Girls shouldn't be in gaming the only message a few people will hear right now. Whatever. If a game's agenda scares you stay away from it. If a woman's agenda scares you, then stay away from it. If going outside scares you, good. I guess if you're only annoying on the internet then the world is a better place.
Uhmmmm are you saying that including homosexual characters or relationships in a game or history is a political Statement?
I strongly disagree with that. It´s not political...and it´s not an statement, it´s just a reflection of reality.
A political statement would be to deliberately NOT include homosexuals in a history because they think is not good.
In reality homosexuals have existed since EVER. It´s part of nature. Some claim that is not natural,but THAT IS their political or religious vision of what should be correct or not. Not the reality....not what naturaly exists.
So i am a bit confused with this topic.....
Should games stand up for freedom and human rights? That would be a better topic perhaps and the answer would be : YES.
Originally posted by Bladestrom No they can't, go look up what happens to the brain when people play games, in particular what parts become less active.
That depends on what type of game you are speaking, and that is only for starters. The way anything within an MMORPG specifically, is implemented, makes a world of difference. And what happens to the brain when people play games? They can get smarter... it depends on the game and how the player approaches it.
Be careful what you wish for. If you get far into a game only to have it suddenly turn into mercilessly ridiculing your political views, you got what you asked for.
Political disputes are mostly about differences of opinion. Education should mostly be about facts. Some things are easy to teach through games, especially geography. But most things that one might want to know for reasons unrelated to gaming aren't.
Education does not need to be facts in the exact manner which most people here are thinking. Consider an MMORPG world that consists of factions that are based on various "made up" religions and governments and societies and biases. This would make for GREAT MMORPGs. This would create a real world to live in. Given this type of MMORPG is implemented correctly, even the people that "do not want education or points of view shoved down their throats" would likely enjoy such a world. This approach would actually show all of the points of view, based on your characters' choices, race, gender, beliefs, atheist views, faction. It would have depth.
I've got nothing against games having made up religious and political factions. If the hot political issues of the day in the game are which metal coins ought to be minted from and which city ought to be the new capital after the old one was burned to the ground, fine.
If the hot political issues of the game are abortion, guns, and immigration, it's probably not going to end well. And if the storyline is designed specifically to mock some real-life political or religious group, that has no place in games that aren't explicitly political right from the start.
Indeed you did: "MMORPGs.... should absolutely... educate"
Now please explain where, in your utopic rant, you excluded the 3 MMORPG-publishing entities I mentioned?
1. You obviously did not read my entire first post, or did not understand what you read.
2. Nice to use a fallacy of logic in order to attempt to make a point that is still not there.
For instance, you have not included that you like getting ... *censored for sensitive eyes*... But you have not excluded that either, have you?
See how your "logic" works?
ad 2: not really... keeping in mind your original: "Without even reading beyond just the question, "Should games make political statements?" Yes."
Pot, kettle etc...
I'm ok with agree to disagree so will just leave it at that. If you enjoy this kind of scientologist line of reasoning: By all means: Knock yourself out!
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!! (repeat ad infinitum)
Uhmmmm are you saying that including homosexual characters or relationships in a game or history is a political Statement?
I strongly disagree with that. It´s not political...and it´s not an statement, it´s just a reflection of reality.
A political statement would be to deliberately NOT include homosexuals in a history because they think is not good.
In reality homosexuals have existed since EVER. It´s part of nature. Some claim that is not natural,but THAT IS their political or religious vision of what should be correct or not. Not the reality....not what naturaly exists.
So i am a bit confused with this topic.....
Should games stand up for freedom and human rights? That would be a better topic perhaps and the answer would be : YES.
Anything can be a political statement, if it has enough exposure. And homosexuality is very much one of those issues.
Without interjecting my own views on that topic, I will just say this. The decision to include homosexuals within a game in a humane fashion, is just as much of a statement as a decision not to include them. One way shows support (or at the very least acceptance) and the other does not. Those are two conflicting views on the matter.
However, that's not the discussion of this thread. The issue is not whether or not homosexuals are okay. It's whether or not a video game should have the right to express such opinions. My answer would be yes.
Food for thought: This argument also works both ways. If a game has the right to make a pro-statement (in this case on homosexuality), it would also mean that another game may have the right to have a more negative statement on the same issue. How many of us are willing to accept that? Even if we don't agree with the views of any given game.
Uhmmmm are you saying that including homosexual characters or relationships in a game or history is a political Statement?
I strongly disagree with that. It´s not political...and it´s not an statement, it´s just a reflection of reality.
A political statement would be to deliberately NOT include homosexuals in a history because they think is not good.
If advocating for something is a political statement, then so is advocating against it, and vice versa. Things don't become political only when they disagree with your personal biases.
You might only be offended at things that disagree with your biases, but there are likewise people who disagree with your biases who only get offended at things that disagree with theirs. Most publishers would prefer that people all across the political spectrum enjoy their game.
That said, if a game isn't set on Earth, why should the proportion of the population with any particular characteristic be remotely similar to real life?
In most games, a game designer who doesn't wish to open a can of worms on that particular topic has no real need to specify whether any particular character is gay.
Gamergate has changed a shitload since I stopped paying attention if it's set up as the Left vs. the Right as you've described. I would have thought the topic would be ethics and collusion in that not a single one of the major reviews informed the reader that this was a game with full box price and microtransactions rather than a discussion about if the game should have characters who are X.
The the developer's right to express themselves. As long as there is freedom of speech/expression, they have every right to do so. However, the same freedom is not extended to anyone else. If it's an online game, whenever players start bringin up religion, sexuality, politics, it never ends well.
As for me and my worthless opinion, I don't want them in my game.
Political issues don't turn ugly until one side starts to feel morally superior or otherwise entitled. Less people will get worked up over a game about a police state or a war than they will about a game that features abortion or homosexual rights. To be sure, there are political issues out there that we share common ground. But, police states and out of control corporations have provided fodder for video games since the Atari. So, obviously, this article must be talking about delving into politics of a more personal nature. Why would Sony or Activision step on a land mine that they know is there? Wouldn't games of that nature be better suited for an independent game studio?
Progressives have secured a lot of political capital for themselves by dividing this country into various aggrieved tribes. I would not welcome this influence into video games or video game culture. The video game industry has been able to withstand two decades of a conservative America with nothing more than a common sense ratings system because we were simply labeled by them as "gamers". Progressive politics, if allowed to fester within our industry, will get far, far more ugly than a Pat Robertson type providing some comic relief and a "T" or an "MA" on a box.
We need to be careful before we decide that we want video games to become too political. If fan reaction to Dragon Age has been any indicator: you can't put the genie back into the bottle. Any group with any sort of a grievance will expect some sort of representation in any game that comes out that offers choices. Over the years, RPG elements have been introduced into many different genres of games. Nothing will see these same elements get phased out of genres faster than constant political headache. Enjoy your linear first person shooter incapacitating terrorists from a non-specified Balkan country!
The video game industry needs to resist any outside influences that would label video games as political speech, hate speech, campaign speech or any other form of Progressive thought control or quota. Any attempt to allow for government subsidies for game companies that cater to a certain political point of view needs to be rejected.
To be fair, I do feel that indie developers can continue to make and do whatever they want to. If they want to make a game about personally held political beliefs; that's fair enough. I have no problem with any game about any subject matter as long as it is advertised honestly.
In conclusion: let the free market of open ideas decide; free from government interference and control.
However, i also say that you should know what you are doing and expect that not everyone is going to receive your message in a positive way.
That's life.
If poets and song writers and Authors and movie makers and "whoever else" can do it the those working in the medium of Video games should have the same opportunities to piss people off.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
This article is creating many false dilemma's to form a basis.
Gamergate is not a left vs right issue. Gamergate is about GAMING JOURNALIST CORRUPTION. It has nothing to do with sexism no matter how many times you corrupt journalists trying to say it is.
Gamergate has nothing to do with games portraying any sex in any way or not portraying them in any way...gamers DONT CARE and saying things like "even if that doesn’t mean bloody tunnel-shooters and masculine power fantasies all the time" makes me question if you are even a gamer at all and not just another cultural warrior journalist white knighting for feminists. Gamers don't care who the main character is, Tomb Raider showed that DECADES ago and there have been plenty of games with women as THE character that sold millions of copies, to men.
Gamers don't care about the sex of a character, they don't care about the RACE of a character...outsiders do, because they are not gamers, not in the community and really really need to be victimized.
And NO, we do NOT "have to" take the criticism of people that DONT PLAY GAMES...put down your knightly sword and LISTEN to yourself.
Music fans need to listen to the opinions of people that don't listen to music?
Footbal fans should listen to the opinions of people that don't like the sport?
Are movie critics people that DONT watch movies and just sit there and pick them apart being the clueless apes they are?
Yeah, what you said is complete BS.
Another false dilemma, "The obvious answer would be to purge ourselves of gaming media and accept games on their own merit; but doing so robs us of the community". Or, we just toss out the opinions, hype and reviews of the media and maintain our community using their forums or just turn to using actual gaming communities where people have actual close ties like Steam.
Another false dilemma, "Games are at a point where they can no longer exist in isolation. Game makers, like college professors, are political figures: what they do ripples through the discourse. The further games push into the mainstream, the harder it will be to separate games from culture."
What a CROCK that is. no longer exist in isolation...from WHOM? I question you being a gamer having said this pure BS. Gaming hasn't been "isolated" since the early 80s and has been mainstream since the GAMEBOY was released.
As for the final major false dilemma of yours...Bioware making a political statement with DA:I...and before anyone says I am white knighting for them...I have already said on here last week that the game BLOWS, has horrible combat, the UI is FUBAR and the story is bland as hell...so, no, they are not pushing anything as you can go back to Origins and find GAY CHARACTERS!
They only came out bragging about their transgender character to shut the fundamentalists up. They didn't do it for them, they did it because Bioware has been doing it for a long time already.
Get off your high horse and stop white knighting this madness, never in history has another industry been attacked in such a way and for an industry with the most open-minded culture there is.
"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/
I think the other side of the equation is a far better question - can any act of communication (be it game, written, tv) ever exist without making a statement, political, cultural or otherwise. It's a commonly held misconception that the only political or cultural statements (which are one in the same really) are only valid when they are deliberate and intentional. Really, any communication between two or more individuals requires cultural and political context - aka a political or cultural statement.
That requires the understanding that everything is a political statement, wrapped in moral, ethical and value laden meaning-making. Something as simple as saying "Hello" to someone has cultural, political implications as well moral and ethical statements wrapped up in the word, say nothing of the context in which the word occurred, which further influences and changes the overall cultural statement. Saying hello to your mum in the morning has a different meaning than saying hello to a stranger on the street.
The real challenge comes in with how a communicator tailors a message. In cultural studies, a critical writer till adopt a perspective that may or may not be their own, and approach the work (referred to as a cultural artifact) from the adopted perspective. This is generally called a "Reading" within the cultural studies community. A reading isn't 'right' or 'wrong' -- it simply is. There are readings that are easier to arrive at and readings that are more challenging to suss out of the artifact, but neither is superior to the other. A reading just is. This is why so many people have problems understanding cultural studies, they are obsessed with finding the True (note: capital T) answer--the one that negates all other readings. Many people in our society work in the land of absolutes, but cultural studies doesn't work that way. We live in shades of possibility without ever having the luxury of closure by discovering the "Truth" of a given cultural artifact.
The more a writer or designer is aware of the potential readings of a message, they more the writer can tailor the meeting, creating a desired interpretation of the communication. Whether or not they actually attempt to tailor the political / cultural meaning does nothing to negate the fact that the meaning exists, if they want it to or not.
I have no problem with games that "stir the pot" as long as they don't try to declare one point of view correct and the other incorrect. Dragon Age Inquisition leaves the choices up to the player and doesn't force any political view upon them.
MMORPGs tend to be limited on their ability to give players meaningful choices (outside of their character development) and have to be careful about approaching political issues. If a quest or major story event reinforces one political view, those who support the opposite view may feel alienated in the game. Do that too often or to a far extreme on the political view and you lose players.
I think they should be allowed to if they want to, yes. I'm not about to tell anyone that they can't state their beliefs.
However, I don't think they should. If I wanted a political statement, I'd turn on the news. Games are entertainment. I just want to have fun while playing a game, and that means not being bombarded by someone's political ideology. I don't even care if I agree with it or not. Just give me a good story, fun game-play, and lovable characters and I'm set. I don't care what gender they are, what color their skin is, etc.
Political pandering has its time and place, and I don't think video games fall in either category. You'd think it would be bad marketing as well. If you state your opinion (political or otherwise), there will always be someone who does not agree. In the video game industry, that could lead to a loss of sales.
All that being said, I think games being more inclusive is a good thing. If a game includes heterosexual romance, I see no reason why it should not include homosexual romance. I don't necessarily see inclusiveness as political, unless they are doing it for purely political reasons.
This article is creating many false dilemma's to form a basis.
Gamergate is not a left vs right issue. Gamergate is about GAMING JOURNALIST CORRUPTION. It has nothing to do with sexism no matter how many times you corrupt journalists trying to say it is.
Gamergate has nothing to do with games portraying any sex in any way or not portraying them in any way...gamers DONT CARE and saying things like "even if that doesn’t mean bloody tunnel-shooters and masculine power fantasies all the time" makes me question if you are even a gamer at all and not just another cultural warrior journalist white knighting for feminists. Gamers don't care who the main character is, Tomb Raider showed that DECADES ago and there have been plenty of games with women as THE character that sold millions of copies, to men.
Gamers don't care about the sex of a character, they don't care about the RACE of a character...outsiders do, because they are not gamers, not in the community and really really need to be victimized.
And NO, we do NOT "have to" take the criticism of people that DONT PLAY GAMES...put down your knightly sword and LISTEN to yourself.
Music fans need to listen to the opinions of people that don't listen to music?
Footbal fans should listen to the opinions of people that don't like the sport?
Are movie critics people that DONT watch movies and just sit there and pick them apart being the clueless apes they are?
Yeah, what you said is complete BS.
Another false dilemma, "The obvious answer would be to purge ourselves of gaming media and accept games on their own merit; but doing so robs us of the community". Or, we just toss out the opinions, hype and reviews of the media and maintain our community using their forums or just turn to using actual gaming communities where people have actual close ties like Steam.
Another false dilemma, "Games are at a point where they can no longer exist in isolation. Game makers, like college professors, are political figures: what they do ripples through the discourse. The further games push into the mainstream, the harder it will be to separate games from culture."
What a CROCK that is. no longer exist in isolation...from WHOM? I question you being a gamer having said this pure BS. Gaming hasn't been "isolated" since the early 80s and has been mainstream since the GAMEBOY was released.
As for the final major false dilemma of yours...Bioware making a political statement with DA:I...and before anyone says I am white knighting for them...I have already said on here last week that the game BLOWS, has horrible combat, the UI is FUBAR and the story is bland as hell...so, no, they are not pushing anything as you can go back to Origins and find GAY CHARACTERS!
They only came out bragging about their transgender character to shut the fundamentalists up. They didn't do it for them, they did it because Bioware has been doing it for a long time already.
Get off your high horse and stop white knighting this madness, never in history has another industry been attacked in such a way and for an industry with the most open-minded culture there is.
Amen. You said it way better than me. Although I've never played DA:I, so I can't comment on that.
There's a lot of misinformation in the public sphere (not directed at this thread) about 'gamergate' and what a 'gamer' is and should be and art and all that. There are a lot of words being bandied about without any clear definition of what they mean ('art' being a primary example) and in that kind of atmosphere, there can be and will be only misinformation and yelling past each other.
With that said and attention drawn to that fact, I'll simply say this: any developer or artist should be encouraged to create their artistic vision. From the most neo-reactionary right to the most utopian progressivist left, there is a market of SOME size for anything and artists should be allowed to meet those niches. Authors, critics, and the like should feel free to write about their viewpoints on these things. This is, in a nutshell, 'politic'. But that isn't where we're at.
Where we are at is that when a group disagrees with something, they not only feel the need to critique it, they actively attempt to destroy you, your livelihood, your career, your reputation, and ultimately your life simply for daring to have a different opinion. It is these...people...and those who support them in the name of 'politics' and 'culture' that are muddying the waters with intentionally misleading propaganda. Most people (and even most gamergate people) could not care less about the color of protagonists, the gender or sexual orientation of characters, or any of the other minutiae that is attributed to them as the thing they are fighting against. What they care about is the near-clandestine, subversive attempts to form coalitions that exist for nothing more than to turn games into purely political platforms and attempt to destroy anyone who would create a game outside of that platform's preferred narrative. Groups whose stated goals include removing 'fun' from the gameplay of a game, or using games as an apparatus to make people feel uncomfortable about their place in society as seen by these groups.
Until the distinction is made about what it is we're talking about, we'll continue to ask completely misguided questions such as the one posed in this article: Should games make political statements. It is impossible not to make a statement wherein a political viewpoint can be drawn, but neither is that relevant in any way, shape, or form to the actual problem.
No thank you. I want separation between my video games and real life issues.
If a game feels that they want to "convey a message", I'll pass it by.
- 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
Comments
Girls shouldn't be in gaming the only message a few people will hear right now. Whatever. If a game's agenda scares you stay away from it. If a woman's agenda scares you, then stay away from it. If going outside scares you, good. I guess if you're only annoying on the internet then the world is a better place.
The more views in gaming the better.
Well and truly said, I agree 100%
I've got nothing against games having made up religious and political factions. If the hot political issues of the day in the game are which metal coins ought to be minted from and which city ought to be the new capital after the old one was burned to the ground, fine.
If the hot political issues of the game are abortion, guns, and immigration, it's probably not going to end well. And if the storyline is designed specifically to mock some real-life political or religious group, that has no place in games that aren't explicitly political right from the start.
ad 2: not really... keeping in mind your original: "Without even reading beyond just the question, "Should games make political statements?" Yes."
Pot, kettle etc...
I'm ok with agree to disagree so will just leave it at that. If you enjoy this kind of scientologist line of reasoning: By all means: Knock yourself out!
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
Anything can be a political statement, if it has enough exposure. And homosexuality is very much one of those issues.
Without interjecting my own views on that topic, I will just say this. The decision to include homosexuals within a game in a humane fashion, is just as much of a statement as a decision not to include them. One way shows support (or at the very least acceptance) and the other does not. Those are two conflicting views on the matter.
However, that's not the discussion of this thread. The issue is not whether or not homosexuals are okay. It's whether or not a video game should have the right to express such opinions. My answer would be yes.
Food for thought: This argument also works both ways. If a game has the right to make a pro-statement (in this case on homosexuality), it would also mean that another game may have the right to have a more negative statement on the same issue. How many of us are willing to accept that? Even if we don't agree with the views of any given game.
Should games not include black characters?
It gets as easy to see as that.
Predictable responses, but equally faulty. Lots of ethnicities / nationalities not included in most games. Lots.
Such choices are business related where they drive profits and political / social where they do not.
I agree.
THAT IS the political Statement or choice.
Including them is not.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
The the developer's right to express themselves. As long as there is freedom of speech/expression, they have every right to do so. However, the same freedom is not extended to anyone else. If it's an online game, whenever players start bringin up religion, sexuality, politics, it never ends well.
As for me and my worthless opinion, I don't want them in my game.
Political issues don't turn ugly until one side starts to feel morally superior or otherwise entitled. Less people will get worked up over a game about a police state or a war than they will about a game that features abortion or homosexual rights. To be sure, there are political issues out there that we share common ground. But, police states and out of control corporations have provided fodder for video games since the Atari. So, obviously, this article must be talking about delving into politics of a more personal nature. Why would Sony or Activision step on a land mine that they know is there? Wouldn't games of that nature be better suited for an independent game studio?
Progressives have secured a lot of political capital for themselves by dividing this country into various aggrieved tribes. I would not welcome this influence into video games or video game culture. The video game industry has been able to withstand two decades of a conservative America with nothing more than a common sense ratings system because we were simply labeled by them as "gamers". Progressive politics, if allowed to fester within our industry, will get far, far more ugly than a Pat Robertson type providing some comic relief and a "T" or an "MA" on a box.
We need to be careful before we decide that we want video games to become too political. If fan reaction to Dragon Age has been any indicator: you can't put the genie back into the bottle. Any group with any sort of a grievance will expect some sort of representation in any game that comes out that offers choices. Over the years, RPG elements have been introduced into many different genres of games. Nothing will see these same elements get phased out of genres faster than constant political headache. Enjoy your linear first person shooter incapacitating terrorists from a non-specified Balkan country!
The video game industry needs to resist any outside influences that would label video games as political speech, hate speech, campaign speech or any other form of Progressive thought control or quota. Any attempt to allow for government subsidies for game companies that cater to a certain political point of view needs to be rejected.
To be fair, I do feel that indie developers can continue to make and do whatever they want to. If they want to make a game about personally held political beliefs; that's fair enough. I have no problem with any game about any subject matter as long as it is advertised honestly.
In conclusion: let the free market of open ideas decide; free from government interference and control.
I say a resounding "yes".
However, i also say that you should know what you are doing and expect that not everyone is going to receive your message in a positive way.
That's life.
If poets and song writers and Authors and movie makers and "whoever else" can do it the those working in the medium of Video games should have the same opportunities to piss people off.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
This article is creating many false dilemma's to form a basis.
Gamergate is not a left vs right issue. Gamergate is about GAMING JOURNALIST CORRUPTION. It has nothing to do with sexism no matter how many times you corrupt journalists trying to say it is.
Gamergate has nothing to do with games portraying any sex in any way or not portraying them in any way...gamers DONT CARE and saying things like "even if that doesn’t mean bloody tunnel-shooters and masculine power fantasies all the time" makes me question if you are even a gamer at all and not just another cultural warrior journalist white knighting for feminists. Gamers don't care who the main character is, Tomb Raider showed that DECADES ago and there have been plenty of games with women as THE character that sold millions of copies, to men.
Gamers don't care about the sex of a character, they don't care about the RACE of a character...outsiders do, because they are not gamers, not in the community and really really need to be victimized.
And NO, we do NOT "have to" take the criticism of people that DONT PLAY GAMES...put down your knightly sword and LISTEN to yourself.
Music fans need to listen to the opinions of people that don't listen to music?
Footbal fans should listen to the opinions of people that don't like the sport?
Are movie critics people that DONT watch movies and just sit there and pick them apart being the clueless apes they are?
Yeah, what you said is complete BS.
Another false dilemma, "The obvious answer would be to purge ourselves of gaming media and accept games on their own merit; but doing so robs us of the community". Or, we just toss out the opinions, hype and reviews of the media and maintain our community using their forums or just turn to using actual gaming communities where people have actual close ties like Steam.
Another false dilemma, "Games are at a point where they can no longer exist in isolation. Game makers, like college professors, are political figures: what they do ripples through the discourse. The further games push into the mainstream, the harder it will be to separate games from culture."
What a CROCK that is. no longer exist in isolation...from WHOM? I question you being a gamer having said this pure BS. Gaming hasn't been "isolated" since the early 80s and has been mainstream since the GAMEBOY was released.
As for the final major false dilemma of yours...Bioware making a political statement with DA:I...and before anyone says I am white knighting for them...I have already said on here last week that the game BLOWS, has horrible combat, the UI is FUBAR and the story is bland as hell...so, no, they are not pushing anything as you can go back to Origins and find GAY CHARACTERS!
They only came out bragging about their transgender character to shut the fundamentalists up. They didn't do it for them, they did it because Bioware has been doing it for a long time already.
Get off your high horse and stop white knighting this madness, never in history has another industry been attacked in such a way and for an industry with the most open-minded culture there is.
"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/
I think the other side of the equation is a far better question - can any act of communication (be it game, written, tv) ever exist without making a statement, political, cultural or otherwise. It's a commonly held misconception that the only political or cultural statements (which are one in the same really) are only valid when they are deliberate and intentional. Really, any communication between two or more individuals requires cultural and political context - aka a political or cultural statement.
That requires the understanding that everything is a political statement, wrapped in moral, ethical and value laden meaning-making. Something as simple as saying "Hello" to someone has cultural, political implications as well moral and ethical statements wrapped up in the word, say nothing of the context in which the word occurred, which further influences and changes the overall cultural statement. Saying hello to your mum in the morning has a different meaning than saying hello to a stranger on the street.
The real challenge comes in with how a communicator tailors a message. In cultural studies, a critical writer till adopt a perspective that may or may not be their own, and approach the work (referred to as a cultural artifact) from the adopted perspective. This is generally called a "Reading" within the cultural studies community. A reading isn't 'right' or 'wrong' -- it simply is. There are readings that are easier to arrive at and readings that are more challenging to suss out of the artifact, but neither is superior to the other. A reading just is. This is why so many people have problems understanding cultural studies, they are obsessed with finding the True (note: capital T) answer--the one that negates all other readings. Many people in our society work in the land of absolutes, but cultural studies doesn't work that way. We live in shades of possibility without ever having the luxury of closure by discovering the "Truth" of a given cultural artifact.
The more a writer or designer is aware of the potential readings of a message, they more the writer can tailor the meeting, creating a desired interpretation of the communication. Whether or not they actually attempt to tailor the political / cultural meaning does nothing to negate the fact that the meaning exists, if they want it to or not.
In this, games are no different.
I have no problem with games that "stir the pot" as long as they don't try to declare one point of view correct and the other incorrect. Dragon Age Inquisition leaves the choices up to the player and doesn't force any political view upon them.
MMORPGs tend to be limited on their ability to give players meaningful choices (outside of their character development) and have to be careful about approaching political issues. If a quest or major story event reinforces one political view, those who support the opposite view may feel alienated in the game. Do that too often or to a far extreme on the political view and you lose players.
I think they should be allowed to if they want to, yes. I'm not about to tell anyone that they can't state their beliefs.
However, I don't think they should. If I wanted a political statement, I'd turn on the news. Games are entertainment. I just want to have fun while playing a game, and that means not being bombarded by someone's political ideology. I don't even care if I agree with it or not. Just give me a good story, fun game-play, and lovable characters and I'm set. I don't care what gender they are, what color their skin is, etc.
Political pandering has its time and place, and I don't think video games fall in either category. You'd think it would be bad marketing as well. If you state your opinion (political or otherwise), there will always be someone who does not agree. In the video game industry, that could lead to a loss of sales.
All that being said, I think games being more inclusive is a good thing. If a game includes heterosexual romance, I see no reason why it should not include homosexual romance. I don't necessarily see inclusiveness as political, unless they are doing it for purely political reasons.
Amen. You said it way better than me. Although I've never played DA:I, so I can't comment on that.
There's a lot of misinformation in the public sphere (not directed at this thread) about 'gamergate' and what a 'gamer' is and should be and art and all that. There are a lot of words being bandied about without any clear definition of what they mean ('art' being a primary example) and in that kind of atmosphere, there can be and will be only misinformation and yelling past each other.
With that said and attention drawn to that fact, I'll simply say this: any developer or artist should be encouraged to create their artistic vision. From the most neo-reactionary right to the most utopian progressivist left, there is a market of SOME size for anything and artists should be allowed to meet those niches. Authors, critics, and the like should feel free to write about their viewpoints on these things. This is, in a nutshell, 'politic'. But that isn't where we're at.
Where we are at is that when a group disagrees with something, they not only feel the need to critique it, they actively attempt to destroy you, your livelihood, your career, your reputation, and ultimately your life simply for daring to have a different opinion. It is these...people...and those who support them in the name of 'politics' and 'culture' that are muddying the waters with intentionally misleading propaganda. Most people (and even most gamergate people) could not care less about the color of protagonists, the gender or sexual orientation of characters, or any of the other minutiae that is attributed to them as the thing they are fighting against. What they care about is the near-clandestine, subversive attempts to form coalitions that exist for nothing more than to turn games into purely political platforms and attempt to destroy anyone who would create a game outside of that platform's preferred narrative. Groups whose stated goals include removing 'fun' from the gameplay of a game, or using games as an apparatus to make people feel uncomfortable about their place in society as seen by these groups.
Until the distinction is made about what it is we're talking about, we'll continue to ask completely misguided questions such as the one posed in this article: Should games make political statements. It is impossible not to make a statement wherein a political viewpoint can be drawn, but neither is that relevant in any way, shape, or form to the actual problem.
No thank you. I want separation between my video games and real life issues.
If a game feels that they want to "convey a message", I'll pass it by.
- 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