Do upbeat future games work? So many I see are dystopian futures.
"Good news doesn't sell." Is this true for games too?

There are games with "Mad Scientist" characters options, how many are set in a Bright Futures or about making a Bright Future?

Upbeat future stories totally work. Star Trek is one such story.

I guess the question would be 'Making a bright future out of what?'

At the risk of wading into a messy discussion about the semantics of genre, sci-fi is often predicated on taking one or two aspects of the current world and exaggerating/emphasizing them to the point where they generate conflicts. Either in and of themselves or as a contrast to the protagonists.

All story is conflict. If you have no conflict you have no story.

Even a lot of the people involved in TNG found themselves hamstrung by Gene Roddenberry's stringent requirements for the way the future works. No stories about the technology breaking or malfunctioning (which doesn't explain all the holodeck stories, but that was apparently one of his rules), no stories about the crew fighting, etc.

By making the future too 'perfect' you take out the places where conflict can occur.

I think the same thing that allows a 'better future' story to work, is what makes any utopian story work. Conflict/resolution should focus on how the people of your future society use science, technology, or ideas to resolve situations that threaten their way of life. Star Trek is the classic example, where more often than not the solution to their weekly problem highlighted their mastery of science, technology, and emotional maturity.

Another example of the utopic narrative is the setting of Asgard in Marvel's Thor comics, or the idea of Avalon and the Arthurian legend. The main theme of those societies revolves around the idealized vision of a grand and heroic warrior ethos. Problems are solved not by arms specifically, but by demonstrations of bravery and honor against incredible odds (usually, but not always, involving swords and hammers). In order to even use Mjolnir, Thor has to be a worthy man, and that worthiness isn't merely defined by his being a 'nice' guy, but rather because he (or she) demonstrates all of the qualities that define the utopian vision of Asguard.

So basically, whether your utopian story takes place in the past or in the future, the most important thing you have to do is find the vision or the dream that best demonstrates the setting, and then present your conflicts in such a way that they can always be overcome by a fervent application of that core vision.

"Upbeat future stories totally work. Star Trek is one such story."

A future where humanity is frequently one alien conquest away from extinction, and somehow survives due to the continued last minute heroics of a space agency that has a casualty rate somewhere in the "Omaha Beach" realm.

The death rate for US troops in the Iraq war was 419 per 100,000 deployed per year.

At that rate, the original "Enterprise", crew 435, could expect 9 deaths in its "Five Year Mission."

They lost those 9 in Captain Kirk's very first episode.

Think about that.  A tour in Iraq, statistically, was a cakewalk compared to serving on the USS Enterprise.   What you don't see in Star Trek:  the vast Star Fleet PTSD treatment centers.

Upbeat my aunt Fanny.

I think, going back to the OP's question, one of the reasons we don't see 'bright future' games is because it takes a lot of work to create and present a backstory to such a game in a way that makes it engaging.  As someone else pointed out, the heart of every story (whether it's a book, a game, a movie, a TV show...) is conflict and resolution.

It's a lot easier to come up with identifiable conflicts in a dystopian or post-apocalyptic environment...you merely take peoples' worst fears for the future and turn them into a story.  I don't know many people who have not worried that, at some point, the economy could go completely south and people could be stuck scrabbling for every gram of subsistence they could find.  Most people don't worry much about it...but that worry of not having enough is the whole foundation for retirement funds and health insurance, the 'grim future' settings just amp that up to a much higher level.

In a utopian setting, you don't have that conflict of fighting to survive on a daily basis.  You don't have the potential conflict of man vs. his own neighbor.  You have to come up with some outside 'other' that becomes the conflict and figure out how to resolve it...and do it in a way that doesn't come across as trite to a potentially jaded and cynical audience.

So, it's not necessarily a case of 'is there enough hope in the world' as it is 'are storytellers willing to put in the extra time and effort involved in coming up with a non-dystopian story'.  Most of them are in business to make a buck, not present their idealized version of what the future could be...economically, it makes better sense to stick to the easiest story to tell and the one that will require the least development.  Aside from that, such stories are popular...it may be the catharsis of the savagery in the game (or movie, or book, etc) versus the civilized face most of us choose to wear in our day-to-day lives.  It may be the sense of personal triumph in facing an impossibly dark and grim situation and rising above it (either via gameplay or vicariously through a character in the story).  It may be a thrill from indulging that bestial dark, violent force that dwells within so many of us.

But it's popular and it's cheaper to produce, so why would anyone who isn't a fervent idealist opt to gamble on the more difficult option of presenting a Utopia?  (Besides, as has been demonstrated by an array of coversations here, while it's very difficult to decide just what Utopia is, since it means different things to different people, nearly everyone agrees on most of the common elements in dystopian tales, so they're an easier sell in terms of getting your audience on your side.)

In reply to Eur512 (msg # 4):

Intriguing point. I'm not sure if it's valid to compare statistics from an actual war with statistics from a fictional story. And it's semantics to judge the base premise by a single element in that premise. But that's an interesting way to look at it.

However, I still maintain that Star Trek is an 'upbeat future story' in that it depicts a future when humanity has Figured it Out^TM. There's no more war (internal war, anyway) and no more poverty and we've 'evolved' to a point where we're all in it together and when we go out into the stars it's as explorers and scientists and benefactors and not as conquerors or colonial expansionists.

As opposed to any sort of out-and-out dystopia where the base premise is that everything sucks in much the same way as it does now, or sucks in different ways.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 5):

There has always been "people's worst fears". During the time things like Tomorrowland were first imagined (40-50's) there was the Great Depression just ending and World War II.

There are so many new technologies that can have amazing positive impact on the world as we know it and give us a Bright Future.
Just the life extension breakthroughs make trips to other planets and stars more likely.
What is a 40 year trip to another another star if you can sleep through most of it and will live basically forever?

There is a limitless frontier, we don't NEED to be suffering from over population and all the problems that causes. (Which is just about ALL the problems when you get right down to it.)

In reply to GreenTongue (msg # 7):

While it's true I mentioned only one episode, that was mostly for the ironic coincidence of the casaulties from that one episode matching a US army unit "expected" casualty rate given identical size and deployment time.

But taken as a whole, the death rate for Star Fleet must be enormous, given all we see.  Not only does the Enterprise, a "prestigious" ship, suffer far more than a contemporary wartime military unit, but we see entire ships (and fleets of ships!) wiped out, especially later on in the franchise.

One nice thing about Trekkies, they do the most geeky things, including statistical analysis of casualty rates, and they've done this one, to use a pithy phrase, to death:

http://www.statslife.org.uk/cu...bayesian-exploration
http://www.ex-astris-scientia..../redshirt_deaths.htm

It's interesting you brought up overpopulation.  In one episode, one planet is suffering from exactly that problem.  The solution achieved by the leaders of the planet is to acquire a deadly virus that Kirk just happens to be a carrier for and let it ravage their population.  The Enterprise guys don't stop this.  (In fact, by returning the infected "pretty girl", they aid and abet)  No one raises a hand and says "Hey, there's an infinite frontier, why not just go move out?"

Now, there are other ways to look at this.  One could say, we see a lot of deaths on the Enterprise but that is exceptional, most of Star Fleet is calm and quiet and safe.  But if that is the case we run into two problems.  First, seeing all those doomed ships through the episodes, we see that the Enterprise actually gets off easy.  Second, if this was true... what would that do for morale on the Enterprise?

"Hey, I just orders for the Enterprise!"
"Oh my god... I'm so sorry."

Given what happens (so frequently) to Star Fleet, would anyone in a happy, utopian society, living a life of prosperity and peace,  actually join?

At this rate, we'll be lucky to get Blade Runner.

Even a utopian society needs to face the real world, which is a dangerous place. The whole peaceful aspect is more about the society's treatment of others within the society.

Also, ship deployments are likely like any guard position, 95% boring and/or exhausting, 4% interesting or funny, 1% sheer howling terror. The show obviously focuses on that last 5%.

You just had to suggest that, didn't you?  We're not going to get Blade Runner by accident, we're actually looking at Blade Runner for design inspiration now.

http://consequenceofsound.net/...et-in-new-york-city/

A dark creepy scary dystopian future... what a great idea for a design for a food market!

Bladerunner? Always considered that the same universe as the Fifth Element in my mind, and any world where I can get good Chinese food brought to my cubicle window by a flying junk is a-o-k with me.

Hmmm, same universe as Soylent Green too? Maybe...

Anyway, a goodie goodie wonderful world wouldn't make for much of a game. Even if you accept the thought that Star Trek is such a place, no one wants to play on Earth, or even Vulcan, they want to be out on the wild, wild west of things.

Gaming, I'd rather play in the world of Paranoia...