I’m Connor Fallon. Professional Philosopher 2is an upcoming indie game that’s a puzzle-like debate series that takes on radical animated representations of famous philosophers. If that sounds familiar, you’re probably familiar with our first game. Socrates Jones: Professional Philosopherbecame a bit of a cult hit on Kongregate in 2013.Now re-released for free on Steam!)
at that time, I’ve written about the difficulties of adapting Ace Attorney-inspired gameplay to the more abstract nature of philosophical debate.We’ve learned a lot as a team since then. We released multiple AAA games in one day, Elsinore Since it’s a side project, it’s natural to think that developing a sequel would be easier. Professional Philosopher 2 It presented a whole new set of challenges and lessons learned, all of which stem from one simple fact. Professional Philosopher 2: Government and Discontent It’s about political philosophy.
If you think it’s hard to discuss politics in 2024, try making a game about politics.
but… why?
That’s a great question, it’s the title of the section I wrote about!
Initially, political philosophy seemed like a natural evolution from work on moral philosophy. Socrates Jones This was another topic that people felt intuitively about, but few had taken the time to formally explore. Professional Philosopher 2 It was drafted months after the first game shipped, and before we even started working on it. ElsinoreBut by the time the sequel actually came out in 2019, the political climate had obviously become much more volatile.
People’s “intuitions” are being tarnished and hardened in the face of increasingly harmful discourse, and algorithms are amplifying extremism and encouraging engagement. People are increasingly isolated in ideological echo chambers, and the only thing everyone can agree on is: The atmosphere is bad.
The choice of political philosophy as a topic increased the possibility of backlash.What is an ideal government?“You can’t ‘take the politics out’ of the game. It would arguably have been safer simply not to do so.”
But early playtesting has calmed us down. We purposefully sought out players with all opinions, and the grateful responses we got showed that the same broken arguments Increased The value that games provide: They allow people to engage in fascinating political and philosophical battles of wits from the comfort of a gaming environment, without the criticism and anger of real political debates.
This brings us to the core of our proposal. Professional Philosopher 2 The “power fantasy” of being able to debate with anyone And actually have your opinion heard. I hope your grandpa does that.
But even if we decided to try, it wasn’t easy, so here are some lessons our team learned along the way.
Lesson 1: Start with the source
To deliver that fantasy, we need to explore different political positions from each side, show why they’re appealing and where they stumble. To do that, we need to understand how people think. very wellThis inevitably leads to one place: the philosophical texts themselves.
It would be self-defeating to insist on “just the originals!” as a game to make philosophy more accessible and fun. So let me be clear: outlines are of great value. My old philosophy professor, Andy Norman, was kind enough to send me a quick outline to get us started. Also, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy It is thorough enough. But for our purposes, details that would be wise to ignore in such a summary will prove invaluable in understanding how Machiavelli responds to Random Question 342.
Digging deep into these philosophers was an important part of “practicing what you preach” and was necessary to accurately capture the nuances of their perspectives. While researching for the game, I personally came to appreciate several philosophers whose perspectives are radically different from my own, and I think this comes through in the text. Our philosophers’ personalities may be comically exaggerated, but their ideas are not unfounded.
Going all the way to the source also gives us a shield against confusion: if someone comes to us angry and upset about some random line in Chapter 3, we can direct them to take their complaint to wherever rock is buried. We can only get so far, as we’re still interpreting, platforming, and remixing these ideas, but it helps.
Lesson 2: Build in chaos
first Professional philosopher The game was not without its “problematic favorites.” Immanuel Kant springs to mind, but few would blame Kant for their inability to provide for their families. What about philosophers like No. 2? That’s a whole other story.
Political philosophers have shaped the way governments and leaders operate. today – and often in complex and contradictory ways. prince Confucius has been cited as an inspiration to many in power, but there is ample debate as to whether to endorse or condemn the actions described therein. Confucius’ honored place in Chinese history has its share of problems. And speaking of philosophers we haven’t yet uncovered…
It’s much more likely that the player already has a connection with the philosopher. Professional Philosopher 2 Player emotions are more varied than in the first game. In early tests, one player was excited to talk to Machiavelli, while another was terrified at the idea. If these emotions are not acknowledged, the discussion will be incomplete. In extreme cases, it may alienate the player completely.
So we took all that confusion and put it into a text.
In the first game, the philosophers had some awareness of the current world, but this was mostly used as a pop culture joke. In the second game, this is intended as a more dramatic conclusion. Our original cast and the philosophers themselves are aware of the impact of their ideas, and these feelings about legacy are openly discussed. This allows for different lenses of departure to be “viewed” through and expressed through different characters.
Historical figures have complicated feelings about themselves and others. Professional Philosopher 2It means we have a lot more baggage to carry, but I don’t think the game would work as well without it.
Lesson 3: Unique difficulty tuning
As a “game developer,” I’ll assume you have some familiarity with managing complexity and difficulty progression (I’m sure the editor can provide links to some good resources too!). Like most games, we designed the content to increase over time, and then playtested to see if that plan worked. However, Professional philosopher They had to deal with unique variables that were inconsistent between players and virtually impossible to adjust for.
One of the biggest factors in the difficulty of the chapter is To what extent did you agree? Specifically, the most difficult chapter was the one with the philosophers that you agreed with. largely.
Psychologically, that makes sense: if you already believe that Locke’s political model is deeply flawed, you’ll have a set of counterarguments in mind, at least one of which will likely surface through your questions. But the game doesn’t have a button that says “you’re right, I’ll never have a problem with these statements.” Disputing someone you agree with essentially requires a significant adjustment of the player’s own worldview.
In general, rather than just lining up the chapters so that more modern, familiar philosophers appear later, this somewhat unpredictable spike was something we had to accept. The positive side is that it works very well with our theme, which is that questioning yourself is just as important as questioning others. Most of the characters in our story, and even the philosopher himself, will face this at some point. It makes sense that the player will feel it too.
Lesson 4: You can’t predict a buzzstorm
Political topics vary. Events right now Or three years from now, how people interpret content we wrote years ago may change dramatically. As a case study, here is an example of an exchange from Confucius that has remained largely unchanged since its first draft in 2015.
It’s a pretty standard Confucian idea. I remember learning about the Mandate of Heaven when I was studying Chinese history back in 2007. But fast forward to 2020, and this line has taken on surprising weight among our playtesters. Suddenly, it’s about something concrete. Pandemic.
“Ah!” the playtester said. “Confucius is calling out. [insert chosen leader]”It’s a shame we couldn’t stop it from getting worse! We deserved to lose!” They didn’t question whether the connection was intentional. Very obvious The connections were there, and although I didn’t plan it, these connections excited and engaged people — proof that these old ideas are still relevant today.
However, as we continued playtesting through 2024, Confucius’ line barely received any attention. We didn’t change the line at all. The world around us changed. Different parts of the game now pop out, leading to new conflicts and events. Which leads us to our next lesson…
Lesson 5: Go against the flow
Name any crisis, past or present, regional or international, and there’s a good chance there’s something there. Professional Philosopher 2 “About it.” We purposefully chose philosophers who are in touch with big, recurring patterns and conflicts. And many of those patterns are happening right now. That’s a big part of why this game is worth making.
Potentially, there were some reasons to lean towards this — more explicitly topical would generate buzz and potentially help with marketing, and indie games need every advantage they can get — but a version of the game that asks Locke how the government’s liability applies to the Trump trial would likely do worse in the long run, because these details, while hot as I write this, would quickly become yesterday’s news.
But as I said earlier, the line that separates the past and the present makes the whole game more fascinating, so we made choices in the frame narrative to draw out those parallels. Most importantly, we rewrite the protagonist’s mother, Pythia Smith, into a politician. Her experiences create a concrete, contemporary example of these patterns. like In many situations, that’s right And as Pythia relates the discussion to her own experiences, players are encouraged to do the same.
in short: Professional Philosopher 2 is not a game of passionate opinions. It’s a game of thoughtful reflection. Drawing hard lines in the text would mean we’re dealing with yesterday’s issues, but trusting players to make the connections for themselves allows us to relate to today for all it will be.
So… was it worth it?
Since development of this game began, we have witnessed a pandemic, several tumultuous global elections, natural disasters, and brutal wars. We are doing our best, but the world is complex and chaotic. I realize that many of the lessons here boil down to “accepting the things you can’t control.”
But after taking in so much, it’s absolutely worth it.
People who playtested early builds Year People who have played the game before will message me and tell me what they thought of it – how they discussed the idea for it with their family and friends, how it helped them better understand current conflicts, how it brought our corny jokes to mind during difficult times. If even a few people have had this experience and are equipped with better tools to deal with the problems of today, then we will have made something meaningful.
We are doing our best, and that is better than doing nothing.
