Video games have truly become a force to be reckoned with. Ever changing, ever evolving to draw in new generations, the very definition of true entertainment. Sadly, maintaining such requires continual shake-ups, not just with content, but perspective, which allows audiences to better appreciate contemporary and retro titles.
Video games have evolved into a major cultural force as it is constantly reinventing themselves to engage new generations. Yet as the industry grows, the challenge lies in finding fresh perspectives that can help audiences appreciate both contemporary and classic titles. The ever-changing trend of video games allows gaming companies new market options plus various approaches for future remakes, the latter becoming more prominent with every new system debut.
However, one huge problem is finding these perspectives, especially ones that consistently last in the face of frequently changing social media platforms and narratives.
Given this reputation, it’s long past time video game companies employed it, and the best format for such is as common sense as his principles: rating video game characters. Since Sun Tzu is so revered, employing his views could revolutionize the industry, as well as provide all gamer generations with a new way to appreciate favorite characters. It’d also allow much more effective gaming criticism, plus promote new social media conversations that’d guarantee franchises’ immortality.
Applying Sun Tzu’s philosophy to video games offers an unconventional but valuable way to evaluate characters and narratives. His “Five Essential Factors for Victory” such as Morality, Weather, Terrain, Good Leadership, and Preparation, can serve as metrics for assessing strategic depth and character design.
Conversely, his “Five Fatal Failings” such as Recklessness, Cowardice, Anger, Delicacy of Honor, and Over-Caring, can highlight weaknesses that undermine success. For the record, it’s currently in use on the site Anime Trivia App, and the concept will continue working with them accordingly, but this system’s fluidity allows it to apply here too.
At the end of game reviews, the scores are tallied, with all under consideration aiming for 40 or better. As a further note, there’s a series of rankings characters can land in based on their score:
- 10 or less: Nightmare scenario
- 10-19: Great potential, yet deeply flawed
- 20-29: Capable, yet moderately flawed
- 30-39: Highly capable, with slight flaws
- 40+: Epic Class
Characters or factions could be scored across these ten dimensions, creating a balanced profile that merges storytelling with strategy. Rather than relying on subjective popularity or aesthetics, this approach encourages analysis grounded in behavior, decision-making, and adaptability, the very qualities Sun Tzu emphasized.
Consider the Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 universe. Its factions inside the game: the Allies, Soviets, and Empire of the Rising Sun are illustrating how Sun Tzu’s framework reveals both strengths and flaws.
- Field Marshall Bingham, for instance, demonstrates strong leadership and preparation but occasionally underestimates opponents—a lapse in prudence that costs him strategic momentum.
- Premier Anatoly Cherdenko, by contrast, scores high in resourcefulness yet fails in morality and recklessness, embodying the dangers of ambition untampered by wisdom.
- Tanya, the Allies’ commando, shows courage and adaptability but struggles with impulsiveness, reflecting the “recklessness” Sun Tzu warns against.
These concise assessments demonstrate how timeless military principles can enrich game criticism, giving players and critics a new vocabulary for discussing character design and strategic logic. If we decode this into a more detailed reviews just for one example of a character and its role inside the game, it will look as follow:
Character: Premier Anatoly Cherdenko
VICTORY FACTORS
–Morality: 0: He’s a monster: cold-blooded, sadistic, and extremely treacherous.
–Weather: 5: He’s okay, but still lacks a lot of insight, and isn’t very aware of his surroundings.
–Terrain: 5: He’s good at using terrain against foes, like in Havana, but his performance in Europe was extremely sloppy.
–Good Leadership: 2: Between his lust for power and arrogant betrayal of the Allies, he’s extremely clumsy.
–Preparation: 7: He’s got some hefty skills here, but often misuses them, such as in Havana and in his final attempt to flee.
Total Score: 19
FATAL FAILINGS
–Recklessness: -10: Epic red flag. He constantly underestimates others and has a nasty impulsive streak, like when he went back in time to help Russia win, never considering the consequences.
–Cowardice: -9: Major red flag. He’s a notorious bully, tried to sneak nuclear weapons into the Allies’ backyard, then tried to flee to space when he failed.
–Anger: -8: Serious red flag. He’s got a short fuse, and is easily triggered, particularly when his schemes fail.
–DOH: -8: Serious red flag. He’s very arrogant, and was extremely smug throughout his brief truce with the allies.
–Over-caring: 0: He’s supremely selfish, so no worries here.
Total Score: -35
FINAL SCORE: -16: Nightmare scenario.
Integrating Sun Tzu’s model into gaming discourse could deepen understanding of how virtual conflicts mirror human psychology. Instead of judging games solely on visuals or difficulty, critics could evaluate how characters exemplify or violate enduring principles of discipline, foresight, and balance. The framework’s simplicity also makes it accessible to players of all ages, encouraging thoughtful engagement beyond the screen.
Sun Tzu’s wisdom proves that even in the age of digital warfare, strategy remains an art of perception, restraint, and preparation. Applying his teachings to video games offers more than a novel rating system; it redefines how we interpret competition, character, and victory itself. In both ancient battlefields and virtual arenas, as a famous saying said that those who follow Sun Tzu’s logic adapt and endure while those who ignore it are destined to lose.
Andrew Nickerson
andrewnickerson1122@gmail.com
