The next value on the table for application to Fallout 3 is influence, another of the “achievement” category of values defined by Shalom Schwartz. Something along the lines of “affecting the actions, opinions, etc. of others”. It’s a kind of a capacity to affect things, rather than the act itself. And thus, a pretty interesting one in a video game context.

Okay, my first thought on influence is probably that one has little of the kind of social influence I think of when I hear the word. In particular, it’s pretty much the fact that nobody in the game ever does anything for you. So, you’re clearly not sufficiently influential to motivate others to perform actions in your favour. (Not completely true, naturally. For example, citizens of Megaton occasionally used to give me gifts, but the general feeling is a lack of influence in this sense.)

On the other hand, in Fallout 3 one is literally the prime mover in the world, not unlike a God. Nothing really happens unless you engage with it. You can put off the endgame sequence for as long as you like, for instance – everyone will wait until you specifically show up before they’ll launch their big final attack. In that sense, you’re incredibly influential, the most influential person on the planet, since the narrative of the world itself waits on you to interact.

The flip-side, of course, is that the influence you actually exert when you get there is minimal. After all, you can only shoot guns and choose options in dialogue trees – hardly complex. In a narrative sense, you end up in a funny and paradoxical situation of being immensely influence in a macro sense (nothing happens without your “say so”), and tragically non-influential in a moment-to-moment sense, since nobody really listens to you or cares much what you think about anything.

The limitations on action for the player mean that your influence must usually involve killing people or other creatures. As such, the most influential thing I felt I ever did in the game was wipe out the settlement at Paradise Falls. I used my abilities (killing things) in a way that drastically changed the state of the world (no more people alive in that neck of the woods). Influential, yes, but only to the people who lived there – and they’re dead now.

A brief consideration this evening of people who believe in things. Well, who believe very strongly in things. Religions are the most obvious category of this kind of thing, but other beliefs, particularly concerning ethics, fit this too, like (ethical) vegetarianism or (ethical) environmentalism.

Something odd, perhaps, about those of our beliefs that we hold very strongly is that we often don’t act on them, or even act much like we really believe them. Take me being a vegetarian for example. If I believe that killing sentient animals for food is so very wrong, then why am I so willing to exist in a society where that’s the norm?

To me this is probably more of a problem for people of strong religious persuasions. The “problem” of hell is the best example, I guess. If I strongly believed (or “knew”) that my friend, who is not of the same religious persuasion, or even denomination, as me is going to hell (to burn eternally in a pit of fire etc.), how could I just let that happen? And what about everyone else in the world? Can I really think it’s okay to stand aside and let them suffer?

Some of this comes down to a kind of willful ignoring of the situation, of course (I’d put myself in that camp in terms of vegetarianism). Some of it might well come down to “well, they deserve to go to hell” kind of reasoning. But really, these don’t seem like particularly good reasons. Maybe “don’t rock the boat” is in there too, but does it outweigh eternal torment for others, or unethical killing of sentient beings? Surely not.

So really, although there’s coverage of the shocking beliefs and practices of fundamentalists of all kinds (from PETA to terrorists), it’s actually somewhat surprising to me that there are so few people acting on their deeply held beliefs.

So, already a new Schwartz category of value, “achievement”, and the first value of that category: ambitious. The internet tells me that ambition is the earnest desire for achievement or distinction, so it’s a step removed from the actual achievement  itself and refers more to wanting it.

To get the obvious out of the way first, it’s pretty clear that the avatar of Fallout 3, at least in the absence of our projections, has no ambition at all. He or she doesn’t seem to covet success or hanker after fame and fortune. He or she just, well, is.

Perhaps more interesting is to ask whether there are other ambitious figures in the world of the game. Peculiarly, for the moment I can’t think of one. Instead, what asking the question makes me think of is just how much a status quo reigns in the communities and situations in the game. The Brotherhood of Steel keep the Super Mutants at Bay, the residents of Rivet City focus on feeling safe, and the overseer of Vault 101 tries to make sure nothing ever changes under his watchful eye. One exception, I suppose, is the Enclave, who have ambitions concerning the restoration of (a particular, “pure”) humanity to the wastelands. And perhaps dear old dad and friends, who aim to at least restore clean water. Ambitious enough, though they don’t tend to phrase it that way – can you be ambitious and selfless at the same time?

The third place to look, then, is at ourselves as the player of the game. Do we feel ambition as we play the game? Does it foster it in us? Yeah, sure it does. What are RPG elements but the cruel, unyielding engine of ambition? More XP, a better gun, a victory over some hulking monster, all the fuel of the ego, all leading to yet more ambitious goals and such. A single question might be whether this is true ambition when, by and large, we know we will accomplish it all.

We’ll get to level 20, we’ll blow away the bad guys. Is that ambitious? Or does ambition require doubt?