Slashdot Mirror
Can Games Address Serious Social Issues?
Thanks to AVault.com for its editorial ruminating on whether games can or should reference the more serious social issues of today. The piece starts by noting: "Only a very few computer offerings have anything resembling any form of probing social critique... In contrast, other entertainment media - including movies, music and books - all address these issues on a regular basis without raising eyebrows." The author concludes by suggesting it's "conceivable that games would reap greater societal acceptance and more legitimacy as a medium for presenting important concerns of our times", although mentioning the worry that "increasing the respectability of gaming might reduce the pleasure of the pastime" if done in the wrong way.
increasing the respectability of gaming might reduce the pleasure of the pastime
There's a simple answer to this: for the people who would be negatively affected by this, simply play less respectable games. Just like not all books printed are respectable, there is something for everyone.
Books have been lucky though. After the awful things that people have done to suppress thought (expressed in book form) books now enjoy a special place in our culture. To burn a book is seen as a very bad thing all over the Western world.
Computer games, in comparison, are relatively new, and don't have the stigma of free speech attached to them so much. Some would argue that they don't qualify as free speech at all. Perhaps enjoyably inappropriate games such as the Grand Theft Auto series might eventually allow games as a whole to enjoy the same protected status as books? Time will tell.
I don't know if anyone even remebers this game, but here we go..... The game "I have no mouth and I must scream" based on the Harlan Ellison short story of the same name, actually addressed several hardcore social issues. The game was played through the eyes of several people, all who lived in different dimensions, and all of them facing their own inner demons. I vividly remeber playing the game as a german camp doctor, who has to decide wether or not to rescue several jews, and not making it into a bland shooter. And there was the misformed monkey man Benny, who although beautiful in real life, was a misformed man in this reality and his only way out was suicide. The game dealt with religion, alcoholism and several other issues and it did it in a very mature, and levelheaded fashion. No glorifying or blunt statements, the game had several outcomes, based on how "compassionate" you had played the game. Can games address serious social issues? Hell YES! But is there a big market for this sort of game? Do I really want a game that confronts me with "the real world" when all I want to do is escape that real world by playing a game? I think that is the question that needs to be asked and the answer to that is that games are a form of relaxation (for me anyways) and a way to escape real life for a while. Therefor addressing the real life issues in a virtual environment that I enter for my enjoyment is a concept that is interesting, but ultimately flawed. Yes I enjoyed "I have no mouth and I must scream" immensely, but I played it once and never again. I can't even count how many times I've played wing commander.
If games did that , then they wouldn't be games. They would be applications. Games are entertainment.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."-THG
So you want to add some dipshit that lectures about social concerns in the middle of Grand Theft Auto?
Sure. Why Not? Watch he often he gets fragged.
The only reason to beat gamers over the head with the morality stick in a game is so they can grab that stick away and stick it up someone's ass.
Games are cathartic. They are a release from the bullshit in everyday life. If you inject everyday life into a game, it's not going to sell (The Sims being an exception, but people still love torturing Sims, so I think it proves my first point).
"Only a very few sport offerings have anything resembling any form of probing social critique... In contrast, other entertainment media - including movies, music and books - all address these issues on a regular basis without raising eyebrows." The author concludes by suggesting it's "conceivable that sports would reap greater societal acceptance and more legitimacy as a medium for presenting important concerns of our times", although mentioning the worry that "increasing the respectability of sports might reduce the pleasure of the pastime" if done in the wrong way.
I think there is a problem with target mass markets. The big money-making movies rarely crack the surface of important issues. And frankly, Joe and Josette movie-goer rarely WANT to be alerted to social/economic/global issues. At the end of a long work week, most people want to escape to an air-conditioned megaplex to see Senator Arnie nuke some aliens (a guilty pleasure we almost all want).
But I agree that we need to balance such popcorn ventures with thought-provoking movies about global issues, told not just from a North American standpoint. Perhaps European game companies should pushing their industry the same way European movie houses do the movie industry. I imagine the global market would like to see games that improve the human condition.
The upcoming NARC update may have some of this included, but I'd like to see a RPG or survival horror game including a heroin addiction. It would probably work like the sanity meter in Eternal Darkness, where a lower meter makes the graphics and control all wonky.
One of the reasons that games haven't dealt with more serious subjects is that they are not based in reality a lot of the time. GTA/Shenmue are some of the only recent games that are someone grounded. If a game was based in NYC without supernatural stuff happening, and with real character development, it could address some of these social issues. Any city would fine, really.
I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
Mostly the games reflect society rather than address serious social issues. The best they can do is poke fun at stupidity ("Backyard Wrestling" for example). But games have already tried in the past.
Games like Ms. Pacman recognize the need to appeal to both genders back in the 80's. Clothing styles of characters also show this. In fact, the abstract games of the 80's showed great creativity and artistic flair of sorts. Today, the rise of the music game is demonstrating the digital age of music and remixing.
Games have tried to tackle serious social issues. Time Traveller and N.A.R.C. (apologetically) had "Winners Don't Use Drugs" messages overtly in them. And more recently, the ratings system with good intentions while paving the road to Hell attempts to match content to the appropriate age group as a guideline.
So it's there, but it's always been a sort of background thing. I believe the nature of games being entertainment, it'll be hard to put a serious message in.
(I also felt there were a lot of big psycho-babble words in the article that made it a little too unreadable.)
That trait is that the plot is fleshed out at various points of the game(and read the text in the game to understand it). RPG's are probably the best examples of this trait. Recently, games have taken on the characteristics of movies with voice artists, and even big-name Hollywood actors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pierce Brosnan being digitally inserted in games based on their movies. For certain idiots to say that video games don't deserve First Amendment protection is absurd in its own right. Besides, I think that within 3-5 years, the Supreme Court will rule that video games are protected by the First Amendment and, IMHO, they will because the appeals courts have already ruled that way(and also because I feel that the Supreme Court already made up its mind by silently agreed with the 7th Circuit's ruling against Indianapolis' attempt to regulate games).
BearDogg-X
Yes they can!
Creative Demolition
Oh wait. You don't like social criticism when it isn't politically correct?
Try killing animals in Windwaker... after a certain number of swipes with your sword, they gain superstrength and charge you until you're dead or forced into the ocean. While it isn't a public service announcement about fuzzy bunny getting more hair 'down there', it is, in fact, social commentary. And in my opinion, it is the best kind.
Why are there people in the world that insist on trying to push their ideals on to the rest of the population? I'm a firm believer in the fact that if a person doesn't want to feel a certain way, they won't. And pushing harder will only push them farther away from your viewpoint. The only solution is to provide examples of your viewpoint and hope that people agree.
And back to my original example... Windwaker did just that. It doesn't force the view upon you, it just makes it's point and carries on.
This game referenced environmentalism, albeit in a more subtle way... I've always hoped for a game on addiction though... the longer you're addicted, the faster you have to tap the buttons to get the same high...
Or imagine myself somewhere else. I don't WANT to have to worry about a real-life social issue when I'm playing Halo online. I just want to kill enough people to win or get the flag before the other team gets mine.
As far as social interaction on Halo, it doesn't go much farther then yelling "Bitch" to the banshee whores and cussing at the teammate who let Red steal our flag... again.
Halo isn't the point or topic, I know.
But no social interaction (faked or real) is just the way I like it. I'm a perfectly intelligent creature in normal conversation but Gaming is the time I can get away, escape it all, as I said. And I wouldn't change it to anything else for the world.
Make sure it fits into the story you're trying to tell first. Sure back in the day games had simple stories basically consisting of chomp these little dots while avoiding ghosts or shoot these blobs that are aliens coming toward you while you move horizontally.
They've evolved alot and I liken them more to interactive stories. I think that's why alot of games even with halfway decent gameplay blow, they may tell a story but it sucks and is usually just a rehashed story or licensed from a lame property in the first place.
It's a difficult job mixing good gameplay with good story, but some companies do a very good job b/c they don't throw in stuff that doesn't fit within their overall vision.
Bioware's KotOR was awesome b/c it did it's job but offered a lot of content and cool gameplay to do that job, and in a way dealt with social issues (Czerka corporation is an evil company willing to withhold a cure to a disease for the highest bidder and enslave an entire species.)
Games *can* include social commentary, but they don't always need it.
No sig for you!!
http://www.paxwarrior.com
Pax Warrior is not really a game as such, but an "interactive multimedia documentary". It is marketted as, and plays like an interactive Social Studies game. Users (students) are presented with a first-person interaction taking them through the experiences and decisions faced by a UN Commander on a peace keeping mission to Rwanda.
Pax Warrior is very interesting in that, like many games, it presents users with choices that must be made, and consequences that arise from those decisions. In this case, the choices and consequences are very closely modelled on what actually happended in Rwanda.
And yes, for those who are wondering, it has a fixed ending. It's a pretty emotionally connected, moving one at that.
one of the mappers for the commercial release of UT2K4 referenced something of a social phenomenon in the AS-Junkyard map...
just look for the Goatse thread in the atari forums (and various weblogs), or fire up that map and see for yourself.
And people have noted how the map maker forgot the wedding ring on the, um, structure.
1. Game X has done this successfully
2. I play games to escape => this shouldn't be done
3. This is just a whiny, Liberal, politically-correct issue.
As a mature (read: over 30) gamer who has played a lot of games, my general position is that, in the right genre, done correctly, socially-relevant games can showcase some of the best ideas and talent in the medium. I'm not talking about arcade games with the FBI's "stay away from drugs" splashscreen or making the blood in Mortal Combat green for the kids at home.
I *am* talking about some of the most emotionally powerful moments in gaming, such as the child-abuse cutscenes that explain character motivation in The Longest Journey, or the brilliant handling of a variety of social issues in Planescape: Torment (IMHO the best CPRG of all time), or the socially-relevant and mind-blowing puzzles in IF such as Infocom's classic A Mind Forever Voyaging. In games like these, the social commentary was relevant and important to plot and character, and did not distract from the escapism in any way. Moreover, the player does not come away from games of this sort feeling like s/he has been lectured at.
Remember, one of the things that makes novels, films, and, yes, games, great is there ability to engage the viewer/player emotionally. Ultimately, it is the games of this sort that will be remembered in the gaming "canon" as the steps that moved the gaming from a "fad" in the post-Atari '80s to a "fine art" in the future.
And how are games not considered a form of free speech? Just because politicians try to make a few speeches about the issue and a few watchdog groups make a fuss does not mean anyone is having their rights violated. Show me a law that the United States has passed that has limited someone's free speech in the form of a video game. You can't because there's no law. The fact is that video games are already headed in the direction of being a complex media that can span multiple target generations, just as movies do, and that the government isn't even close to censoring video games at all.
If Nintendo, MS, or Sony want to be taken seriously they have to let porn games come out? That's hogwash. All three of those companies make truckloads of money and are multi-national. They're not viewed as mom-and-pop operations by anyone. The release of a "porn game" [you still haven't outlined exactly what that is] would not help these companies at all.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
I agree about RPGs being the best form of gaming for conveying both plot progression and social commentary. For example, Morrowind has gotten wonderful reviews from everyone. Most of the people I know say it's a great hack'n'slash game, it's visual candy & the plot is original & thick enough to keep them interested. However, if you take the time to read many of the books that are in the game, you will run across a lot of content that can be taken as commentary on today's society (Although it could be taken as commentary on ANY society as well). Books are not the only thing in RPGs that make them a better medium for this. In a quality RPG you will have major and minor plot lines. If you lose interest in a certain story arc, you can always find another one. This is perfect for conveying social commentary because it doesn't FORCE the story to become a commentary. Several of the story arcs can convey moral/social issues without making the game boring for those of us whom enjoy killing some data-structures. :)
Media aren't for addressing serious social issues, or giving insight into human nature. It's only for entertainment! We don't want our media to be artistic, that would just be unacceptable.
*sigh*
How can people even ask this question?
I don't see many games that provide serious commentary. A lot of games do just make fun of certain groups, Fallout 2's 'hubologists' (Scientologists) are a great example.
I think games are just like movies in this regard... the majority are generic action. We'll have games like Quake as long as we have movies like Independence Day.
Did anyone else think about Final Fantasy 6 as a good example? Back in '94 this 16-bit RPG talked about teen pregnancy, suicide, and the responsibility of individual soldiers for their own actions during war. Plus, in how many games does the main character get to set up an orphanage?
Whoever thought of this deserves to be smacked around by an eighty six chevrolet caprice classic. The reason we play video games is to forget about the real world, not to hear about social issues of the united states. What good is it going to do to put social issues in video games when the people that have to do something about these social issues are too busy worrying about marijuana and restricting our rights and liberties by having a so called "War on Terror". If you think video gamers are going to have any kind of affect on politics, then you are stupider than I thought. The only way this country will ever be fair is if we get these money hungry greedy pieces of crap out of office. I leave you all with a quote: "Democracy is a poor form of government, but all other forms of government are worse." -George Noory...coast to coast am talk show host Coast to Coast Am
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
Many games, particularly RPG's, already have social commentary. Final Fantasy 7, just as an example, had a huge mega-coporation over-exploiting a natural resource, which threatened to destroy the planet. The problem isn't social commentary, its in the delivery. If it's part of the story and presented well, it will work. If it's too heavy-handed then it will likely fail.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
I'd like to add that the inclusion of weighty issues in games need not come at a sacrifice of escapist and recreational qualities. I just finished playing the remake of Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, and it was interesting to be reminded how the plot dealt with political issues that, IMO, made for a more interesting game. One one level, the game has your basic "Terrorists have a nuclear weapon; stop them" plot, but it then goes on to say how they got the nuclear weapon, why it's easy in a post-cold-war environment to do so, why someone like Solid Snake may find himself in a building full of nuclear weapons lying around, and discusses the general problems that arms reduction had in the 90's. Furthermore, despite the sci-fi quality of the genetically-enhanced soldiers, some of the basic concepts are rooted in real work related to the Human Genome Project, and though the game is clearly a worse-case-scenario fantasy, I'd argue that the game is more exciting because of the plausibility and relevance to real issues. If nothing else, I'm glad the designers put some research and thought into why the characters are fighting instead of presenting an entirely fantastical story that might have once existed as a fiction-writing assignment in their high-school days.
Clearly, the game still has flaws, even in the remake. They're pretty guilty of the 'hit you over the head' method of storytelling, whether it's talking about arms reduction, love, or maniacal bosses that you have to kill. Still, I'm not going to begrudge them for trying, and a lot of people seem to have enjoyed the oiriginal or the remake. I feel that games like Metal Gear Solid and Deus Ex are engaging because they take some current issue and try to take it to its logical extreme, when the stakes are high.
True, most of them discuss political rather than social issues, but nowadays the overlap between the two can't be entirely ignored.
There's a reason why a lot of games don't address social issues, and it's the same reason that most animation doesn't-- length of production time. There's no telling if a particular topical issue is still going to be relevant to the public by the time a game is done. Big, overarcing issues, sure, but nothing specific.
Coincidentally, I just wrote a paper on how RPGs reflect the basic premise of the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. I then go on to discuss Social Dilemmas in general and propose how games could be used to address them.
In short, Social Dilemmas explore why it is that people don't participate in their communities, that when given the choice, they would rather make the rational, self-interest decision. If, however, enough people made the unselfish, trustworthy decision (as in choose to contribute somehow) the whole group would benefit immensely.
Many CRPGs sort of have this idea built into them in that the PC is rewarded for completing quests and given incentive to continue to contribute in some fashion rather than betray the quest givers and ruining any sort of future relationship or possibility of future quests.
To see the paper, which also addresses the option of playing "evil" in a lot of games and the general idea that games should be fun rather than educational, go to Addressing Social Dilemmas Through Role-playing Identities in Computer Games
There's no chance any real social critique will come from the major videogames anyway. Same for Hollywood movies(except maybe some that "slips past"). You can only read books, and go on the internet to get media that doesn't reinforce consumer society. And I don't mean those soft campus "revolution" rags some student groups got going either: those are so weak they just resign revolution to a bunch of, albeit, dissatisfied(for good reason), students saying "yeah, Marx was right", and then continuing to pay ridiculous tuition like a good little consumer. Better than "The whatever Post" your town has got though. The major videogame companies are systems that fair well in consumer society, and so their creations would tend to promote it. They won't critique anything. Oh, maybe abortion, racism, or "terrorism" those seem to be the distractions, oh I mean, "social issues" of today that other major media outlets outlets craft.
It was also very interesting playing that game in 2003. My wife, who hates video games with a passion, was actually interested in the game's plot and actually started studying in my office so she could hear the dialog whenever it happened. This usually led to me pausing the game and discussing politics with her, because often some aspect of the game directly related to current political goings-on.
So, yes, I think that games can address social issues. Games can be used to tell stories. Some of them are interesting and thought-provoking, like Deus Ex. Other games tell entertaining stories, or no story at all. Games are an avenue for expression, just like painting, music, writing, or film. What creators (be they painters, composers, or game designers) chose to do with their medium is entirely up to them. Can they "address serious social concerns?" Sure. Can they be purely for entertainment and fun? Absolutely.
When I saw this article was about social commentary in games, it brought this one instance of social commentary to mind, although in this case, it was something of a coincidence, as it only became relevant shortly before the game was released (there wasn't enough time to develop a game in, at any rate).
The game in question is Mega Man Zero. To give a brief overview; The storyline of the game centres around a government regime called Neo Arcadia, which has laws that allow them to 'retire' - that is, destroy/shut down - the Reploids (sentient, human-like robots - essentially man-made humans) in society, for fear that they *MIGHT* turn Maverick (turning 'Maverick' means that they become violent and harm humans - which was something that had happened with a select number of Reploids during a war in the previous century), even if they haven't done anything wrong to warrant it. Neo Arcadia's reasoning for this, is that potential Mavericks who weren't investigated in years gone by sometimes went on to do people harm, and so under their rule, Reploids who don't submit completely to humankind (and allow themselves to be treated as second-class citizens, despite being almost-human themselves) are pretty much presumed guilty until proven innocent (the protagonist, Zero, is a member of a resistance group who are against the persecution of their kind in this way).
The governing body in the story has created far-reaching legal powers so that they can investigate (and in the story, punish) people in society, even if there is no need for them to do so...
I didn't think too much about it (other than how compelling a story it was in-game), until a friend said to me a while later that some elements of it almost seemed to echo events in real life at the time.
Xenogears: On one hand, it has the technology-destroying-mankind undertones that Squaresoft put into every game they made, but at the same time, it's pretty suggestive on the religious plane too. The basic backstory: Very ancient civilization makes giant robots for war. The largest of these robots ends the war, and destroys most of said civilization. Less ancient civilization discovers this robot centuries later, and worships it, calling it God. God and man live together in paradise, and God provides everything man could ever desire. Then, man creates "giants" (more robots) in mimicry of God. God is angered, and war breaks out. When God fears man will destroy him, he hides man's giants from him and flees into the sea. Modern civilization finds the giants, remembers stories about God from the past, and starts fighting over access to the ruins where God sealed the giants, trying to find and control God. And don't think it's an accident that they include numerous references from the bible. Fallout II: It doesn't do a great job of handling slavery and prostitution, which are major themes in the game, but it does an impressive job with addiction. A major part of the game is a drug called Jet. When you use it, you get a brief boost to your character. However, when it wears off, your stats drop below their normal levels, and you need another dose to attain normal levels. When that wears off, they drop furthur. If you ignore the withdrawal for too long, your stats continue to drop until your character becomes useless, so you need to keep getting more and more jet the longer you're addicted. There are others, but most handle serious issues in a very child-like way. While they're not bad games because of this, in my opinion, they can't be considered serious handlings of real problems.
Disposable pop genres can be elevated to art forms -- having just finished reading Alan Moore's Watchmen, I feel particularly convinced of this at the moment. But I would suggest that videogames are not particularly close to becoming meaningful art. In time, I think they will -- but we're not there yet.
I would argue that some do. For instance, I think there is a lot of... well, I don't really want to call it subtext, since I think a lot of it is pretty much right there on eht surface... in the Deus Ex games. The first one in had tons of thought-provoking quotes in books and such. More substantially, both the first and second games offer a fair amount of social commentary related to globalization (the WTO), terrorism (the Templars), and religious fanaticism (the Order). Sure, the more visceral games aren't doing much commentary, I suppose... but a lot of games are, they just largely either go unnoticed in that regard, or fly right over the audience's head.
Look at The Sims. It's a dating simulator, basically. The better you are at it (without using cheats), the better you'll soon realize that you actually have charm. Unlike real life at times, you can't "buy" women on The Sims -- you actually have to go after them with love and affection.
As far as movies and music being more social than video games... that just depends on the audience. I personally would pick video games over the two -- simply because you're in total control. With books, movies, and music, everything is defined. You don't have any control over anything else. With video games, you have total control to do whatever you want to, inside the games limits of course.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
A fat guy giving a speach until he's dragged off by security?
How's that good?
On the contrary GTA does offer a lot of insight and expression into our culture. Sure it's all hyperbole, but that's why a total of 3 people out of millions of players and gone out to shoot at cars. It's the freedom to let our darkside loose to do the things we wish would could do without consequence when we're stuck in rushhour traffic. It's the chance gain a little perspective on our inflated significance. And a gentle reminder as much as we might like to all Rambo on the jackass of the moment, the best case scenario is that the army will eventually show up to settle things.
It's an emperical fact that people who murder their children play very few video games. Therefore, not playing Grand Theft Auto will cause you to murder your kids. This is a FACT. And "kids" are mammals.
After playing Sanitarium and Beyond Good and Evil my wife and I discussed quite a few of the social and political aspects of the games. I think Sanitarium touched on a number of issues in a way that wasn't heavy handed or shoved down your throat.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Shooting the druggie twice, followed by the player character's observation, "Drugs'll kill ya, pardner." It was funny.
Apart from many other areas of potential exploration in terms of more relevant issues, I am quite amazed at how many action-titles - FPS, shoot em ups, etc, I've played over the last 20 years, while I can still count the ones with a storyline or desire to thread beyond anything already explored in mainstream cinema etc. Take the Vietnam FPS titles on the market now for instance. Or the actiontitles putting players in action in the deserts of the middleeast. Seeing that instances of the militar use interactive entertainment as simulations, and have been doing so for a fairly long time (http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id39 0/pg1/index.html), I'm also suprised that the mod-community hasn't picked up on this - perhaps mods with a subversive message, narrating facts and experiences previously untold in games such as Vietcong or America's Army.
"Social commentary" within a broader term does not only signify enviromental or addiction issues, but also those in regards to genocide of civilians and the horrors of war.
Two projects worthy of mention in regards to this thread are 9/11 Survivor (http://www.kinematic.org/911.html) and Waco Resurrection (http://waco.c-level.org/).
With the power user interaction, a longer narratial frame, and merger of text, image, sound, interactivity, games such as Vietcong who shamlessly rip-off cinematic accounts of that war somehow fails to digest the moral and political commentary in films such as Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse Now.
Anyone who's familiar with the Omaha Beach level in MOHAA can probably imagine the potential games could have in this regard.
I do think this is an amazingly pointless article - some people like political music, some do not. It is the same with all forms of art and entertainment.
"Can" games address these issues? - Yes.
"Should" games address these issues? - If they want.
Next.
Q.
Insert Signature Here
"conceivable that games would reap greater societal acceptance and more legitimacy as a medium for presenting important concerns of our times"
Yes, but we also risk getting more preachy, shallow, melodramatic screeds like the Metal Gear Solid series.
(I agree with the basic idea that games should try to do this more, but it is apparently far too big a hurdle for many developers to even attempt.)
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
As it happens, I'm writing just such a game in my spare time. I won't bore you with the details (at least, not until that far distant time in which it's ready for release), so I'll sumarise the relevant part:
:)
A major part of the game implements a global capitalist economy - an international stock market and a large number of mega-corps, which the players can buy and operate for themselves. The players can then use the enormous power this gives them for their own nefarious purposes, for instance funding rebels in a third-world country in exchange for 'favours' once the rebels are in power, or buying yourself a couple of senators in order to get your bill passed. Or maybe your media empire will suppress stories about your secret private space program. You get the idea.
The social commentry here isn't subtle: By allowing the players to act in this way, and by making the game as realistic as I can (albeit grossly simplified and maybe a little cynical) it may just cause the player to ponder about multinational corporations having unprecedented levels of social and political (as well as economic) power, totally unfettered by the inconvenience of democracy.
In the game, this is extrapolated to: what if say, Bill Gates really was as evil as we often joke about him being? What exactly is to stop him from wielding his potential power to secretly fund nasty little projects and backhanders that buy him more and more power? Could someone in Bill's position, who was evil, Maciavellian, and totally corrupt eventally take over the world - without anyone noticing? What would stop them?
Sounds like fun, huh?
-- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"