The thing I see as completely ass-backwards from some of these comments is that I know a lot of you wouldn't even think about it if a game depicted your hero as having a straight sex relationship, yet as soon as there is anything related to a same sex relationship it instantly turns into "I go to games to escape reality" (apparently your ideal reality is no gays?) or "The publishers are trying to push their political views into this game" (because apparently a publisher can't just treat people like the human beings that they are without it being about politics).
Yet I know for a fact, that some of you who spout this nonsense wouldn't care two sh*ts if it was a straight relationship being depicted in a game. You know why? Because a large percentage of games have a straight relationship, have you saving the girl from the bad guy (Zelda), have you building relationships with girls (Persona), and etc.
So I call bull on all of those excuses. You just don't want your games to show the reality that everyone is getting their fair share of the pie now. Because you don't want everyone to get their fair share of the pie. You're a little piggy, and you want all that pie for yourself.
No, i don't care about that. In fact, i think games shouldn't add romantic relationships as a gameplay mechanic, in principle. They usually are akwark and are a hastily coded addon.
I do thinkt Bioware trying to suck up to the LGBT crowd as a publicity stunt, to excuse their decreasing quality of games, is stupid.
I do think trying to make everyone bi just because is overdoing it.
So please, cut the ad hominem "you are actually selfish" crap.
I really think people are more along the lines of upset that these kind of agendas are being pushed on them. How many people honestly care about so and so's taste in men/women? Or if they believe in equality for gender? People play games for a various degree of reasons. When I see people parading around trying to push the LGBT envelope in an mmo I roll my eyes. It's like one of those weird double standards. If you try and push being straight onto people you're a monster. If you try and push something else all of a sudden you're an internet hero.
Games will always have an agenda to them in some way or another. At the very least though could we keep it out of the media and just play happily? I see very little reason for people to just threaten women for wanting to have a different venue to play. With the vast amount of games out on the market as of now.... There is pretty much something for everyone. Hell I wonder if pong had these kinda problems.
No one is pushing anything. Being tolerant of other people is not an agenda. It's a big deal because there are a lot of intolerant people out there still.
It's like when Captain Kirk kissed a black woman on screen. It was a big deal in the 60's.
That's not the issue here. Back then we did not have agendas being created online and liked at the touch of a button. This is about the instruments being used to forward issues as much as the issues themselves.
In the decades to come people may become more online wise, they will not click every 'cause celebre' because there is a pop star who has advocated it. They may come to realise that Twitter and the like have become the toast of campaigning groups everywhere, allowing them to set up crusades on a weekly basis. Or maybe not, my faith in humanity may be misplaced.
Back then a black woman got kissed, before that there was not an online agenda pushing for a black women to be kissed. It was a big deal after the fact, not before. Today campaigners are trying to formulate a code, governed by them, which all writing be it in games or elsewhere conforms to.
They want to see their view of society stamped on everything. Historical setting? Races which are not human? Cultures which have never actually existed in the world? That does not matter, they have to reflect our current ideology on race and gender. But it does not stop there, what about tolerance, social justice, not being 'judgmental', the list just keeps getting added to.
Star Trek was a series where the writers were trying to show their vision of a more tolerant society. Today there is no choice, you have to follow the rules as set out by campaigners or risk online censure. And these rules which march forward under the banner of 'tolerance' expand every year. 'Tolerance' like 'social justice' is just a label to put your latest political idea into to get a 'like' from those who do not think about the issues.
The way to distinguish ethics from politics is the every changing nature of politics. 'Tolerance' 'justice' and so on were once ethical, now there are just a vehicle for this weeks campaign.
That's not the world I want to live in, nor do I think the majority want to live in the ideological prison that is being created.
This, this--so much this.
When we look at genres that pushed the boundaries, they just did it. People like Roddenberry just took the risk--knowing that it was risky--without having to "prepare the ground" so to speak. In an interview with the actress who played Uhura, she said to Roddenberry, "the show is getting better and better...and I figured out you are writing morality plays." Roddenberry simply said "shhh...they haven't figured that out yet!," and smiled. That's how you teach through art.
Today, in gaming, the strategy isn't to take risks, and it isn't about making the game so that the player "haven't figured out" it is about moral questions. Today, the "social justice" developers put their political agendas up front and center, alienate and isolate everyone who doesn't agree through op-eds and industry push, and criticize anyone who dares to be subtle.
Today's socially conscious developer in gaming doesn't want to take risks...they want to espouse whatever sort of social critique without having to be accountable to an audience who disagrees. Gene Roddenberry wouldn't do that. That's why Star Trek was so successful as a phenomenon. It's why Lucas Pope was as well (Papers, Please).
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by Zarf42 So just don't push any boundaries in games? Make every game politically neutral never bring up any issue that may offend someone? Is that your answer?
Not at all. I say games should push boundaries by actually doing it, without having to explain themselves, and letting the public take it as they may. A lot of people dislike Mass Effect 3...I liked Mass Effect 3 (although I think 1 and 2 handled issues of social critique better).
There is a difference, I think, between good games that make statements and games that are promoted as good, based solely on their obsession with statements. The former makes the genre compelling. The latter turns the genre into an exercise in self indulgence.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
No company should HAVE TO make bold political statements.
No company should HAVE TO include OR exclude a "type" into what they are making.
All companies SHOULD make the product they wish to make with no pressure to make any changes to it.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Today's socially conscious developer in gaming doesn't want to take risks...they want to espouse whatever sort of social critique without having to be accountable to an audience who disagrees. Gene Roddenberry wouldn't do that. That's why Star Trek was so successful as a phenomenon. It's why Lucas Pope was as well (Papers, Please).
What devs are you talking about exactly? What specific games? I've seen some put stuff in games and then afterwards say "yeah this is part of what I wanted to write and you shouldn't really have a problem with it unless you are a bigot." Kind of like what Roddenberry did with the kiss. I haven't seen any deliberately trying to anger people or get them not to even play the game. Generally devs want as many people as possible to play their games.
Originally posted by iridescence There probably is political stuff in all those settings. I don't know them well enough or really feel like taking the time to analyse them but everything has some politics in the loosest sense of the word in it People find political messages in things like children's fairy tales all the time. Also I wasn't arguing that "it's already political so just put a bunch of propaganda in it!" I was actually saying the exact opposite. "Politics" isn't bad but blatant propaganda is.
Really? What political statement did the original Legend of Zelda game have? How about Donkey Kong? What possible political statement did you find?
What do you think "propaganda" is? Do I need a link here? OK, dictionary.com defines "propaganda"
Games can certainly take on political issues. They will be divisive, though.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Really? What political statement did the original Legend of Zelda game have? How about Donkey Kong? What possible political statement did you find?
What do you think "propaganda" is? Do I need a link here? OK, dictionary.com defines "propaganda"
Games can certainly take on political issues. They will be divisive, though.
Well....you ever heard of the stereo type "Damsel in distress". By a feminist this could be seen as men making games that push that women are weak. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this view could be applied to both Zelda and the original Donkey Kong. Don't get me wrong I am no supporter of feminism, but you asked so I gave an answer.
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
From the way some people make it sound Donkey Kong set women's rights back twenty years. >_>; Granted there weren't as many titles out there where the female was the lead character. They still existed back in the late 80's. The original Phantasy Star comes to mind as being one of those titles. It's just sad to see we really have to go back and dissect everything now cause of how politically correct people are trying to paint video games. I hope for all our sakes this doesn't get worse. I wouldn't want kids in general being exposed to more than what they are already from games.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Really? What political statement did the original Legend of Zelda game have? How about Donkey Kong? What possible political statement did you find?What do you think "propaganda" is? Do I need a link here? OK, dictionary.com defines "propaganda"Games can certainly take on political issues. They will be divisive, though.
Well....you ever heard of the stereo type "Damsel in distress". By a feminist this could be seen as men making games that push that women are weak. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this view could be applied to both Zelda and the original Donkey Kong. Don't get me wrong I am no supporter of feminism, but you asked so I gave an answer.
To that I can only say, maybe in Hyrule or "Mario World", these "political issues" do not exist. They certainly do here on Earth, though. It is when people bring in "Earth Politics" into made up worlds that pisses me off.
Americans are experts at projecting their ("our", as I am an American, too) beliefs on the rest of the world. Even fantastical, made up worlds
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Ok, so here's the thing... you don't like it, you don't need to pursue it. Yes, DAI has two gay characters. But you don't HAVE to take part in those storylines, it's up to you. Same thing as real life. You don't like it, don't do it, but that doesn't mean others can't. That's life.
As for politics... everything is politics, haven't you realized that yet? Everyone chooses a side. Some are less extreme than others.
But a great game plays on the same things movies and book do... human nature. It is not political to say that genocide is wrong because we all know it is. It is not political to say that religion shouldn't control the world, because it inevitably causes wars due to the differing interpretations of things and we all know this. It is not political to say torture is wrong because we all know it is.
They are simple facts of human nature and all of these stories use these to tug at your heart. Because, along with those willing to risk their own lives to save those who suffer these things (called heroes), these things make great stories.
Most humans like to hear of good conquering evil. It's not about "political this and that". It's about whats right. And you know very well that kindness, understanding, tolerance, strength, giving, intelligence, etc are the good things that makes the world go around.
Ok, so here's the thing... you don't like it, you don't need to pursue it. Yes, DAI has two gay characters. But you don't HAVE to take part in those storylines, it's up to you. Same thing as real life. You don't like it, don't do it, but that doesn't mean others can't. That's life.
As for politics... everything is politics, haven't you realized that yet? Everyone chooses a side. Some are less extreme than others.
But a great game plays on the same things movies and book do... human nature. It is not political to say that genocide is wrong because we all know it is. It is not political to say that religion shouldn't control the world, because it inevitably causes wars due to the differing interpretations of things and we all know this. It is not political to say torture is wrong because we all know it is.
They are simple facts of human nature and all of these stories use these to tug at your heart. Because, along with those willing to risk their own lives to save those who suffer these things (called heroes), these things make great stories.
Most humans like to hear of good conquering evil. It's not about "political this and that". It's about whats right. And you know very well that kindness, understanding, tolerance, strength, giving, intelligence, etc are the good things that makes the world go around.
Do you know what was the best done game for me, from a moral standpoint?
Fallout 3.
I say Fallout 3 because, unlike other action-adventure titles, it refused to clean the floor for you. Yes, it was a violent game. It was also bloody. But the difference, for me, is that when you killed someone, the body just stayed where it was. You could go back days later and see the body of the person you killed days earlier, right where you did the deed.
To say it was disturbing to see that was an understatement. It makes you think about what death truly means. In a moment, you can turn something you can talk to, see move, have some importance in the story just turn into an inanimate carcass, never to be as it once was...and it just sits there, reminding you of what you did.
See, I don't think we ought to go down the road of using games to voice political statements, because there are other ways of making statements that are far more powerful than narritively engineering the lesson. Frankly, we might know--in an intellectual sense--that torture and genocide is wrong. That intolerance is wrong. That killing is wrong
But we don't know it in a visceral sense unless we are allowed tobe evil, to actually do torture, be intolerant, do an act of genocide, and be faced with the results. It isn't the mass killing and blood spurts that is wrong. The whole point of these games seems to show that killing is, regrettably, necessary; while killing is wrong, it is necessary to do it to stop a greater wrong. And I don't think any moralist who understands--really knows--politics can fault anyone who does what is necessary for the greater good.
But the true crime is that, all too often, the killer doesn't pay the price. That's the problem I have with God of War...it isn't the violence per se...it's that the game cleans the floor for you after you are done. They didn't do that in Fallout 3; that's why Fallout 3 stuck with me.
So I don't think we should be making political statements with games...we should be making political scenarios...and the best political scenarios are those where there is no absolute right or wrong, but different kinds of wrongs that we have to choose from. Lucas Pope in papers, Please did this marvelously...there was no perfect way to play. Each choice had its own consequences (you might save a defector, but your son may go without medicine)
Perhaps instead of cutting out death, genocide, bigotry and hatred, we should instead say, "You have to kill a hundred men and women? Fine...but we aren't going to make it easy for you to stomach it" we should say. "You go on a genocidal, torturing spree? Go ahead"..."but you are going to be faced with that guy with the cut off arm struggle once he leaves the torture chambers, and know that you caused that." Or "You are going to be faced with orphans w/o parents...the parents you systematically eliminated."
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Ok, so here's the thing... you don't like it, you don't need to pursue it. Yes, DAI has two gay characters. But you don't HAVE to take part in those storylines, it's up to you. Same thing as real life. You don't like it, don't do it, but that doesn't mean others can't. That's life.
As for politics... everything is politics, haven't you realized that yet? Everyone chooses a side. Some are less extreme than others.
But a great game plays on the same things movies and book do... human nature. It is not political to say that genocide is wrong because we all know it is. It is not political to say that religion shouldn't control the world, because it inevitably causes wars due to the differing interpretations of things and we all know this. It is not political to say torture is wrong because we all know it is.
They are simple facts of human nature and all of these stories use these to tug at your heart. Because, along with those willing to risk their own lives to save those who suffer these things (called heroes), these things make great stories.
Most humans like to hear of good conquering evil. It's not about "political this and that". It's about whats right. And you know very well that kindness, understanding, tolerance, strength, giving, intelligence, etc are the good things that makes the world go around.
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
Everything is politics for those who want to politicise everything. Everything is politics for those who want everything to conform to their way of thinking. There is a reason you don't hear the term 'political correctness' so much these days. It got used by those who think 'everything is politics' for every agenda, every new crusade. It's essential idea, that we should be polite to each other became lost in the baggage it was forced to carry. So they had to make up a new phrase - 'socially conscious'. But that will go the way of the last one, if you force something to carry enough garbage, it eventually ends up becoming a refuse bin.
You also seem to conflate human nature with politics! Lets examine some of your statements about what 'we all know'.
What is genocide? If you have a war with someone would you describe that as a little genocide? Did the Mongols who swept across the Asian plains killing so many commit genocide. Or is it a matter of intent, is the decision to commit genocide what counts?
Why should religions not control the world? You say that this would inevitably cause wars. I think you will agree that religion is not as powerful a force as it once was? That being the case would you say we have less wars now than we used to? People do not need religion as a reason to have wars, indeed it can stop those of the same religion from fighting each other.
You say torture is wrong, what is torture? Is waterboarding torture? If you believe it is do you think it is on the same level as having your nails and hair torn out, being put on a rack and stretched until your bones break?
What I am getting at here is you are making a political decision about what causes war, counts as genocide or torture. We do not simply "know these things." And therefore books, game, films and so on are making political statements when they feature them and take a stance.
What's right is not the same for every person. How tolerant and giving should we be? Don't worry we have the social media mob to tell us exactly what we should like, who we should be demanding an apology of and who we should vote for. Oops it got political again.
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
Exactly.
The authors argument falls in on itself because its all false dilemma's.
If games are an art as he says, which they are, then 3rd wave feminists just like everyone else should shut their yaps. if art wants to be for manly men blowing shit up while whistling at women in bikini's on the way to save the princess who is horny as hell and looking for a good bedding, it should be allowed. It is art after-all.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
Exactly.
The authors argument falls in on itself because its all false dilemma's.
If games are an art as he says, which they are, then 3rd wave feminists just like everyone else should shut their yaps. if art wants to be for manly men blowing shit up while whistling at women in bikini's on the way to save the princess who is horny as hell and looking for a good bedding, it should be allowed. It is art after-all.
GTA ? There are wackos on both sides of any argument screaming at stuff they don't like. If a game is too far out of comfort zone, just don't fucking buy it.
Good friend of mine used to represent several sports figures and a few lesser entertainers, and his advice to them was this: "Think anything you want, say anything you want behind closed doors. But as the US split down the middle politically , and also along religious lines, ANYTHING you say in the press/public is going to piss off about half of everyone, one side or the other. And THAT is going to hurt your earnings potential. Better to save that stuff until you are done playing."
The same thing applies to games and game makers.
Entertainment is the business. And companies do all they can for the game to have the widest appeal possible.
If some company makes a game that is to one extreme viewpoint or other, it is going to lose as many fans and it could gain, by making some political statement, it will by definition lower the appeal to at least some of the demographics.
So why do it?
Better to make games that everyone will like (and more to the point, buy) and not put in stuff that is "objectionable" to the demographic you are trying to target, than get on some soap box to try to generate some attention (and frankly, if you have to resort to some gimmick like that, chances are the game is crap anyway).
Of course, companies can "make a propaganda game" all they want, most are smart enough to not do that (or at least not overtly).
Conversely, you're likely to lose my business if your story doesn't include the kinds of things you are recommending people avoid.
I'd rather video game creators stop worrying about the bottom line and start making the games they want to make, political or otherwise.
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
Exactly.
The authors argument falls in on itself because its all false dilemma's.
If games are an art as he says, which they are, then 3rd wave feminists just like everyone else should shut their yaps. if art wants to be for manly men blowing shit up while whistling at women in bikini's on the way to save the princess who is horny as hell and looking for a good bedding, it should be allowed. It is art after-all.
GTA ? There are wackos on both sides of any argument screaming at stuff they don't like. If a game is too far out of comfort zone, just don't fucking buy it.
Ya know, when I was a kid I got so sick of my parents saying that entitlement was the issue with my "generation". Of course Ithe entitlement they meant was "free stuff" and I'm sure that argument has existed for thousands of years.
However, this type of entitlement, not sure if it's been around all that long, not super interested in doing the research, is definitely something I've started to notice. The "everything should be done my way" entitlement.
Games should be made how you think they should be made, things should be the color you think they should be, companies should do x, y, z for me.
Just don't buy it
I never understood what was so hard about this concept. Don't like something, don't buy it. It's just that easy. Just don't buy it and move along. Yes, i realize that your sense of happiness and self worth is directly related to your ability to consume product after product for no real purpose other than consumptions sake. But, and bear with me for a moment, maybe you should savor the things you do enjoy and not worry so much about the things you don't. If you do this then people can buy games they like and you can buy games you like and people over in some strange exotic land can eat bugs and everyone can get along.
YOU aren't going to change a business mind in ANY OTHER WAY than by NOT BUYING their product. So save yourself the gray hairs you worked up with your "screaming rant" about the stuff you don't like and go do something you do like. Your life will be happier, the people you interact with will be happier, and everyone can move along with their lives.
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
Exactly.
The authors argument falls in on itself because its all false dilemma's.
If games are an art as he says, which they are, then 3rd wave feminists just like everyone else should shut their yaps. if art wants to be for manly men blowing shit up while whistling at women in bikini's on the way to save the princess who is horny as hell and looking for a good bedding, it should be allowed. It is art after-all.
GTA ? There are wackos on both sides of any argument screaming at stuff they don't like. If a game is too far out of comfort zone, just don't fucking buy it.
I think the point is that only one of those sides is trying to force the industry to change the way they make games and it needs to be made the way THEY like it and anyone that disagrees is a woman hating, rape loving misogynist...
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
Exactly.
The authors argument falls in on itself because its all false dilemma's.
If games are an art as he says, which they are, then 3rd wave feminists just like everyone else should shut their yaps. if art wants to be for manly men blowing shit up while whistling at women in bikini's on the way to save the princess who is horny as hell and looking for a good bedding, it should be allowed. It is art after-all.
GTA ? There are wackos on both sides of any argument screaming at stuff they don't like. If a game is too far out of comfort zone, just don't fucking buy it.
I think the point is that only one of those sides is trying to force the industry to change the way they make games and it needs to be made the way THEY like it and anyone that disagrees is a woman hating, rape loving misogynist...
You forget the side that wants to remove all homosexual encounter in games and anyone disagreeing is a satan worshiper, kid brainwasher.
It depends on how many people you want to alienate.
You don't have to alienate many people if you do it subtly and in ways where it's not immediately obvious to everyone. I still say it's nearly impossible for games not to make a political statement. When people talk about "non-political games" they seem to be usually talking about games which reflect the politics of the majority and the status quo (Straight relationships are not political Gay relationships are political.) (Heroes are not political. Heroines are political.) This is blatantly wrong. All those things are making a political statement.
It would seem that you have a much more expansive notion of what constitutes a political statement than I do.
The thing I see as completely ass-backwards from some of these comments is that I know a lot of you wouldn't even think about it if a game depicted your hero as having a straight sex relationship, yet as soon as there is anything related to a same sex relationship it instantly turns into "I go to games to escape reality" (apparently your ideal reality is no gays?) or "The publishers are trying to push their political views into this game" (because apparently a publisher can't just treat people like the human beings that they are without it being about politics).
Most games I've played haven't explicitly mentioned any sexual relationships at all. In some games, there may be marriages or children or some such, and I suppose that you could read something into that if you really wanted to--but you can also ignore it if you prefer. Characters don't tell you that they're gay, but they also don't tell you that they're not, precisely because it has nothing to do with what the game is about. Why should the way that fictional species in a fictional universe reproduce have anything to do with real life?
It depends on how many people you want to alienate.
You don't have to alienate many people if you do it subtly and in ways where it's not immediately obvious to everyone. I still say it's nearly impossible for games not to make a political statement. When people talk about "non-political games" they seem to be usually talking about games which reflect the politics of the majority and the status quo (Straight relationships are not political Gay relationships are political.) (Heroes are not political. Heroines are political.) This is blatantly wrong. All those things are making a political statement.
It would seem that you have a much more expansive notion of what constitutes a political statement than I do.
Having a bunch of relationship options without having a gay ones certainly is a political statement, the same as including it would be one also.
Only male hero character options would be a political statement, just imagine diablo without the option to be a female.
If those are not political statement to you, what would you consider one ?
It depends on how many people you want to alienate.
You don't have to alienate many people if you do it subtly and in ways where it's not immediately obvious to everyone. I still say it's nearly impossible for games not to make a political statement. When people talk about "non-political games" they seem to be usually talking about games which reflect the politics of the majority and the status quo (Straight relationships are not political Gay relationships are political.) (Heroes are not political. Heroines are political.) This is blatantly wrong. All those things are making a political statement.
It would seem that you have a much more expansive notion of what constitutes a political statement than I do.
Having a bunch of relationship options without having a gay ones certainly is a political statement, the same as including it would be one also.
Only male hero character options would be a political statement, just imagine diablo without the option to be a female.
If those are not political statement to you, what would you consider one ?
If a game has only one hero and you play as that hero, that hero has to have some particular characteristics. Making the hero male or female or fat or skinny or whatever is hardly a political statement.
The sort of political statements that I want for games to avoid is obvious advocacy on one side of contentious political issues. It's one thing to depict characters involved in some political controversy such that people on either side of the issue can readily see their side as being the good guys. It's quite another to depict it as this side of the issue is the good guys and that side is evil.
Games mostly avoid such political statements. Television and movies are less scrupulous about it, though. If I turn on football, it's because I want to watch football, not hear some idiot announcer go on a rant about gun control at halftime when it has nothing to do with the game.
It depends on how many people you want to alienate.
You don't have to alienate many people if you do it subtly and in ways where it's not immediately obvious to everyone. I still say it's nearly impossible for games not to make a political statement. When people talk about "non-political games" they seem to be usually talking about games which reflect the politics of the majority and the status quo (Straight relationships are not political Gay relationships are political.) (Heroes are not political. Heroines are political.) This is blatantly wrong. All those things are making a political statement.
It would seem that you have a much more expansive notion of what constitutes a political statement than I do.
Having a bunch of relationship options without having a gay ones certainly is a political statement, the same as including it would be one also.
Only male hero character options would be a political statement, just imagine diablo without the option to be a female.
If those are not political statement to you, what would you consider one ?
If a game has only one hero and you play as that hero, that hero has to have some particular characteristics. Making the hero male or female or fat or skinny or whatever is hardly a political statement.
The sort of political statements that I want for games to avoid is obvious advocacy on one side of contentious political issues. It's one thing to depict characters involved in some political controversy such that people on either side of the issue can readily see their side as being the good guys. It's quite another to depict it as this side of the issue is the good guys and that side is evil.
Games mostly avoid such political statements. Television and movies are less scrupulous about it, though. If I turn on football, it's because I want to watch football, not hear some idiot announcer go on a rant about gun control at halftime when it has nothing to do with the game.
Sure if there is no option at all then it's irrelevent, be it female or male.
That's why I implied character options, you avoided the question. If Diablo had only 4 male character option wouldn't that be a political statement to you ?
This thread is asking if games should make political statements, bioware's games are probably the perfect example of it. If you don't see any political statement in there, then I guess you won't have a problem with it. If on the other end you feel your belief are attacked in the last dragon age game you might say that political statement that ''obviously'' advocacy for the other team have no place in gaming. Or if they cheer your side of the controversy you might think that both sides are well represented in the game.
In the end, all that matters is if it's reinforcing your side you'll see it as positive, if not, you will feel betrayed by the devs.
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
If you objected just as strongly to the "insistence by others that there must not be" you would have a point. A point that you object to anyone who rocks the boat, but at least it would be semi-unbiased. But only "semi" because the boat itself is inherently biased.
The thing you and others seem to be missing is that there is no objection to white male controlled, heterosexual-exclusive universes in fantasy or scifi games. No one writes articles about those political statements.
The objections and all the hoopla about "political agendas", "campaigners" and all your other buzzwords, only comes up when there is a divergence from the cozy conservative status quo.
And no there is no more merit in Gene Roddenberry having Kirk kiss a black woman on TV in the 60s "because no one was campaigning for it ahead of time." Perhaps no one was campaigning specifically for a Kirk-Uhura kiss but you have heard of the civil rights movement of the 60s haven't you? A time where "others" were "insisting" that they be treated equally? You object to those "campaigners" as well?
Or how about before that, the "no taxation without representation" campaigners? Bunch of troublemakers? And when representation happened, were those people just caving to the campaigners?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
No, i don't care about that. In fact, i think games shouldn't add romantic relationships as a gameplay mechanic, in principle. They usually are akwark and are a hastily coded addon.
I do thinkt Bioware trying to suck up to the LGBT crowd as a publicity stunt, to excuse their decreasing quality of games, is stupid.
I do think trying to make everyone bi just because is overdoing it.
So please, cut the ad hominem "you are actually selfish" crap.
This, this--so much this.
When we look at genres that pushed the boundaries, they just did it. People like Roddenberry just took the risk--knowing that it was risky--without having to "prepare the ground" so to speak. In an interview with the actress who played Uhura, she said to Roddenberry, "the show is getting better and better...and I figured out you are writing morality plays." Roddenberry simply said "shhh...they haven't figured that out yet!," and smiled. That's how you teach through art.
Today, in gaming, the strategy isn't to take risks, and it isn't about making the game so that the player "haven't figured out" it is about moral questions. Today, the "social justice" developers put their political agendas up front and center, alienate and isolate everyone who doesn't agree through op-eds and industry push, and criticize anyone who dares to be subtle.
Today's socially conscious developer in gaming doesn't want to take risks...they want to espouse whatever sort of social critique without having to be accountable to an audience who disagrees. Gene Roddenberry wouldn't do that. That's why Star Trek was so successful as a phenomenon. It's why Lucas Pope was as well (Papers, Please).
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Not at all. I say games should push boundaries by actually doing it, without having to explain themselves, and letting the public take it as they may. A lot of people dislike Mass Effect 3...I liked Mass Effect 3 (although I think 1 and 2 handled issues of social critique better).
There is a difference, I think, between good games that make statements and games that are promoted as good, based solely on their obsession with statements. The former makes the genre compelling. The latter turns the genre into an exercise in self indulgence.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
No company should HAVE TO push boundaries.
No company should HAVE TO make bold political statements.
No company should HAVE TO include OR exclude a "type" into what they are making.
All companies SHOULD make the product they wish to make with no pressure to make any changes to it.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
What devs are you talking about exactly? What specific games? I've seen some put stuff in games and then afterwards say "yeah this is part of what I wanted to write and you shouldn't really have a problem with it unless you are a bigot." Kind of like what Roddenberry did with the kiss. I haven't seen any deliberately trying to anger people or get them not to even play the game. Generally devs want as many people as possible to play their games.
What do you think "propaganda" is? Do I need a link here? OK, dictionary.com defines "propaganda"
Games can certainly take on political issues. They will be divisive, though.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Well....you ever heard of the stereo type "Damsel in distress". By a feminist this could be seen as men making games that push that women are weak. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this view could be applied to both Zelda and the original Donkey Kong. Don't get me wrong I am no supporter of feminism, but you asked so I gave an answer.
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
Americans are experts at projecting their ("our", as I am an American, too) beliefs on the rest of the world. Even fantastical, made up worlds
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Ok, so here's the thing... you don't like it, you don't need to pursue it. Yes, DAI has two gay characters. But you don't HAVE to take part in those storylines, it's up to you. Same thing as real life. You don't like it, don't do it, but that doesn't mean others can't. That's life.
As for politics... everything is politics, haven't you realized that yet? Everyone chooses a side. Some are less extreme than others.
But a great game plays on the same things movies and book do... human nature. It is not political to say that genocide is wrong because we all know it is. It is not political to say that religion shouldn't control the world, because it inevitably causes wars due to the differing interpretations of things and we all know this. It is not political to say torture is wrong because we all know it is.
They are simple facts of human nature and all of these stories use these to tug at your heart. Because, along with those willing to risk their own lives to save those who suffer these things (called heroes), these things make great stories.
Most humans like to hear of good conquering evil. It's not about "political this and that". It's about whats right. And you know very well that kindness, understanding, tolerance, strength, giving, intelligence, etc are the good things that makes the world go around.
Do you know what was the best done game for me, from a moral standpoint?
Fallout 3.
I say Fallout 3 because, unlike other action-adventure titles, it refused to clean the floor for you. Yes, it was a violent game. It was also bloody. But the difference, for me, is that when you killed someone, the body just stayed where it was. You could go back days later and see the body of the person you killed days earlier, right where you did the deed.
To say it was disturbing to see that was an understatement. It makes you think about what death truly means. In a moment, you can turn something you can talk to, see move, have some importance in the story just turn into an inanimate carcass, never to be as it once was...and it just sits there, reminding you of what you did.
See, I don't think we ought to go down the road of using games to voice political statements, because there are other ways of making statements that are far more powerful than narritively engineering the lesson. Frankly, we might know--in an intellectual sense--that torture and genocide is wrong. That intolerance is wrong. That killing is wrong
But we don't know it in a visceral sense unless we are allowed to be evil, to actually do torture, be intolerant, do an act of genocide, and be faced with the results. It isn't the mass killing and blood spurts that is wrong. The whole point of these games seems to show that killing is, regrettably, necessary; while killing is wrong, it is necessary to do it to stop a greater wrong. And I don't think any moralist who understands--really knows--politics can fault anyone who does what is necessary for the greater good.
But the true crime is that, all too often, the killer doesn't pay the price. That's the problem I have with God of War...it isn't the violence per se...it's that the game cleans the floor for you after you are done. They didn't do that in Fallout 3; that's why Fallout 3 stuck with me.
So I don't think we should be making political statements with games...we should be making political scenarios...and the best political scenarios are those where there is no absolute right or wrong, but different kinds of wrongs that we have to choose from. Lucas Pope in papers, Please did this marvelously...there was no perfect way to play. Each choice had its own consequences (you might save a defector, but your son may go without medicine)
Perhaps instead of cutting out death, genocide, bigotry and hatred, we should instead say, "You have to kill a hundred men and women? Fine...but we aren't going to make it easy for you to stomach it" we should say. "You go on a genocidal, torturing spree? Go ahead"..."but you are going to be faced with that guy with the cut off arm struggle once he leaves the torture chambers, and know that you caused that." Or "You are going to be faced with orphans w/o parents...the parents you systematically eliminated."
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
Everything is politics for those who want to politicise everything. Everything is politics for those who want everything to conform to their way of thinking. There is a reason you don't hear the term 'political correctness' so much these days. It got used by those who think 'everything is politics' for every agenda, every new crusade. It's essential idea, that we should be polite to each other became lost in the baggage it was forced to carry. So they had to make up a new phrase - 'socially conscious'. But that will go the way of the last one, if you force something to carry enough garbage, it eventually ends up becoming a refuse bin.
You also seem to conflate human nature with politics! Lets examine some of your statements about what 'we all know'.
What is genocide? If you have a war with someone would you describe that as a little genocide? Did the Mongols who swept across the Asian plains killing so many commit genocide. Or is it a matter of intent, is the decision to commit genocide what counts?
Why should religions not control the world? You say that this would inevitably cause wars. I think you will agree that religion is not as powerful a force as it once was? That being the case would you say we have less wars now than we used to? People do not need religion as a reason to have wars, indeed it can stop those of the same religion from fighting each other.
You say torture is wrong, what is torture? Is waterboarding torture? If you believe it is do you think it is on the same level as having your nails and hair torn out, being put on a rack and stretched until your bones break?
What I am getting at here is you are making a political decision about what causes war, counts as genocide or torture. We do not simply "know these things." And therefore books, game, films and so on are making political statements when they feature them and take a stance.
What's right is not the same for every person. How tolerant and giving should we be? Don't worry we have the social media mob to tell us exactly what we should like, who we should be demanding an apology of and who we should vote for. Oops it got political again.
Exactly.
The authors argument falls in on itself because its all false dilemma's.
If games are an art as he says, which they are, then 3rd wave feminists just like everyone else should shut their yaps. if art wants to be for manly men blowing shit up while whistling at women in bikini's on the way to save the princess who is horny as hell and looking for a good bedding, it should be allowed. It is art after-all.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
GTA ? There are wackos on both sides of any argument screaming at stuff they don't like. If a game is too far out of comfort zone, just don't fucking buy it.
Conversely, you're likely to lose my business if your story doesn't include the kinds of things you are recommending people avoid.
I'd rather video game creators stop worrying about the bottom line and start making the games they want to make, political or otherwise.
Ya know, when I was a kid I got so sick of my parents saying that entitlement was the issue with my "generation". Of course Ithe entitlement they meant was "free stuff" and I'm sure that argument has existed for thousands of years.
However, this type of entitlement, not sure if it's been around all that long, not super interested in doing the research, is definitely something I've started to notice. The "everything should be done my way" entitlement.
Games should be made how you think they should be made, things should be the color you think they should be, companies should do x, y, z for me.
Just don't buy it
I never understood what was so hard about this concept. Don't like something, don't buy it. It's just that easy. Just don't buy it and move along. Yes, i realize that your sense of happiness and self worth is directly related to your ability to consume product after product for no real purpose other than consumptions sake. But, and bear with me for a moment, maybe you should savor the things you do enjoy and not worry so much about the things you don't. If you do this then people can buy games they like and you can buy games you like and people over in some strange exotic land can eat bugs and everyone can get along.
YOU aren't going to change a business mind in ANY OTHER WAY than by NOT BUYING their product. So save yourself the gray hairs you worked up with your "screaming rant" about the stuff you don't like and go do something you do like. Your life will be happier, the people you interact with will be happier, and everyone can move along with their lives.
I think the point is that only one of those sides is trying to force the industry to change the way they make games and it needs to be made the way THEY like it and anyone that disagrees is a woman hating, rape loving misogynist...
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
You forget the side that wants to remove all homosexual encounter in games and anyone disagreeing is a satan worshiper, kid brainwasher.
Like I said, both side have their extremist.
It would seem that you have a much more expansive notion of what constitutes a political statement than I do.
Most games I've played haven't explicitly mentioned any sexual relationships at all. In some games, there may be marriages or children or some such, and I suppose that you could read something into that if you really wanted to--but you can also ignore it if you prefer. Characters don't tell you that they're gay, but they also don't tell you that they're not, precisely because it has nothing to do with what the game is about. Why should the way that fictional species in a fictional universe reproduce have anything to do with real life?
Having a bunch of relationship options without having a gay ones certainly is a political statement, the same as including it would be one also.
Only male hero character options would be a political statement, just imagine diablo without the option to be a female.
If those are not political statement to you, what would you consider one ?
If a game has only one hero and you play as that hero, that hero has to have some particular characteristics. Making the hero male or female or fat or skinny or whatever is hardly a political statement.
The sort of political statements that I want for games to avoid is obvious advocacy on one side of contentious political issues. It's one thing to depict characters involved in some political controversy such that people on either side of the issue can readily see their side as being the good guys. It's quite another to depict it as this side of the issue is the good guys and that side is evil.
Games mostly avoid such political statements. Television and movies are less scrupulous about it, though. If I turn on football, it's because I want to watch football, not hear some idiot announcer go on a rant about gun control at halftime when it has nothing to do with the game.
Sure if there is no option at all then it's irrelevent, be it female or male.
That's why I implied character options, you avoided the question. If Diablo had only 4 male character option wouldn't that be a political statement to you ?
This thread is asking if games should make political statements, bioware's games are probably the perfect example of it. If you don't see any political statement in there, then I guess you won't have a problem with it. If on the other end you feel your belief are attacked in the last dragon age game you might say that political statement that ''obviously'' advocacy for the other team have no place in gaming. Or if they cheer your side of the controversy you might think that both sides are well represented in the game.
In the end, all that matters is if it's reinforcing your side you'll see it as positive, if not, you will feel betrayed by the devs.
If you objected just as strongly to the "insistence by others that there must not be" you would have a point. A point that you object to anyone who rocks the boat, but at least it would be semi-unbiased. But only "semi" because the boat itself is inherently biased.
The thing you and others seem to be missing is that there is no objection to white male controlled, heterosexual-exclusive universes in fantasy or scifi games. No one writes articles about those political statements.
The objections and all the hoopla about "political agendas", "campaigners" and all your other buzzwords, only comes up when there is a divergence from the cozy conservative status quo.
And no there is no more merit in Gene Roddenberry having Kirk kiss a black woman on TV in the 60s "because no one was campaigning for it ahead of time." Perhaps no one was campaigning specifically for a Kirk-Uhura kiss but you have heard of the civil rights movement of the 60s haven't you? A time where "others" were "insisting" that they be treated equally? You object to those "campaigners" as well?
Or how about before that, the "no taxation without representation" campaigners? Bunch of troublemakers? And when representation happened, were those people just caving to the campaigners?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED