We are Chicago is a story about South Side youth of Chicago, but this is not a game intended for them. Instead, it is meant to be a humanizing story for people that grow up in areas afflicted by gang violence, one that is intended to be consumed by an outside audience. We follow Aaron, a bright high school student who is trying to look out for his family following his father’s death, particularly his little sister, Taylor, and is looking ahead to being the first in his family to go to college. What we come to understand at the end of the story is that no matter what dialogue options the player chooses, Aaron will be okay. One of the big questions I had during the game was why do we follow Aaron? Is it the most relatable to this outside audience? Does this then make the narrative more palatable or accessible?
Of the game’s shortcomings, I think one of its greatest may actually be in its perspective character of Aaron. Regardless of the player’s actual choices, Aaron is never tempted by the gangs and is fully focused on taking care of his family and making it to college. There’s almost never a question about what his path will be after the events of the story or that he will make it through the story. While the game opens the door for narratives on neighborhoods like the South Side, it still allows a barrier to exist between the audience and kids growing up in gang related neighborhoods. The audience is able to construe Aaron as “one of them” but with the misfortune of growing up in an area with gang related activity. However, a story of rising above your circumstances is not the norm in areas where the system is intended to work against you, and the narrative does little to humanize these more typical stories.
Even if nothing else changed about the game, I think one of its greatest improvements would be having us follow a character with less opportunity than Aaron, one where the choice to stay out of a gang is not so easy, a character that feels like they have no better choice. Aaron’s story, while important, I think would make for a great side character as a contrast to this kind of protagonist’s helplessness. He could function like an improbably high bar to achieve that, in a way, steers the protagonist further in the direction of the gangs as their only viable option. In short, I think seeing the story of We are Chicago but from Justin’s perspective would have given the game greater impact and better accomplished its goals in humanizing stories like for an outside audience.
I like your analysis of why Aaron might have been chosen as the main character and how a different perspective might have been better. One thing I wonder is whether it is Aaron’s story specifically or rather the general lack of risk or alternative paths that made this perspective less effective. By that I mean, if the perspective of the game were switched to another character like Justin, but the pattern where choices don’t really affect the outcome of the game was still used, would the game be better or not? On the one hand, telling the story of someone like Justin who doesn’t feel “destined to succeed” might be a more humanizing and meaningful narrative. On the other hand, playing as Justin and being given no choices that would lead to a more positive outcome might convey the message that systems of violence are inescapable and every path leads to the same unhappy ending. I think serious games about serious issues have to strike a balance between conveying the hardships of the experience they are presenting while also not making the situation seem impossible to overcome or making the people in those situations seem helpless. While I agree with you that Aaron’s story is less effective because his positive outcome seems inevitable, I also think there would be flaws in telling a story like Justin’s without conveying any sense of choice. If you disagree, though, I’d love to hear your reasoning!