Or naturally gravitating to nuclear for its low pollution impact and footprint which keeps a hell of a lot more trees around than solar
Ah, interesting! And hence the dilemma that informs this video. It would have been *less* work for Wube to stick with the original ground texture for the fill mechanic. Many elements of design in Factorio are like that, going out of their way to show or even discourage ecological damage. Yet, for all that, as you've also noticed, reducing ecological damage remains very far from being the primary focus of the game or gameplay (and is in fact frequently disincentivized or ignored). Thank you for your comment.
game looks so confusing oh man
Actually, in its current form, it's surprisingly easy (though time-consuming) to get into---due to a very thorough tutorial, and an in-game library of tips.
"it is precisely because factorio does so much to emphasise the topics of resource scaricity and polution that its weaknesses in the realm of environmentalism shines so brightly"
oh please. As a 3000 hour fan of the game I can tell you this: making mother nature my BITCH is exactly the point of this game. trees are the #1 enemy and the indigenous life shall fall to my nuclear artillery as my thirst for ever more iron shall consume this planet as it will the next.
THE FACTORY MUST GROW
Resources are finite. Acquiring and processing resources causes pollution. Pollution brings biters, slowly kills neighboring forests, kills fish, turns water green. Trees reduce pollution. Those facts exist in Factorio alongside the many factors that have led you to feel that way toward its planet. Hence the existence of this video.
@@TheGemsbok yes resources are finite. But so is the xenos.
And when every piece of ore has been stripped away from the cosmos and lovingly smashed into the shape of that which stole it away, and when the dust of what's left of the xenos settles on my machine empire, I can finally proclaim that the factory is Complete.
And I will say onto whatever Gods observe creation: "Look upon my works ye mighty, and despair."
I wanna play it just for the war gameplay, do the natives defend or develop technology
Not exactly, but they do increase in numbers, strength, and aggression as the game goes on.
anprims don't watch
Hahaha. Yeah . . . well, if they can manage to convince humanity to abandon industrialization, then, uh, more power to them. Wilderness would benefit. But I'm deeply skeptical of that being a feasible route toward progress.
And in the meantime (as Hiltner argues), a disproportionate amount of environmentalist effort is being spent while ignoring the ways and places that people actually work and live daily.
I think you hit the nail on the head with a lot of things in this video. I've been looking for a criticism of the "resource acquisition genre" of games. however, i dont like your point at 9:58 of humanity being inherently ecologically destructive. I also dont like this ken hiltner quote how it implies no indigenous societies have had a productive relationship with their environment. although humans everywhere have certainly shaped their ecological communities, given they have been established in their region for generations, human societies have lived sustainably for tens of thousands of years. Many indigenous cultures hold intense acknowledgement of their impact on their land and great respect for it as the land is their livelihood, culture, religion, etc. Viewing humans as completely separate from nature and not a part of our own ecosystem is kind of a uniquely western perspective. point is, I think its not useful to view humanity's relationship with nature as one where we are comepletely separate from it. you might already understand this divide in blame for human environmental devastation, but not acknowledging it makes it sound like humans are just inherently incapable of a healthy ecological relationship. i think it also makes a stronger point to acknowledge the awkward disconnect between humans and nature in resource acquisition games as a whole(some more than others) especially in factorio when it accustoms players to environmental destruction. but like, i didnt go read the [...] parts of the quote so you tell me if he mentions this or not.
um anyway good video i love seeing environmentalist perspectives in video games.
It does both doesnt it? In its core its a puzzle game. Adding enviromental impact gives it depth. We could argue about force to will
Of course it does! This video wouldn't exist if it didn't.
That's why the opening line of the video is, "Any analysis of the relationship between the player-character and their environment in Factorio must begin with an acknowledgement that Factorio is a game that does considerably more to accurately depict the environmental impact of human industrial development than the vast majority of its peers in the simulation, management, strategy, and puzzle genres."
@@TheGemsbok well but have you thought about not having to?
Hahaha, oh definitely.
Strictly speaking, no one has to do anything.
@@TheGemsbok yes but i suppose my point is what is players motivation if not leaving the planet itself? And it isnt. When you launch the first rocket you still go on. The players motivation is achieving perfection.
The player's motivation is achieving perfection *at consumption. Although, like almost all perfections, it is impossible to reach---as long as they stay motivated players will forever convert greater and greater quantities of the depicted inputs into the depicted outputs.
Factorio is a very enjoyable game to play, but that enjoyment does not preclude us from considering what its systems might have to say.
Just because it doesn't promote the good doesn't automatically make the environmentalism a backdrop, plenty of creations promoting environmentalism only show the negative side without actually saying anything on how to help. it doesn't need to be anything more than a mirror to send the message. the game is keeping you from being environmentally conscious on purpose not out of a disinterest of making the environment more than a backdrop. It steers you towards bad guy because humanity is the bad guy. Any small efforts in game to be better towards the environment only come about through incentives because that is how humanity has been through its history, why would the game incentivize anything more than what it already has. Environmentalism has taken hold only recently, in part for a love of nature but largely because we know now if we don't change our ways we will only have harmed ourselves. Short term gain was prioritized because we had no need to worry about the long term because of how limitless the earth seemed. It is the same in Factorio; resources are finite in the moment but it always seems like there's more on the horizon. Factorio is not a game showing humanity in the present but just in the past. Of course harming the environment for your own gain is incentivized, it was incentivized for us in the past too. You have lots of good points but ultimately I feel like once you look at the things you say go against it in a smaller scope they instead become things going for it. This game's first priority isn't about the message its about gameplay so the message won't be the full thing. But it still is a priority which is why they opt to show obvious signs of wrecking the place. I think though we are both reading too deeply for the sake of analysis into what is just a fun game trying to add some atmosphere and could honestly go either way just based on perspective
Thank you for the thorough comment! But I think your assessment is missing the fact that the incentives and constraints in the game do not universally approximate reality.
It’s true that the game shows how industrial production can feed into itself exponentially, provide faster processes and transportation, deplete resources, and pollute the environment. These are indeed reflections of reality. But it also paints industrial-style exploitation of the environment as unavoidable, extensive violence against wildlife as both necessary and justified, and enticing futuristic tech like construction drones and spidertrons as guaranteed outcomes of further development. These are not reflections of reality (past, present, or future). In effect, this mixture of productive realism and misleading fiction in the game is precisely the balance that informs the thesis of this video.
I would also push back on the notion that harming the environment in the game is for the player or player-character’s “gain.” While it is incentivized in a ludic sense, it is not shown to provide extrinsic benefits to the player-character---only an increase to the expediency of the construction and consumption itself. As covered in the second section of the video, there are no conventional survival mechanics in the game, and there is no ordinary way to escape the planet.
Ultimately, when you say “This game’s first priority isn’t about the message its about gameplay so the message won’t be the full thing,” you’re rephrasing the exact concluding notion of the video: that any ‘message’ the game may have (including its arguable environmentalist theming) is indeed a backdrop or background rather than a focus.
I always try to play a as "vegan" as possible playstyle in games but games often integrate violence and resource acquisition through violent means as a core gameplay loop. Even in animal crossing the player (and possibly the NPCs) destroys the environment and takes resources in the name of town beautification, or boredom. 😂
Great video essay dude
I stopped playing this game because Kovarex, who is the lead designer of the game and owner of Wube, is an alt-right tool, who has no issue using the platform of his company to shill his dangerous worldviews. What's kept me away since, though, is the distaste I've gradually held more and more towards the core themes, or maybe lack of themes, around the game. I can't casually look away at environmental destruction, even simulated, anymore, given the state of our world today.
I BEAT THIS GAME WITH MY MASSIVE URANUS LODE. FOUND IT BY SURPRISE. GAVE ME BIG-TIME RESOURCES. WHAT LUCK!?
factorio is more interested in being a game than a perfect environmental allegory, which i can't blame it for. the last thing a player needs to be thinking about while figuring out the logistics of a train system is how they're going to sleep at night knowing they're exterminating thousands of innocent natives for simply being in the way.
It is, however, precisely because Factorio does so much more to represent the environmental consequences of development than just about any similar title---that players may find themselves thinking about these topics. The game's intricate logistical distractions from its own theming are some of the exact circumstances that make it worthwhile to consider in an 'allegorical' sense.
I know it goes against the spirit of this channel to some extent, but I really think the point of Factorio *isn't* to address this question in either way, it's a game about wish fulfillment - to allow us to engage in that innate human desire and urge to exploit our surroundings. In short, Factorio is a game about having fun - like the central premise of Unreal Tournament, which provides only a flimsy justification above the fact that the game is, above all else, a glorification and indulgement of the human desire to engage in combat and inflict extreme violence upon their enemies.
If Factorio took environmentalism seriously it would not be a good game, period. I can look out at the real world to start worrying about environmentalism. In a game I want to indulge in the passion of building an empire *without* needing to worry about environmentalism. Indeed, in a way, having environmental concerns at all makes Factorio a *worse* game. I personally turn off both biters and pollution when I play Factorio, because to me their existence as gameplay mechanics just completely miss the mark of what draws me to such games.
I must admit that I find your comment somewhat confusing.
You say:
"I really think the point of Factorio *isn't* to address this question in either way, it's a game about wish fulfillment - to allow us to engage in that innate human desire and urge to exploit our surroundings."
That is effectively an exact echo of the conclusion of this video. Yet you then say,
"Factorio is a game about having fun"
Wish fulfillment and fun are the not the exact same thing; they can be analyzed independently. It seems that you want to put Factorio in a similar thematic category to Minecraft, Terraria, and Stardew Valley. Saying it's principally about fun is actually quite similar to a point I make about Spelunky HD in my video comparing it to Mario---the notion being that the details of those games emphasize light-hearted fun far beyond any other thematic content they might provide. Yet you admit in your second paragraph that you have to completely disable two of Factorio's primary mechanics in order to get the game to provide that kind of experience. (And it's worth highlighting, at any rate, that I do implicitly question that kind of experience in this genre in the introduction of this video.)
We're doomed!
Came over from THUNK
comentariu
As countries get richer they start regreening. And polar bear numbers are increasing now decreasing rn.
It's just a game bruh
"It's just a play bruh" - unknown Greek citizen, on encountering an analysis of Oedipus Rex, c. 428 BCE
@@TheGemsbok The comment section was just so empty I had to put a snarky comment in ;) Good video, keep it up
Haha, no worries. Every comment is appreciated. Sometimes I just can't resist repaying snark with snark . . .
Environmentalism is a nonsensical ideal. There is no inherent meaning in having an abundance of resources nor a diversity of lifeforms nor longterm sustainability for human or otherwise populations, ultimately all currently existing individuals of any species will die in a relatively short timespan and the species to which they belong will become extinct sooner or later anyway. Earth itself is just one asteroid impact, gamma ray burst, or rogue solar flare away from being completely depopulated, and in the future will be rendered uninhabitable to all known life by the expansion of the sun inevitably. If maintaining the existence of life in general is to be of import than all human priority should be on the exploitation of resources for the purposes of seeding life beyond the confines of Earth. If the biosphere of Earth itself is of the greatest importance despite it's inevitable expiration date, than the extinction of humanity should be the priority as all experience shows that humans are a net negative drain on life and resources when inhabiting any environment, and platitudes about "thinking differently" offer no material solutions to the fact that for human existence to be anywhere near sustainable on this planet alone nearly seven billion people need to die as soon as possible.
There is something that seems overlooked in that assessment: in much the same way that Archimedes could not have have built a nuclear reactor even with access to all of the planet's resources, so humanity would not at present be capable of "seeding life beyond the confines of Earth" with all resources.
Even if progress toward that goal may be accelerated by an increased rate of exploitation, there is no guarantee that the capability to accomplish that would be achieved before this planet is rendered uninhabitable. Time, ultimately, is one of the most crucial resources in that regard. And the only thing that can buy additional time for development of such methods and technologies is the establishment of a relative environmental equilibrium.
And I don't see the chance of a cosmic accident destroying us sooner as a noteworthy obstacle---anymore than I see the chance of me dying in a car accident on any given day being an obstacle to me pursuing my life goals.
@@TheGemsbok Humanity's currently existing and near-future technology is capable of spreading life throughout the galaxy with a proper investment of resources, on a timescale of just a few million years. In terms of universal time this is miniscule, and the possibility of this underscores the core of the Fermi Paradox and raises the question of why it hasn't already been done. Keep in mind I'm not referring to human beings specifically, which is a far more complicated investment, but just various biological materials.
But, if you conclude that such a thing is not currently possible and that priority should be on a conservation of resources until such a point that it is, the fact remains that environmental conscientiousness isn't a sufficient solution. In that case, again, the focus should be on the death of 7+ billion people and the reduction of the human population to non-critical levels. According to current trends the human population isn't stated to top out until anywhere between 9 and 16+ billion people depending on low and high-end estimates, none of which including the current population are even remotely ecologically sustainable.